Nihilism is the only hope humanity has for peace.

Entropy is a concept that is useful on a microscopic scale, but has trouble applying itself to the macroscopic one. As such, there is no such thing as "the entropy of the world, or of the universe", or even heat death of the universe owing to entropy. Entropy is even problematic in the microcosm, as studies show.

But anyway, these are matters for the bureaucrats to sort them out themselves, whether there are any connections or not, I mean.

But what of, what about philosophy?

At the end of Book VII of Plato's Republic, Socrates discusses with Glaucon the current state of philosophy, and what needs to be done in order to have people trained in it:

-And as to truth, I said, is not a soul equally to be deemed halt and lame which hates voluntary falsehood and is extremely indignant at herself and others when they tell lies, but is patient of involuntary falsehood, and does not mind wallowing like a swinish beast in the mire of ignorance, and has no shame at being detected?
-To be sure.
-And, again, in respect of temperance, courage, magnificence, and every other virtue, should we not carefully distinguish between the true son and the bastard? For where there is no discernment of such qualities, states and individuals unconsciously err; and the state makes a ruler, and the individual a friend, of one who, being defective in some part of virtue, is in a figure lame or a bastard.
-That is very true, he said.
-All these things, then, will have to be carefully considered by us; and if only those whom we introduce to this vast system of education and training are sound in body and mind, justice herself will have nothing to say against us, and we shall be the saviours of the constitution and of the State; but, if our pupils are men of another stamp, the reverse will happen, and we shall pour a still greater flood of ridicule on philosophy than she has to endure at present.
-That would not be creditable.
-Certainly not, I said; and yet perhaps, in thus turning jest into earnest I am equally ridiculous.
-In what respect?
-I had forgotten, I said, that we were not serious, and spoke with too much excitement. For when I saw philosophy so undeservedly trampled under foot of men, I could not help feeling a sort of indignation at the authors of her disgrace: and my anger made me too vehement.
-Indeed! I was listening, and did not think so.
-But I, who am the speaker, felt that I was. And now let me remind you that, although in our former selection we chose old men, we must not do so in this. Solon was under a delusion when he said that a man when he grows old may learn many things–for he can no more learn much than he can run much; youth is the time for any extraordinary toil. — Plato

Oh, Socrates, you were a jokester, among many other things. The old will learn to run, and the young will toil. Cause it's true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Yeah, well, too much bureaucracy and paperwork involved in the process I guess, thus making philosophy a ... bureaucratic enterprise! Ah those beerocrats! :beer: One way to see where philosophy took a wrong turn, I think.

When Hawking says:

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. — Hawking

... he makes the error of applying Godel's theorem to physics and the real world. There is no connection, let alone an obvious one. If one thing is obvious, this is Hawking's misinterpretation of the theorem.

EDIT: Ah yes, almost forgot. If in his 2002 lecture it was obvious for Hawking that Godel's theorem proved that scientific knowledge will never be complete, why then in 2010 he said that "the scientific account is complete"? Most probably another "obvious"! :D I am fed up hearing about obvious connections and conclusions. :worry:

Mathematics has no direct empirical take on the world. Its models are always abstract Platonic worlds. It is through its influence on empirical disciplines (such as science) that it affects our real-world view. There are obviously other empirical disciplines such as history with its historical method. However, in my impression, history does not use the language nor the invariants of mathematics. — alcontali

There is no proof in empirical disciplines, simply because proof about the physical universe is impossible. The regulatory framework in use in science with which they attempt to maintain correspondence between their logic sentences and the physical universe is obviously far from perfect. Falsificationism is merely a best-effort endeavour. — alcontali

And because of this distinction between the formal/mathematical/non-empirical/logical world and the real world which is nothing like the other, we should be really suspicious of attempts made to reconcile the two.

Tarski's theorem is good for maths, brilliant even, but when it tries to apply itself to the real world, then it is an abomination.

Any link to that? — alcontali

I've given the link in my post.

The pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom, in turn, does not merely mean some set of correct statements, but rather is the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, I think Aristotle was along the same lines, if I remember correctly. Socrates also. After all, if you don't praise your own house, it will fall down on you, like they say. But saying "to any given question", this opens philosophers up, it makes them vulnerable to ridicule. And there you have Aristophanes in his "Clouds", having Socrates wondering about a flea's long jump.

