I think you are right. The superman is not of this earth. It is a vision of the future, something that will be. What the passage indicates is that the future should be embraced, that we cannot go back and keep to the certainties of the past. Nietzsche lived in an astounding age, an age of progress and change, maybe only comparable to our own. Nietzsche fathomed that it would change what it is like to be human, but not how or what exactly, only that something new will come. He did caution against trying to keep the age old certainties. That is the noble way to do things, the autonomous way. At least, that is my take on it,

I agree with you for a very large part. I guess the erosion happened before the onset of the Reagan/ thatcher years and maybe before the onset of the sixties. These phenomena would then be symptoms of our technological age. It is still a thorny issue though. The German philosopher Martin Heidegger had a very similar critique of technological society as what you give. We have eroded our ability to ' let things be' and came to see them as resources, as objects with which we could wield power. I think his critique holds water. The problem is it drove him straight in the arms of the Nazi party because he thought both the US and Russia were ' metaphysically the same' i.e. overtaken by the wish to produce.

Therefore, even though I really like your critique, it is always tricky to point out where it exactly began. Heidegger had these views in the 1930s... The uncorrupted society and nature has been a theme in 20th century Western consciousness. All too often it is forgotten that that society, in which we taught for citizenship was hardly inclusive. Only in todays mass society do we have really a mass citizenry. Hitherto citizenship was only for the happy few, the well to do and in the US the White Anglo Saxon and Protestant. The dark side of the coin of the old days is easily overlooked. What you call 'culture' another class of people might call oppression. Culture was only homogenous in tribal societies. A monolithic culture in a country that is a melting pot of peoples can only be sustained by domination of a certain class who determines what 'culture' is.
Nonetheless, I share much of your critique. I am also thinking of ways a new 'metaphysics of culture' that is, a binding force drawing people together, might emerge. I think it is indeed not around technology or technological education. I also o not think a return to the past is the answer.

I will not fault you for calling into question whether Mr. Rasputin was indeed involved with the Tsarina, but I take issue with your implication that he was not Russia's greatest love machine. True, we might quibble over the greatest. I am sure Russia harbors many a great love machine, however, he must be ranked among the greatest, love machinery wise that is.

You mean like e.g. "the Absolute" (re: Introduction, Phenomenology of Mind) or "Thought", "Being", "Nothingness", "Becoming", "Essence", etc (re: Science of Logic), they are not "metaphysical objects" – really? — 180 Proof

I think 'concept' is a more apt definition than 'metaphysical object'. Metaphysical object has connotations with 'objective' things like a soul, angels, God, etc. The concepts referred to in this post are, if I understood correctly, what Hegel calls "Gedankending", "thought-things", or maybe thought constructions. These 'thought things' are the tools with which we determine our world, or, and I think therein lies Hegel's idealist moment, they determine our world, as all thought is conceptual and what cannot be articulated cannot be an object for thought, and no object (Gegenstand in German) altogether. At least, indeed Jackson, in the way I would read Hegel. Of this idea you also find an echo in Marx when he says we are the products and producers of history.

David Bowie's translation of the best song every written about my home town. Well one of the best written songs ever if you ask my totally unbiassed ;) opinion. so here is the original too...



And here is a version in Dutch from a local folk band:

I recently had a disagreement with a friend, a teacher at university, who not long ago ran a course on Hegel, when I said I don't see Hegel as a "progressivist" thinker meaning I don't see the idea that the sublation or synthesis is somehow "better" than the idea it grows out of as being inherent to his thinking, and she thinks I am simply wrong about that and have a "quirky" reading of Hegel. Anyway, in light of that I liked your invocation of Heraclitus' "flux". — Janus

Thanks Janus! Well, I do think that, even though the insight is minimal in this reading of Hegel, there is an insight nonetheless. In Hegel the new view does seem to accommodate the previous 'simpler' views into something richer. In the end we learn it is movement, but not movement willy nilly. It is movement towards subjectivity, (substance becomes subject) which is truly realized in freedom. So I would have to side with her in that respect, it becomes richer, more transparent to itself...

