Communism OR Anarchism

Choose! :snicker:

Nice!

So maybe what you refer to as realism — Tobias

Never mentioned realism. I think many bad readers of Hegel use the very categories of idealism/realism he is actually critical of.

How about this one:

"Third Subdivision: The Notion — waarala

The Idea is truth in itself and for itself — the absolute unity of the notion and objectivity. Its ‘ideal’ content is nothing but the notion in its detailed terms: its ‘real’ content is only the exhibition which the notion gives itself in the form of external existence, while yet, by enclosing this shape in its ideality, it keeps it in its power, and so keeps itself in it. The definition, which declares the Absolute to be the Idea, is itself absolute. All former definitions come back to this. The Idea is the Truth: for Truth is the correspondence of objectivity with the notion — not of course the correspondence of external things with my conceptions, for these are only correct conceptions held by me, the individual person. In the idea we have nothing to do with the individual, nor with figurate conceptions, nor with external things.And yet, again, everything actual, in so far as it is true, is the Idea, and has its truth by and in virtue of the Idea alone. Every individual being is some one aspect of the Idea: for which, therefore, yet other actualities are needed, which in their turn appear to have a self-subsistence of their own. It is only in them altogether and in their relation that the notion is realised. The individual by itself does not co — waarala

Hegel is not saying the materiality of the world is fake. Like Aristotle he is say the form of objects is what we conceive and therefore the intelligibility of the world. Not separate from its material.

My Hegel interpretation by the way is formed by Wather Jaeschke, a German scholar and Robert Pippin's book... Hegel's Idealism — Tobias

Yes, quite familiar with Pippin. I do not agree with his reading at all. He is just a Kantian giving a non-metaphysical interpretation of Hegel. So, there's the problem. Some scholars dispute Pippin and point out that metaphysics is not the same as transcendence.

It is not the experience with the world, i.e. the real impinging on our idea of it, that causes an experience, experience happens when the mind shifts and starts considering things differently. — Tobias

Consciousness is always consciousness of real objects and events. Your reading of this passage is not accurate.

Proof is right I think Jackson — Tobias

Just so you know, anyone who writes personal attacks is off my list.

My Hegelian dander is up.
In his Philosophy of Art and Philosophy of Right, Hegel gives specific analyses of art and politics. He describes actual paintings in great detail and says their physicality gives the idea (thought) in sensuous form. Hegel gives detailed explanations of historical changes in actual governments and how that change takes place. He criticizes abstract, universal morality and says morality is the customs and practices of a people (very similar to Hume).

Hardly the work of an idealist.

Proof is right I think Jackson
— Tobias

Just so you know, anyone who writes personal attacks is off my list. — Jackson

I do not understand... was that a personal attack on my part? I did think Proof was right, and the section he quoted is apt, but that is not a personal attack no? It was in any case not intended as one.

I did think Proof — Tobias

That person is who I mean. Just saying, using him is not a good way to have a discussion with me.

Consciousness is always consciousness of real objects and events. Your reading of this passage is not accurate. — Jackson

In the passage he states that the consciousness of that real object (no disagreement there) is making the experience, not the material quality of the object itself. At least that is how I read it. I have no reason to think it is not an accurate reading.

In his Philosophy of Art and Philosophy of Right, Hegel gives specific analyses of art and politics. He describes actual paintings in great detail and says their physicality gives the idea (thought) in sensuous form. — Jackson

Exactly, the thought in sensuous form, that is what the physical is. So it relates the material to something in thought.

Hegel gives detailed explanations of historical changes in actual governments and how that change takes place. — Jackson

Yes of course, politics and law are part of objective spirit... What lies below these changes are ideological changes. For instance the emergence of Roman law in order to objectify relations between people (if I remember correctly these sections in the Pheno).

I am not saying that for Hegel objects, or governments, or people, are not real, not at all. That is not what Hegel's idealism is about. You, like many others on this forum actually, use a sloganified form of Berkeleyan idealism as 'idealism'. Hegel's version is far more sophisticated than that and avoids some of its pitfalls.

That person is who I mean. Just saying, using him is not a good way to have a discussion with me. — Jackson

I did not use him, I just said I concurred. I am not going to refer to 'he who may not be mentioned', just because you got annoyed with him....

In the passage he states that the consciousness of that real object (no disagreement there) is making the experience, not the material quality of the object itself. At least that is how I read it. I have no reason to think it is not an accurate reading. — Tobias

So, Hegel is not saying its materiality is meaningless.