To that end, philosophy must investigate questions about what our questions even mean, investigating questions about language; what criteria we use to judge the merits of a proposed answer, investigating questions about being and purpose, the objects of reality and morality respectively; what methods we use to apply those criteria, investigating questions about knowledge and justice; what faculties we need to enact those methods, investigating questions about the mind and the will; who is to exercise those faculties, investigating questions about academics and politics; and why any of it matters at all. — Pfhorrest

For sure, all these are part of our public and private investigations. But what of philosophy? What is its agenda? What does philosophy want?

The tools of philosophy can be used against that end, but I prefer to call that "phobosophy" instead. — Pfhorrest

One could also use the term foolosophy.

Well, rather: extrapolate them to how we perceive the real world. Stephen Hawking lectured the following on the subject: — alcontali

How we perceive scientifically the real world. I mean, if the only means of perception we have is science, but is it? This is scientism, which may be right of course.

And after all, in both Tarksi and Godel, both concepts of proof and truth are extremely well defined. In the case of the real world however, even from a scientific outlook, they are completely vague: you can conjure them as you see fit. What is truth? What is proof? (well, not the TPF user)

Stephen Hawking on Gödel and the End of Physics — alcontali

Yeah, I remember reading it some years back. But the next sentence in his lecture, I think is important: "Without it, we would stagnate".

And also: "Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists".

So, in the above, Hawking draws the analogy between Godel's theorem and M theory, believing that M theory is to the real/physical world what Godel's theorem is to the mathematical equivalent. And therefore we will ad infinitum be looking for answers, which is a good thing, because otherwise we would stagnate. Stagnation, that comes from complete knowledge of how stuff works, is for Hawking the worst that can happen to us. And therefore he is relieved.

This lecture was given in 2002. But then in 2010, after the publication of his book, "The Grand Design", he has a change of heart.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/11/stephen.hawking.interview/index.html

"Science is increasingly answering questions that used to be the province of religion," Hawking replied. "The scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary."

Wow! "The scientific account is complete"!

Putting theological statements aside (or maybe not), he now believes that M-theory gives a complete description of reality! So I couldn't help it back then and send him an e-mail, well actually not to him because the probabilities of an answer would be next to zero, but to his co-author Leonard Mlodinow, and referring to the 2002 lecture, I asked him what made him change his mind, but I didn't get an answer, duh. :) So I am still curious.

Given Tarski's undefinability of truth, any system has no other choice but to receive its fundamental truths from a higher meta-system. — alcontali

But Tarski's and Godel's theorems work within a very strict - formal - mathematical framework. Do you think we can extrapolate them to the real world?

And your point is ...? — 180 Proof

My point is that there is something wrong here, something fishy going on. :brow:

I think it's a sustained self-examination (Socrates) which exposes to us that we, in fact, do not know or understand what we think - take for granted - we know or understand, and thereby helps us to align our expectations (i.e. judgments) with whatever is the case. — 180 Proof

But this is not how it is used nowadays, is it? Taking a course on philosophy of X, to use alcontali's syntax, does not teach you your ignorance of X. Well, maybe at the beginning of the course, but then when you graduate, you say, "ah now I know!". So I think it has the opposite result.

Like when we cannot be 'ignorant of our ignorance' or the eye cannot not see itself or there are no more 'unknown unknowns' ... but that's waiting on a train - apotheosis - that'll never come. No, Pussy, philosophy is an 'infinite task', or as Pierre Hadot says "a spiritual exercise" ... — 180 Proof

Again, one can hardly say that contemporary philosophy professors are "spiritual teachers".

I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose.

In a perfect world, the latter uses of either martial arts or philosophy would be unnecessary, as such attacks would not be made to begin with, but in the actual world it is unfortunately useful to be thus prepared; and even in a perfect world, with no external attackers, martial arts and philosophy are both still useful for their internal development and exercise of the body, mind, and will. — Pfhorrest

What is philosophy's purpose?

So you are saying that philosophy offers some kind of protection? Do you think it is also used for offensive purposes? Or, using your analogy, is it like karate, as it was taught by Mr Miyagi at least, "only for defence"? :)

But anyway, if what you say is so, then there is a lot of psychology involved in philosophy, and whatever "knowledge" one receives from it, it is a different kind of knowledge - if any, if we can call this knowledge - than the one used in epistemology. Just as one that knows how to fight, or play the piano, we wouldn't call this knowledge per se. Also, I am not sure who the enemy really is.