Movement willy nilly, just a from somewhere to somewhere seems to lead to what Hegel calls the 'bad infinite' just something leading further and further but to nothing concrete. I think that would be more Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. I do find it difficult to reconcile with his otherwise Hercleitian leanings though. I read an article which claimed that this 'end point' is nothing other than this moment in time and place now. The realization that it did not come about irrationally, but can after all be logically explained. Anyway, still struggling.

I do envy you... why do I not find a woman to discuss Hegel with...? That is a sidenote, and a silly lamentation, maybe she is just behind a dialectical corner somewhere...

It sounds relevant enough to me, and relates to 180's proof's apophatic metaphysics, the thought of determining that there is always something 'more', something missed or lying outside its scope. It reminds me of Heidegger actually who tried to retrace the steps of the old thinkers to determine what was 'not thought' in them, not what they 'missed' but what they could not think because of the assumptions they tacitly adopted. I think many postmodern thinkers actually adopted such an approach. In different variations it seems to me to be central to all the thinkers of 'difference'.

I always wonder though, but that is maybe because I cannot wrap my head around it, if it does not come down to the same thing. An inclusion can never be complete, there is always an exclusion. I hold that to be an insight of dialectical thinking. Hegel's absolute knowledge in my view comes down to the realisation that only continuous moveent is real, that there is never rest so always 'otherness'. I have been criticized for that view though as taking too much liberty with Hegel.

I just relish in the love hate relationship you have with the WWF philosophical favorite Merciless Martin Heidegger! The Ultimate Champion of Being!

I have to listen to something funny while grading papers.... Guilty pleasure... I admit it.

Ahhh you mean like this? :D

Almost every so called bad word we use is related to sex and the body, so that a person growing in this society must in some way feel or consider the sexual stuff to be bad and naughty. — Razorback kitten

Well, those and God, his son and what they might do to us, hell and damnation, often feature in swearwords. My hunch is that they are connected with both the holy and the unholy. Compare what these body parts are often called in the sex act, they are referred to with their profane names. Using them in a swear word means literally that you do not care about their intimate, private, perhaps holy nature. What has happened to you is so severe and upsetting that you forget all decorum and use them. By doing so you let the world know how severe the situation is for you. Through use they devalue and become commonly used in every minor incident and even common language, indicating you do not 'give a damn'...

↪Tobias Oh, fair. I certainly don't mean to present myself as an expert I should say too -- and I'm sure you're being too modest :D -- you did reference the slave/master dialectic after all! And I'd say that's, like, the key passage from Hegel that is easy to see how he influenced Marx. — Moliere

First off,, a noob question, how do you get this ↪ ? I have to use @ if I want to point to someone, but this is far more elegant...

Anyway, yeah the Master slave dialectic is a key passage, also in its own right. I was always struck with the fact that later continental philosophy such as phenomenology or existentialism had so little concern with 'togetherness'. I am sure I will incur the wrath of a host of Hedeggerians, but his 'Dasein' seems very lonely as does 'l'etre' in Sartre. Nietzsche's overman is a lonely figure too. What I like a lot in Hegel is the idea of 'being the same in difference', one remains a true individual but always within a conceptual network of indviduals, genus, society and history. Not 'thrown into it' as Heidegger would have it, but 'growing up' in it, with all the pain, conflict, scepticism and heartache that entails. For me that is something very modern in Hegel actually, so modern that current thinking completely seems to negate it and only focusses on difference. .

What struck me as well is how similar Hegel and Marx seemed to be appreciating the nature of 'work'. In Hegel working and working together are key as well in order to form a society that is wat once guided by law and held together by a certain moral substance.

Hi @Moliere I am not an expert on the relationship between Hegel and Marx. I read a bit of Das Kapital. I think Marx is much more 'social' than Hegel. Hegel represents a step in a much more sociological direction as he uses praxis as a critique of Kant, at least in my view. Marx is concerned with the society he is in. His philosophy is also a political critique. I am not that familiar though with Dia-mat as it has been developed since Marx or by Marx as a method. What I do find interesting is that immediately following Hegel a circle of left Hegelians and right Hegelians emerged. The left highlighting the revolutionary conflictuous potential and the right hailing its totalitarian, conservative outlook. His own thinking contains hidden tensions apparently that, when thought through, lead to conflicting interpretations.

