Further, "intuition" is not what lies beyond logic, being, comprehended through dialectics, is what lies beyond logic. — JerseyFlight
But you made a claim far in excess of available evidence. You wrote down an opinion, not a fact. — fishfry
Then you should easily be able to provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? — JerseyFlight
That being is more than a dead image or fragmentation of time, is not an opinion. — JerseyFlight
it can't be true in any Absolute sense. — fishfry
If you can establish the existence of this thing I will agree to it as a negative criteria. — JerseyFlight
I do know that dialectic is a historically contingent idea of humans; and that therefore it can't be true in any absolute sense. — fishfry
If there's no absolute truth, that also is an opinion and not a fact. — fishfry
Hegel is a way to learn about philosophy. He is not the be all or end all. — Gregory
I do not deny that words can lead to logical mazes, but reality is not merely a word. — JerseyFlight
For Hegel, the positive stays, the negative moves. That's how the dialectic worked. — Gregory
Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in. — jgill
He thinks 2 + 2 and 4 are two things. — fishfry
Hegel is the gateway to dialectic. — JerseyFlight
Actually Plato provides a much more useful dialect than Hegel. After reading Plato and Aristotle, you'll be able to see where Hegel goes wrong in his dialectics — Metaphysician Undercover
My guess is that people respect you on this board... — JerseyFlight
Admit that you have never studied 1) Hegel or 2) Dialectics. — JerseyFlight
Try telling that to the professor of my post-graduate course on Hegel's Dialectics of Being. — Metaphysician Undercover
How did you retain Aristotle's position on Identity after Hegel clearly demonstrated that it collapsed in on itself, precisely because, to speak of Identity, one must presuppose that Identity is not Difference, which is itself a violation of the principle? (As I'm sure you know, dialectics comprehends contradiction emerging from being itself). I would love to hear your refutation? And as you well know, having done "post-graduate" work on Hegel, this is only one small portion of his argument against Aristotle's position. — JerseyFlight
The Hegelian proposal, to throw these ideals of being and not-being back into the obscure, mysterious, and vague realm of becoming, instead of crystalizing the separation in understanding, just renders the world of material existence as unintelligible. . . — Metaphysician Undercover
"Sameness" and "identity" therefore is assigned to the evolving object, and difference is not excluded dichotomously from sameness. Since this is the way we speak about an identified object, as remaining the same object despite changes to it. it is dialectically correct, and Hegel's proposed dialectical argument is unwarranted. — Metaphysician Undercover
(The only reason I am not quoting Hegel directly is because I have zero respect for intellectuals like yourself, masters at posturing, masters at playing the superiority card, simply because you are good at articulating yourself. It makes me feel like I am merely giving you more ammunition to bully people.) — JerseyFlight
I don't want to have any more interaction with you.. — JerseyFlight
...I admit it is unorthodox that I am not quoting Hegel, but I have my reasons... — JerseyFlight
Yes, your reasons are that you are just a smart ass piece of shit, who'd rather engage with petty insults — Metaphysician Undercover
Marxists are outnumbered. And you're wrong: you are going to lose — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.