Only when death (i.e. human Mortality) becomes (technologically) optional will (the need for) religion die. Likewise, when ignorance (of ignorance, especially) is no longer an inescapable, or inexhaustable, aspect of human Existence will philosophy be dead and buried. — 180 Proof

So do you think that philosophy has something to do with knowledge, and/or ignorance? And that when we stop being ignorant, then philosophy will die as a result? Maybe because it served its use and is no longer needed?

It's a dance, really.

Yeah, general abstract nonsense. On the one side, I really like its "nonsensical" touch and feel, but on the other side, I haven't been able to find anything surprising to do with it. So, I will have to leave it open ... — alcontali

It is being used in quantum mechanics, hoping one day to replace physics!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_quantum_mechanics

With category theory, physics becomes time-less and space-less. So it is very suitable for merging relativity theory with quantum mechanics, since the main problem there is that these two theories have a completely different notion of time.

Great point. Everyone likes to make fun of philosophers! — fishfry

Yeah, it's like they have it in them to be ridiculed, there's something about them. Just like our teachers at school that we used to hang them notes on their back, saying "I'm an idiot", or "hit me". :lol:

I have a solution ot revive it. — Francesca

Please do tell! :smile:

Pure reason does not mean "free from otherwise unjustifiable premises". It means "free from sensory input". — alcontali

What do you mean? Free from empirical data? Free from experience? But then, from where does pure reason get its input? Where does it come from?

Furthermore, religious law is a formal system, just like any theory. For example, Islamic law has a largely mechanical epistemology, very much like mathematics, and when written in formal language, Islamic law is machine verifiable, just like all sound knowledge. — alcontali

Ah, I remember Godel saying that he was fond of Islam, finding it a consistent idea of religion and open-minded. This is what he was talking about, right?

Furthermore, all attacks on religion would also apply to any subdiscipline in mathematics, including logic itself. The reason why atheists pick religion as a target, is simply because it looks like an easier target than mathematics. This wrong perception is caused by Christianity, because, unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not and has never been a formal system. — alcontali

So you are saying that Islam is being caught in the crossfire, because of christianity?

Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone. — Gnomon

Well, it's semantics, like philosophers nowadays say. Of course, reasoning and intuition are important to our way of thinking. But is that philosophy? Or just reasoned and intuited thinking, in other words, a tautology? Why does philosophy have to approach the world logically and rationally, and not illogically and irrationally, also?

The thought that philosophy is dead and has been dead for a long time now, or maybe even that it never was alive to begin with, has come to me only recently, and I would like to explore it. So I am prepared to take a rather extreme position, just for the hell of it, or out of plain curiosity that needs satisfaction, see what happens. They say that curiosity killed the cat, but they also say that satisfaction brought her back! :)

So I am gonna go ahead and say that philosophy died along with the ancient world, maybe as way back as the time of Aristotle. And since then, we haven't been philosophizing, but rather putting nails on her coffin. And that philosophers, especially of the modern day, are all phonies, like Holden in The Catcher in the Rye would say.

If you did read my text then you'd understand that life within different stages is still life. According to your logic it would be equally right to kill a newborn child as to an abortion state fetus as they both haven't really developed into full consciousness. — EpicTyrant

And in fact what you say, has been proposed, they call it "After-birth abortion".

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

This is not what I am thinking. It is difficult to describe.. Not "things" that you can understand, in the normal sense of understanding. Let's say irrational stuff, pro-logic. In this sense, it is logic that killed philosophy.

Hawking's assertion that "philosophy is dead," was self-refuting. Why? Because the statement "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical statement. — LD Saunders

But of course, if there are no philosophical statements, then it is not self-refuting, and Hawking could be right. But I doubt that Hawking knew himself what he was talking about.

Celebrity physicists bashing philosophy is as old as Feynman if not older. — fishfry

It is not only from celebrity physicists that philosophy gets a bashing. Philosophers themselves also appear very critical of philosophy, which seems to be self-contradictory, but is it really?