We are no longer teaching national values when we enter wars and I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies. — Athena

I do not now your age exactly, but culture is no monolithic entity. My mother is born directly after the second world war. She grew up in the 60s and lived in the 70s... there were so many cultural strands, the rise of the left, flower power, pacifism, conservatism, militant anti- communism... Which 'culture' would it be when your generation is gone? I think the culture you refer to has been taken down already by a double punch: flower power from the left and chicago school shareholder capitalism from the right...

If every idea is in conflict with itself, perhaps you meant "badnight"? — Janus

Here we see the dialectic in full flow. Wishing someone goodnight is at face value a happy wish. However, it also has the connotation something is over and may therefore revert into its opposite, the meaning of "this is done" reverting 'good night' into an angry slam of the door. :wink:

Thanks @Janus, for your wonderful summaries. :cool: :sparkle: I wanted to write something similar about the concept of 'aufhebung'. Being Dutch we have the same word, "opheffing" and indeed it has these dual connotations of 'to lift up' and to 'negate' or maybe 'dispel'. I will just refer to your summary though.

@180 Proof :smile: Thanks!
@180 Proof @Jackson@Moliere@Janus and at every other reader interested...
On the notion of ideas being complimentary or in conflict and on there being one idea containing inner tensions, I always read it as follows: I tend to use the term negation over complementarity. The reason is that Hegel uses negation himself. He also approvingly cites Spinoza: "Omnes determinatio est negatio". He also quite some conflict laden language and emphasizes conflict. The idea seems at a higher stage to be able to accommodate this conflict, and is even enriched by it, but nonetheless the conflict is real. I think it is important because when the ideas are applied for instance in Marx, you see the emphasis on conflict as well. I think it is also one of his most insightful contribution and opened the 'avenue of thought' into conflict theory. The idea of a body politic not as a homogenous 'one' (Leviathan) but as a unity within which fault lines criss cross each other has been very fruitful. When he applies his thought himself and makes the turn from consciousness perceiving the world by itself to consciousness dealing with others, he comes to the master / slave dialectic, also a conflict ridden approach.

edit: Maybe in my enthusiasm I gloss over the notion of complimentarity too soon. Clearly, the idea, broken within itself, also needs that break. The master slave ddialectic for instance cannot arise without the notion of master and slave and these notions are not only in conflict. The relationship between master and slave is one of subjugation and conflict but at the same time they are complimentary, because to be master the master needs to slave. This instability in the institution of slavery could only be (temporarily) resolved with the notion of law and contract, transforming (sublating) subjugation in reciprocity (temporarily!).

As far as the movement itself goes, I also shun the idea of thesis antithesis synthesis, as it gives the feeling of there being two ideas, the second idea arising out of nowhere, or just 'called upon' in some sense. I do think Hegel sticks to the image of there being one idea that is internally strained, but that strain only comes to the forefront when the idea is being absolutized and presented as a final answer. For instance being is not opposed by nothingness because of some sort of intervention somewhere, it arises because one considers being. When being is considered, the question arises from this consideration, what about nothing. Hegel in this regard speaks of 'the movement of the concept', not concepts being opposed to each other. So here I would side with Jackson.

I do not know whether Jackson and Janus are far off though, because here Janus gives this great example:

But this idea contains the seeds of its negation(s): anti-realism, idealism, indirect realism, which arise by taking what is observed to be the case about the human perceptual organs and their processes as simply true; i.e. that they "filter" or "distort" the "real" objects we encounter so that we "see through a glass darkly". — Janus

The seeds of the negation can be found in the original naive realism. If naive realism is considered a final answer, questions arise about the distortions our perceptual organs cause, leading to a 'break' or dualism in our view, between thins as they are perceived and things in themselves. The duality then is resolved in some higher idea, but not totally resolved the break is still there, just not efficacious anymore, it does not 'work' anymore. It is no longer 'wirklich' as they say in German. Wirklich has the connotation of being both 'real' (Wirklichkeit means reality) and active, working.