I did not use him, I just said I concurred. I am not going to refer to 'he who may not be mentioned', just because you got annoyed with him... — Tobias

Fine.

Hegel's version is far more sophisticated than that and avoids some of its pitfalls. — Tobias

I find the term "idealism" to be virtually meaningless.

Bashing Hegel as an idealist is the Analytic way to dismiss him without taking him seriously. The analytic school simply refuses to treat history as a real thing because it was a science based philosophy.

You, like many others on this forum actually, use a sloganified form of Berkeleyan idealism as 'idealism'. — Tobias

You should start reading Hegel and quit pontificating.

Hegel is not saying the materiality of the world is fake. Like Aristotle he is say the form of objects is what we conceive and therefore the intelligibility of the world. Not separate from its material. — Jackson

Materiality is true only via spirit or mediation or idea (acc. to Hegel).

Bashing Hegel as an idealist is the Analytic way to dismiss him without taking him seriously. The analytic school simply refuses to treat history as a real thing because it was a science based philosophy. — Jackson

I am not bashing him.... as many on this forum know I am a keen admirer of his thought. Indeed the analytical school lacks a historic eye. Not my problem.

So, Hegel is not saying its materiality is meaningless. — Jackson

No he is not.

You should start reading Hegel and quit pontificating. — Jackson

Well I at least do you the curtesy of trying to explain my point of view without using one liners. I really wonder what your problem with me is here. You complain of personal attacks, but you yourself seem rather uncouth as well. I read Hegel by the way.

Materiality is true only via spirit or mediation or idea. — waarala

What other way would it be real?

Well I at least do — Tobias

We're done. Another time maybe.

:lol: Pathetic. I exposed and refuted your incorrigible ignorance and the thanks I get from you, Mr "I am no beginner", is tissue paper thin-skinned whinging rather than you graciously admitting you've learned something you hadn't known that you didn't know. Sheesh! Next thing you'll be confusing legitimate observations and objections to your uninformed yet arrogant statements with ad hominems attacks. Try not to embarrass yourself too much (more) among the rest of us non-beginners on TPF. @Tobias is a scholar and a gentleman but you're even trying his patience – not the way to learn what you clearly don't know from one of this site's resident 'Hegel experts'. Sapere aude! :sweat:

lol

If you are interested in that topic then a good place to begin would be a historiography textbook which would explain one way of taking his works as a means for writing history, which would probably be more direct to your topic.

Or, if you're feeling brave, Karl Marx is the guy. The Legend. THE PROGENITOR! lol

The Communist Manifesto's Chapter 1 actually isn't that hard I don't think. And it gets at the notion. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

Thank you for your advice! I've read the manifesto.

Cool.

Do you see how chapter 1 is basically a demonstration of dialectical materialism, or naw?

It's been a while since I've read the manifesto but chapter 1 seems more like a demonstration of historical materialism. Maybe it would help if you referred me to a specific section of the chapter.

I don't think those are distinct one from another. I just cite it because it's a demonstration of dialectical materialism: the dialectic is between the two classes, and by way of their material conflict history goes on. Further, it's very much defined in relation to Hegel's dialectic -- but whereas Hegel's dialectic is between contradictory ideas, Marx's is between contradictory classes. Part of the dialectic, in Hegel as well as in Marx, deals with demonstration -- one demonstrates the material dialectic, rather than derive it. So it is open to observation: are there such a thing as classes? Was history before capitalism driven by class conflict? Whereas with Hegel, at least in my understanding, it was the phenomenologist who could step out and see the dialectic of ideas -- but with Marx, given that it's a material dialectic, it's open to our senses to witness.

Such demonstrations require things like documents, interpretations of documents, stories, and so on -- hence why I said starting with a historiography text book is a good place just to start getting at dialectical materialism specifically. I learned on Ernt Briesach if that helps.

Marx's is between contradictory classes. — Moliere

No, it is based on internal conflict in capitalism.

Hegel's dialectic -- but whereas Hegel's dialectic is between contradictory ideas — Moliere

What Hegel means by dialectic is that one idea is in conflict with itself.

Hegel's dialectic -- but whereas Hegel's dialectic is between contradictory ideas — Moliere

What Hegel means by dialectic is that every idea also contains (the dynamic basis of) its own complement (like e.g. yinyang).

:up: Or to put it another way every idea contains the seed of its own negation.