For example, Heidegger, as it says here in this wikipedia article about the death of god:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead#Explanation

Martin Heidegger understood this aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy* by looking at it as the death of metaphysics. In his view, Nietzsche's words can only be understood as referring not to a particular theological or anthropological view but rather to the end of philosophy itself. Philosophy has, in Heidegger's words, reached its maximum potential as metaphysics and Nietzsche's words warn of its demise and the end of any metaphysical worldview. If metaphysics is dead, Heidegger warns, that is because from its inception that was its fate.

*god is dead

That's because, originally, Philosophy included aspects of Physical Science, Metaphysical Philosophy, and Sociological Religion/Politics. Christianity made Philosophy subservient to the Church (Theology). Politics, as usual, revels in Sophistry. And Science has left both Religion and Philosophy in the dust as the best source of knowledge about the real world. What's left for modern Philosophy is the stuff that very few people care about : the esoteric topics we discuss on this forum. :smile: — Gnomon

Yeah, I think that philosophy spent too much time with the sciences, that started to believe and eventually convinced herself that she is one of them. And so tries to express herself as a set of propositions, the so-called philosophical propositions, where in fact there are none. This is because philosophy thinks in terms of science, and in science there are indeed scientific propositions.

PS___If you want to revive philosophy, simply ask "what's for dinner tonight?". In many modern families a heated debate will ensue. :razz: — Gnomon

Well, I guess you know a lot about that! :)

Do you know the joke with the madman at the square?

Philosophy is dead! Philosophy remains dead! And we have killed her! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water could we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves? Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Do we not ourselves have to become philosophers merely to appear worthy of it?

But imagine if the bloody thing were dead, and we did not know it, what a tragedy that would be. And if it were so, how to announce it to the academia? They would crucify us!

So is it dead and buried? If so, how did it die. Did someone kill it?

My original intention was to put the question of absolute otherness aside for the time being. It is often the case that what I cannot understand at one moment becomes clearer later. I decided not to go further with reading the text now not because of a standstill but because of other demands, including the demand to not spend whole days with one text or with sitting, reading, and writing. — Fooloso4

Yes, I got what you said the first time, "taking too much time and energy", as it happens to be the case for me too. But when I asked "why did you stop your reading?", I was not referring to you, or at least not just you personally, but to the reading group, huh, as a whole. The same for the "you" in the "standstill".

While I do think that the subject must be taken into consideration with regard to the object, I don't think that the subject-matter of knowledge can be reduced to the internal, that is, the subject. Perhaps here we must confront absolute otherness. The object of knowledge in general is not the subject, although with regard to knowledge of it there are the poles of knower and known. — Fooloso4

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "I don't think that the subject-matter of knowledge can be reduced to the internal, that is, the subject". In any case, I was referring to the relation that philosophy has to its subject-matter. I will rephrase it in another way. If we say that philosophy is a collection of thoughts, then, if we are talking about the totality of thoughts, philosophy should also include itself in this collection, because the collection of all thoughts is also a thought. This differs from anatomy, or other sciences, since the anatomical thoughts or propositions regarding the animal or human body do not refer to or include the science - anatomy - that examines them. In the same way as with philosophy, a work on logic that attempts to find the laws of logic, must include itself, since it is through logic that the logical laws are to be found. So it is evident that it must be something circular, like for example a feedback loop, positive or negative or both, the loop being stressed in time.

Does Hegel address the question of why things exist, why there is something rather than nothing? — Fooloso4

From what I know, no, he does not address this question, do you think he had his reasons for not doing so, or the thought didn't just cross his mind? Heidegger, I believe, following in Hegel's footsteps, attempted to answer this question, but I don't know what he presented as answer. But when I wrote "the reason why these every-things exist", I wasn't thinking of this question in terms of existence, but as to their purpose, what do they serve?

If one's goal is to understand Hegel, and by this I mean regard him as a teacher of philosophy with something to teach us, then I think it best to follow his lead. — Fooloso4

But what lead is that? Never satisfied with himself, as can be seen from his re-workings and the renewed prefaces, he kept changing it. At some point he asked for patience and indulgence. Well no more!! haha Anyway, we will see.