I do not like the word synthesis much either because it gives the impression of a state in which all conflicts and internal breaks are resolved. Rather we get a conceptual framework that is itself inherently unstable, only held up by this continuous movement. The movement from 'negation' to 'negation of the negation' keeps it from breaking down in my view. (This is all my view by the way and I have been criticized for having a too ironic and de-absolutist reading). I think that is why Hegel calls himself a Heracleitian, movement is the only thing remaining. It ends there, that is the absolute insight Hegel offers, but nothing more... It is akin to Wittgenstein's ladder, when you are through with it, you think 'what now'? Well now history is just beginning... it is not the end of history ;)

The organization could be doing a lot better if it were a religious organization with a focus on giving compassionate care, instead of a hierarchy of power and legalities and rules. And leave the volunteers free to do what needs to be done. Being American used to mean being our own authority and being trusted to do the right thing but today's bureaucracy has changed all that. — Athena

My analysis is not that this is 'Prussian', or maybe it is Americanized Prussianism. Such emphasis on 'targets', 'rules' and feedback is often linked to New Public Management thinking. See this Wiki ;) link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Public_Management

NPM Public services should be ran like a company and be as efficient as possible, To do that managers needed control over the company and organization and control over the individual within it. As a management philosophy it was pioneered in anglo saxon countries and is not part and parcel of any modern German model, though it is introduced there too. However, I wonder if the Germans can be blamed for that, in general it is considered an outgrowth of the Thatcher / Reagan years.

Here is an article about NPM in Australia, though I did not read it, it did seem to be a lot like you described. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783309346477?journalCode=josb

Ohhh I did not intend to be disrespectful, but I see now why it seemed that way. I apologize. We had discussions before and you also pointed me to some of the links, which I indeed watched. I think they are interesting and insightful, I watched them with pleasure, but I also think you know enough about them. You have seen what there at least it seems to me and I think that when delving into the subject of the philosophy behind it, it would be better to actually read them. Wiki will not teach you anything new I think because you have that material already at your fingertips. When commenting on Nietzsche I think it is really preferable to read him yourself and I actually think you will truly enjoy. Again, I meant no disrespect.

Neitzche — Athena

Nietzsche!!! :D

The post does not say much. Nietzsche might be popular in the US but only in some circles, literary criticism, as a progenitor post modernism maybe. Nietzsche is abused, used, held as a conservative and a revolutionary. But anyway, I think Nietzsche would be on your side in this debate. He abhorred mediocrity and 'herd spirit'. He admired the ancient thinkers just like you do. He abhorred democratization in the sense of populism because it made men ripe for tyrants. Nietzsche does not seem to be your target. I would recommend you to study him. Take your eyes from wikipedia and videos about the Prussian education system, and read Nietzsche. I thin you will find it wonderful.

I also do not think bureaucracy is a European disease. The US have their own fair share. Fordism, Taylorism... We are not living in the 19th century anymore, however if you want to understand it correctly, study the 19th century and study Germany, because it was the German golden age. If Germany is your enemy you have to get to know him and know the US as well. Nazism was only one side of the German coin...

What is the content of that bill? Waiting until 8th grade or something before talking about homosexuality? Well, that is simple, because it arbitrarily stigmatizes one kind of sexual identity. Not wanting to discriminate against being gay does not mean you want to make children transsexual. If I am against a bill that would state that we do not discuss dog ownership until 8th grade, do I actively want to put dogs in every household? Of course not.

I would say not as much, at least they are not transing kids and such. — M777

Are people transing kids?!? Who has been teaching you about the world?

Shooting a gun causes little more than moving a piece of lead... I do not see how that is relevant. Speech is an act, words are not actors and neither are bullets. Those who shoot the bullets are actors and those who speak the words are too. And yes, words can sometimes instigate crimes. Your view is slightly outlandish, though I like the bravado with which you present it. Anyway, take care all.

Then it’s their stupidity that led them to do it, not the words of someone else. — NOS4A2

That is legally not quite sound. If I persuade someone to kill another human being I am held accountable for instigation, or maybe conspiracy. Words do things NOS we know that since Austin...

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.

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....

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.

Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same. — Hillary

I do not understand. What statement needs falsification? That science creates a map of what the world is like? Well, that statement is itself too imprecise, but with modifications it can be falsified. We could scientists what they think they are doing for instance. Religion usually does not just describe but also ascribes a certain telos to the world, it has a normative dimension that science in general lacks. Or was that not what you were after?

Which is a philosophical statement about science. — Hillary

Yes it is.

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary

Specialization I think. Maybe also the emancipation of both science and philosophy, in different ways, out of religious dogma. I think it is more of a history of science / hist of phil question or a sociology of science question than a natural scientific or philosophical one. I am not sure though.

Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think? — Skalidris

No, not at all. I think it is a good division of labour. Sciences maps what the world is like and philosophy brings to the fore the categorizations and assumptions that the map has implicitly and often subconsciously accepted.

I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. — Skalidris

Yes, what he did was bring to the fore an assumption made in the question, perhaps the body and mind being separate. Indeed mind body dualism is considered extremely problematic from a philosophical point of view. The reason is that we would have to account for something non-material and establish a link between the material and mental stuff, so it is not just his philosophical scheme, mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument.

What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris

Better questions are more examine questions, questions of which the asker knows what kind of philosophical baggage they carry with themselves. You can still ask the question of course, but now with knowledge of the things you would have to accept as well when you think this is a meaningful question. (On the question itself I have no opinion, I do not even understand it because I do not know the subject, but that is beside the point)

Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? — Skalidris

Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them.

What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris

I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things.

For instance the scientist wants to do an experiment. He wants to examine whether X emerges under laboratory conditions Y. He talks to a philosopher and she asks her, ok what are your criteria to say indeed X emerged? How can you be sure that X emerged due to conditions Y and not some hitherto unknown condition? Can you in fact know, or is there always a possibility of error? Perhaps there is, how can you minimise it? If there still is, when would you be confident that indeed Y caused X to emerge etc. Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. Both are meaningful, but different.

It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. — Skalidris

I can relate to your experience. I have been a student once too and it happened to me as well. It makes one feel annoyed maybe, but on closer inspection... wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? He wasn't giving you a religion with rules and dogma, on the contrary! He used his expertise to pick apart your questions into questions than can be answered and those that cannot be. The ones who could not be, perhaps because they included hidden assumptions, or were 'loaded', or simply contradictory were discarded. On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions".

Of course asking better questions leads to better answers and it may also lead to insight in social behaviour, or in the perception works, or in relation to freedom of the will or whatever, but that is essentially the philosophical discipline. It cuts the dead wood from the branches of knowledge.

We will talk again after you have presented something of interest on the subject at hand.

I can assure you that I'm not interested in trolling. It's interesting that you selected the figurative or metaphorical imagery of jogging because some people are crippled in the real world and not everyone is capable of the same cognitive feats. I wish I knew what mental gymnastics lead you to conclude that I was seeking a free philosophy teacher because I doubt that you have anything to teach me. — Average

What makes you doubt that? You are basically asking questions all the time, so you seek answers, no? I guess you are thinking of yourself as some sort of modern day Socrates, but dream on. You are basically just being lazy. I can see that in the wording of your post. The argument you presented in unsound. You might still need a philosophy teacher even though you doubt that I have anything to teach you. The 'because' you use does not lead to a valid inference. You are not being average, you performing below par.

What exactly is meant by "it's own opposition"? How can a definition oppose itself? It's all very alien to me. I wish you would provide an example or some description of a purely hypothetical scenario in which this occurs. — Average

I am sorry but I wish you would do the mental jogging yourself. I am not a free philosophy teacher. Read up on it and try to understand what I write if you feel like it of course. I think you are just trolling actually.