2. Hegel admits somewhere, either in the Phenomenology or in the Science of Logic, or you all might have said it yourselves, that the order of how true philosophy is exposed does not matter, the parts. I am guessing that he was at odds with himself with how he would present his findings. Eventually he settled with something, since anyway he couldn't have done otherwise. But we should bear in mind that from the point of view of someone that has seen the whole, it is not easy to bring this into the minds of people that have seen only parts, if any. After all, we are all different, and what appeared to Hegel as the correct method - if there is such - to present his system, might not agree with everyone. So what I said earlier:

Supposedly, one could understand all of the above and most possibly discover or rather re-discover the whole of Hegel's philosophy and maybe even more, if one could understand the "Phenomenology of Spirit", which makes this book the starting point of the investigation into the matter.

is plain wrong. I don't think there is a "right" method or order, which means that we can be at liberty to tackle the problem anyway we feel like, bringing things out of order, or seeking help elsewhere, it is not a linear development I mean, but nevertheless not to lose track of the end result, which is to understand Hegel's philosophy.

It's gonna be a long road, for sure, but maybe we can come back with a story to say.

So, what are your thoughts on the preface to the Phenomenology as it has been discussed so far in this topic? — Fooloso4

I haven't really meticulously gone through everything that you discussed, but, from what I read, I think that you came to a standstill with the Phenomenology, as have I of course, which happens every time I occupy myself with Hegel. :groan: So I don't have a lot to say. Just two things.

1. When Hegel compares his own work with a work on anatomy, what he means to say is that in the latter, this work separates itself from the subject, as it is something external to it, like force is assumed, or at least was, to be something external to a body. In that, there is a very clear separation between the subject matter in hand - the anatomical body - and the theory that attempts to explain it - anatomy. Anatomy could never and in fact never participates in its subject, the body, how could it anyway? But in the case of philosophy that deals with the whole, a philosophical work must also include itself, even if at the beginning of the exposé it seems that the subject-matter is something external to it, or some particular, like anatomy is to the body. Eventually, and if it is successful, it should be found out and be evident that the work was speaking about itself all along, or the universal, so the relation that a philosophical work has with its subject-matter is internal, and not external. This is very difficult to do of course, and I think only philosophy does this, I can't think of any other. I mean, if there is such a science, like philosophy, that examines everything there is and the reason why these every-things exist, then sooner or later the philosopher and examiner will start wondering about philosophy herself and her own reason, making it so to fall back on herself, and then what would we have to say if philosophy's subject-matter turns out to be herself? Well, it seems that we would have to say things like Hegel did. I guess that this shouldn't come up as a surprise, but it does.

I think this is what you meant when you wrote:

The whole of the subject matter includes not just the result of what has been worked out but the working out itself, which is to say, the working itself out.

The thing at stake, the subject matter, die Sache selbst, is not a thing-in-itself, Ding an sich. In other words, it is not something to be treated as a subject does an object that stands apart.

That is, instead of standing apart one must stand within. The term ‘subject matter’ rather than ‘object matter’ is suggestive. — Fooloso4

Supposedly, one could understand all of the above and most possibly discover or rather re-discover the whole of Hegel's philosophy and maybe even more, if one could understand the "Phenomenology of Spirit", which makes this book the starting point of the investigation into the matter.

§ 210. Gravitation is the true and determinate concept of material corporeality ...

This would indicate that the processes are not the same, but I have not read the text, although one leads to the other. — Fooloso4

Regarding gravity, at the time of Hegel, gravity was thought as an external force acting upon the bodies. Hegel says this is not correct reasoning, but that gravity is a manifestation of the bodies themselves. He therefore criticizes Newton for speaking of a dubious "force" of gravity, acting at a distance, and praises Kepler for showing the same "law of gravity" only geometrically, relating motion with time and space:

Dimensionless time achieves therefore only a formal identity with itself; space, on the other hand, as positive being outside of itself achieves the dimension of the concept. The Keplerian law is thus the relation of the cubes of the distances to the squares of the times;-a law which is so great because it simply and directly depicts the reason of the thing. The Newtonian formula, however, which transforms it into a law for the force of gravity, exhibits only the perversion and inversion of reflection which has stopped halfway. — hegel

And of course, this is how general relativity treats the concept of gravity, any force is fictitious and superfluous. Spacetime is not some container where matter happens to exist and move, but it is indistinguishable from matter:

Einstein believed that the hole argument implies that the only meaningful definition of location and time is through matter. A point in spacetime is meaningless in itself, because the label which one gives to such a point is undetermined. Spacetime points only acquire their physical significance because matter is moving through them. In his words:

"All our space-time verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time coincidences. If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but the meeting of two or more of these points."[7]

He considered this the deepest insight of general relativity. — wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_argument

Whether he succeeded or not in reaching the goals he set out for himself is one thing. Referring to those goals as a given is another. — Valentinus

Speaking for my part, I take these goals as a given in order to understand what on earth he was on about. We shall see.