What is a "Contradiction"? In other words what is it's nature or essence? When does a "Contradiction" occur? — Average

Well, it is Hegel's idea that every definition runs into problems as it engenders its own opposition when taken to the extreme, so any definition will immediately incur an objection. Quite Wittgensteinian come to think of it... :gasp: So I cannot give a definition, best i to show how it works. The beginning of the Science of Logic by Hegel gives an apt account. When we consider the concept of 'being' (Sein) and claim for instance that that is the object of first philosophy, and we try to define it, than it shows that in fact the concept is empty. It is as empty as its conceptual opposite, nothing (Nichts). So thinking in terms of being is immediately faced with nothing, because conceptually they are the same thing and not the same thing. We need the concept of 'becoming' to resolve this contradiction (or maybe 'antonomy' is a better word). Now becoming, if considered in the extreme also engenders its opposite because if there is only 'becoming' there is not really anything that 'becomes', to consider becoming you need some sense of a fixed point right, something that becomes something else. We find the concept of 'something' and so on and so on, three volumes of the Logik long...

I've studied a lot of his work and see that nowhere. Please cite something by Hegel. — Jackson

Well I found the section Proof quoted quite convincing. Funny thing is I thought about just that section when I read the discussion, though I would have no idea anymore where to find it I am grateful to 180 for locating it.

If you read what I wrote you also see that I do not think Hegel holds the world to be ideal in any Berkeleyan sense. So maybe what you refer to as realism and I as idealism are not far off. I find this quibbling over words quite uninteresting. In the section quoted I think Hegel states so too. He finds the question whether he is an idealist rather trite it seems to me. If you follow his train of thought in that section he says that every possible philosophy is idealist in the sense that it concerns our idea of the world, whether we have an idea of the world as material or as ideal. I think it makes eminent sense and is by no means a very far fetched claim so I wonder why you would find it so discomforting.
My Hegel interpretation by the way is formed by Wather Jaeschke, a German scholar and Robert Pippin's book... Hegel's Idealism ;)

edit:

"86. Inasmuch as the new true object issues from it, this dialectical movement which consciousness exercises on itself and which
affects both its knowledge and its object, is precisely what is
called experience [Eifahrung]. " — Jackson

Actually I think you just cited something rather idealist. There is only experience, but experience results from the dialectical movement of consciousness. 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. Of course that shift is caused perhaps by sense data about the world, but experience only happens when it is mentally processed. That is what I mean when I said in my first post that Hegel seems to prioritize the mental. (It is dialectical so again, I think such prioiritzations are not what it is about, but even so, from the very section you cited you may argue that Hegel prioritzes the mental over the material).

We are done. — Jackson

Proof is right I think Jackson, ultimately Hegel holds that what we can consider as 'world' is ideal. You are right in a way too though (in true dialectical form :wink: ) because of the caricature that is often made of idealism, as if it would mean that things are somehow unreal. That is not what it means in Hegel's quote above though.. What it means is that our metaphysical beliefs, the core of what we hold to be our world, is inescapably a thought construction, dependent on the concepts we have of it, the manifold of relationships to which we stand towards it. If there is anything real, he says, anything that is infinite, it is that we perceive the world in a mediated way, mediated by the elaborate theories, constructions, normative determinations, we have of it. So philosophy has to be idealist because it examines the concepts by which we think of the world, not the world as it is in its materiality, that will be the domain of physics or other sciences.

What he does here is play Kant, but making Kan historical, showing that the mediating concepts do not come out of nowhere but are historically constructed. The process of its construction can be discerned, that is the dialectic. So Hegel is an idealist, just not one taken in the everyday hack interpretation of idealism, as if the world is not real. That is something entirely different.

The Pheno serves as a pre-study to the logic. what appears in the Phenomenology? Spirit. What is spirit, I think it is rationality perceiving (or experiencing) itself. What it perceives is the way it relates to the world, namely in a dialectical fashion. When we know that, we can begin to examine the concepts proper. That is done in the 'Logik'. In the Pheno he shows that we cannot make sense of experience other than dialectically. That is a necessary beginning for metaphysics which is the object in the Logik.

At least that is how I conceive of it.

In this conception, Hegel as the progenitor of the mediating concept, grasped in its historicity, makes him a forerunner of social constructivism, discourse theory and those branches of thought that feel that instead of the real, we need to study they way it comes to be perceived as real.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism. — Jackson

I’m interested in learning more about this subject and the different interpretations people have of it. Is it pure sophistry or does it contain some truth? I understand that this is probably a controversial subject. I’m not really an expert when it comes to materialist dialectics so I won’t try to offer a defense of any political doctrine or function as some sort of apologist for different historical figures. — Average

Hegel was an idealist in the sense that Hegel's though essentially deals with the conceptual and the conceptual apparatus we have of the world essentially determines what happens to it. It is complicated though because in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the idea moves because of the subject an his worldly praxis. However Hegel is at least widely perceived to put the ideational before the practical. Anyway, He does give a lot of credit to our theoretical determination of the world.

The idea moves in a certain way, it moves dialectically, meaning that a certain theory or worldview runs into contradictions and will engender opposition, leading to a new theory which manages to make sense of this earlier contradiction.

Marx puts Hegel on his head or radicalizes Hegel, depending one the way you look at it. In any case Marx is adamant in saying that economic relations of power determine our worldview. He does keep the dialectical movement though in the sense that he thinks economic power relations tend to engender opposition as well, just like Hegel assumed with ideas and theory. A certain distribution will be 'negated', by this opposition who will fight for a different division of economic power. whereas in Hegel the clash is ideal, one concept being contested by another, in Marx it is practical, so, revolutionary.

It is therefore incorrect to say dia-mat is a political doctrine, it is more of a view of the world. It is a theory, actually, a certain model of the way the world could work.

As a physicist, I can say something about it. — Hillary

I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. That is by no means a fault of yours, just that understanding the whole language of physics requires a proper initiation and study. It is like that with many subjects of course, including philosophy actually, although it might be less specialized than theoretical physics. Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. I do thank you for taking your time and comments on the paper. @jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere.

Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating. — dimosthenis9

I am not saying they are not interesting or fascinating, or enlightening. I did not find what I was looking, but maybe we were looking for different things :) I by no means would wish to discredit neurology or anything.

Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion. — dimosthenis9

Well yeah, maybe I am biased by the other thread. If he is an honest debater he will take it to heart, present his thesis better and with less bravado than in the other thread. Everyone who is an honest debater will get an honest response... :)

Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!". — dimosthenis9

Yeah, and that is why I liked you standing up for him. We all need defenders, this time I am playing the role of the role of the prosecutor but I value a good defense. You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly?

I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed. — dimosthenis9

The 'me me me' was an inference of mine and maybe unfair, that is possible, though I am not sure yet. I do think that a bit of tough love cannot harm. In Dutch we have a figure of speech, he who hits the ball should expect it to come back. I do not have anything personal against Skalidris. I do not have all the answers... I usually do pounce upon the people that claim they do... Eventually Skalidris will go back, reformulate, rework and resubmit and he will become stronger. I am against using velvet gloves, but you and he should rest assured this is nothing personal. A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them.

Here is An Example on this very forum. — jgill

I am curious how did things turn out with him? I googled him and could not find much. I found a site in which he was quoted and it was said that he attracted praise from a noteworthy prof. It also said that the article was retracted... Also some connection to a company called bioresolve...

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. It would not surprise me though if he was a really great (or good) mind. That has to do with his style on the forum. He provides an abstract and adds that it has been rewritten after some discussions with people on this forum, giving credit where it is due. He asks for feedback and discussion, which is good form. Compare that with some others here who just say: "everyone should work as they do in physics!" or: "I am a genius, I really really am! And Newton? Pha! no genius at all!". When I read such phrases I know I am not dealing with someone who is 'compos mentis'. About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head.

I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers". — dimosthenis9

I like your post Demosthenis and that you stand up for Skalidris. I think on the face of it there would be a lot of disagreement between us, on the forum. However, in principle we agree on many things. I would not say "philosophy should have as its starting point scientific facts" as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I come from a continental tradition and you seem much ore analytical to me, though I could be wrong of course. The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, but do love P.F. Strawson's article, even though I disagree with him on some accounts. (I do read a lot of social science though, but in this thread science seems equivocated with natural science).

However on many of the basic premises we would agree. Of course a philosopher should take science into account. There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes!

The reason I am harsh on Skalidris is that his point is rather trivial, in your translation I tend to agree with it as well to a large extent, but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him.