The question is not whether he leaves these things behind but whether the process of nature is the same as the process of the development of spirit, specifically, whether the development is a process of aufheben. For example, in the link to Hegel's philosophy of nature he says: — Fooloso4

The link I posted is only a brief description/outline. For more details, you should see Hegel's philosophy of nature, the long version. There he starts with the concept of Space, showing how it negates into Time:

Negativity, as point, relates itself to space, in which it develops its determinations as line and plane; but in the sphere of self-externality, negativity is equally for itself and so are its determinations; but, at the same time, these are posited in the sphere of self-externality, and negativity, in so doing, appears as indifferent to the inert side-by-sideness of space. Negativity, thus posited for itself, is Time. — hegel

From there he goes on to speak of bodies and matter, and eventually gravity.

The truth of space is time, and thus space becomes time; the transition to time is not made subjectively by us, but made by space itself. In pictorial thought, space and time are taken to be quite separate: we have space and also time; philosophy fights against this 'also'. — hegel

Well, philosophy fought against the separation of space and time, combining them into spacetime. But this is nevertheless a mathematical construct, what it means philosophically, I think it still escapes the scientists.

Hegel is talking about the movement of thought or spirit. I don't think this extends to physics or evolution, but I could be wrong. — Fooloso4

But Hegel's philosophy is about the whole, so how could it leave these things behind?? After all, Hegel provides the scientific foundations, and physics and evolutionary biology are sciences.

Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/natindex.htm

It was taking too much time and energy. I was spending many hours working through a single paragraph in some cases. — Fooloso4

Indeed, these things have leisure as a prerequisite.

'It was only', says Aristotle, 'after almost everything necessary and everything requisite for human comfort and intercourse was available, that man began to concern himself with philosophical knowledge' 'In Egypt', he had previously remarked, 'there was an early development of the mathematical sciences because there the priestly caste at an early stage were in a position to have leisure'. — science of logic

Yes, sublation, if this is how all things are evolving, then it must also be at the core of the Theory of Evolution, speciation I mean, the way new species are being generated. Thus giving birth to man, the most contradictory being that man knows. But I am mostly interested in Hegel from a physics point of view, as it is reflected in bohmian mechanics, the peculiar interpretation of quantum mechanics that David Bohm developed along with mathematician Basil Hiley.

Anyway, why did you stop your reading?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I will post an example. In the Science of Logic, Hegel writes (21.13):

“In so many respects,” says Aristotle in the same context, “is human nature in bondage; but this science, which is not pursued for any utility, is alone free in and for itself, and for this reason it appears not to be a human possession.” — Hegel

In the above, Hegel quotes Aristotle, where the latter tries to find and define the "first science", metaphysics or theology as he calls it, what its subject matter is etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D982b

And so, the first science appears to Aristotle to be of divine nature, giving his reasons for it. Hegel gives his own reasons as well for this appearance, but in terms of his own philosophical system, and thus goes further than Aristotle. In the process, he would have to explain why Aristotle didn't think of what he himself did.

And elsewhere, where for example he examines Plato's Ideas, Hegel does so within his philosophical system, he doesn't just say that Plato was wrong and disposes of his thoughts, but tries to give an account of what Plato thought in hegelian terms. I have no idea how he does this, but I am certain that every thought, no matter what, is put under the microscope in his own system.

Yes, so his philosophy, method or theory has the explanatory power to give an account for all philosophical thoughts throughout history. Meaning for example when Aristotle thought something, Hegel can come up and say why he thought so and what he meant by it, the same for everyone else. Also, it explains itself.

Nevertheless, the idea is a bit grandiose, don't you think?

I don't know whether you know Tomas Szasz:

Thomas Stephen Szasz (15 April 1920 – 8 September 2012) was a Hungarian-American academic, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. He served for most of his career as professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York. A distinguished lifetime fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and a life member of the American Psychoanalytic Association, he was best known as a social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, as what he saw as the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as scientism. His books The Myth of Mental Illness (1961) and The Manufacture of Madness (1970) set out some of the arguments most associated with him. — tomas

He is best know for the statement:

"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz