Logic thinks of something. The secret is to think of everything arising from nothing. Such is impossible materially, but possible beyond extension. Hegel says "The Category, which had the significance of being the inmost essence of existence -of existence indifferent to whether it is existence at all, or existence over against consciousness - is now the essential nature of simple unity of existence merely in the sense of a reality that thinks...Where is understanding to be able to demonstrate necessity, if it is.incapable of doing in its own case, itself being pure necessity." The world is contingent, see?

"Reason is the certainty of being all reality. This it's inherent nature, this reality, is still, however, through and through a universal, the pure abstract of reality. It is the first positive character which selfconsciousness per se is aware of being, and ego is, fherefore, merely the pure, inner essence of existence, in other words, is the Category." Hegel

As we have two cranial hemispheres, so we have a materialist and a mystical side. You are computerness as you read this, and you are humanness when you fear.

If being IS truth, then crude pantheism is true. A cup is just a cup until consciousness comes into play

I recommend people skip his Preface and Introduction in phenomenology of spirit. It gets right to the meat quickly in the first chapter

I imagine (in imaginary time, which I ruled by an imaginary number) Hegel looking as his snuff box thinking "I am snuffboxness".

Maybe giraffes should have short necks and once did. Reason is more of a stage than a faculty. Hegel wanted to see himself in objects and the objects as Forms, and thus himself as the forms. But that's not the last note of the song

Hegel never said the world doesn't exist. He simply pointed out a paradox about thought and matter. Descartes didn't understand it, or wouldn't have

Good points on all sides. I say substance is being in a certain shape and so can only be about the world. Truth is a different question. To say Spirit has substance is to be a pantheist

order is prior to the brain and thus the eye, and if this were not, it would be impossible for parts to become synthesized into wholes for a purpose. purpose implies reason, reason implies order — TheGreatArcanum

This is convoluted. You deny the reality of irrational numbers, and thus don't believe in imaginary time as Hawking called it? "The spiritual" is nothingness because truth is nowhere. How much truth have you touched?

"all truths are wholes and not irrational numbers"

Who says?

"Take a truth, any truth, and then ask yourself, what must first be true for it to be true, and keep going and going until you find an undeniable truth. When you find it, ask yourself, can this truth change and how? You claim that it can be changing, why? Because the world is changing? But is there not some underlying unchanging aspect that grounds it all?"

Order is in the eye of the beholder

"Isn't change contingent upon the lack thereof?"

Contingent upon contingency? Maybe

"Isn't all change for the purpose of that which changes not?"

But existentialism!

"Can Existence and Non-Existence both Exist and Not Exist at the same time and in the same respect?"

That's a word game

"Is not the truth that "Existence is" (in the absolute sense), eternal? If not, whence did it come into being?"

From nothing

Philosophy is an engine powered by a usually unexplicated dynamic. The ground, then, of inquiry being unclear or entirely unseen, the inquiry itself is never complete.

The idea is that what something is depends on how it is perceived or taken. If that preliminary occurrence of perception/taking is not laid out and laid bare, then the entire process remains incomplete.

First activity, then, is the inquiry - the question, whatever it is. First principle should be a complete excavation of the ground of the question. In particular and especially not the furniture and immediate surroundings of the question, but instead its presuppositions and purposes. These latter, properly understood and examined, give the greatest chance for knowledge, and absent which, knowledge can only be accidental or incidental, or impossible. — tim wood

Maybe a little too Cartesian. Don't underestimate the "movement of philosophy" (Hegel).

Here is a good start for ye guys:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=days+like+these+hegel+school+of+life&view=detail&mid=7206E3217DBBCB3809417206E3217DBBCB380941&FORM=VIRE

We know HOW is beauty (for it pleases us), but WHAT is beauty, and WHY is it? Those are valid concerns. No language games here

I wasn't specifically thinking of logical atomism, i was referring to his consciously self-refuting Tractatus, as well the latter Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations, that isn't logically consistent. For example, his apparent reliance on the imagination to refute the idea of private language. This isn't a criticism, it's just a general feature of philosophical arguments. For many other examples see Graham Priest's "Beyond the Limits of Thought". — sime

The Tractatus is consistent, although maybe not with the Investigations. That would be Wittgenstein changing his mind (maybe from the limits he had put himself in). If he used imagination to find out that we can communicate as a species across cultures and languages, I don't see that inconsistent either

Whether objects just have existence, or also goodness and maybe truth in them, is a logical question. What is beauty? That which pleases? But that is what it does, not what it is. If we keep the questions to the world instead of going outside like Socrates, we have valid questions

Hegel had a far richer intellectual life than poor Wittgenstein. That's what counts

Its not about logical atomistic consistency. Wittgenstein should not be in your list sime.

Hegel's whole philosophy was an expansion in Aquinas's themes that there is truth IN objects. That is.not an empirical question. Philosophy is not language games

An empiricist has to answer what an object is. That is a philosophical question. Is a forest an object?

Void = lacking of

Being = existence

Truth = the reality

Goodness = that which answers "Why"

Beauty = ?

I read philosophy to classic rock

Suppose God says "i will give everyone a sickness, high chance you won't die. But if they want, they can keep the food". Why in heavens name would anyone riot when they have food and water. It doesn't make sense

Seems inevitable if the next 6 months is similar to the last 6 days. — ZhouBoTong

Blame the media for not shutting their materialist faces

Last December my best friend had what was likely corona. He said he felt like he was talking underwater, and the doctor said it sounded like he was! Just today he read a description of corona which said "feeling like your talking underwater". So it sounds like you feel sick and get a brief waterboarding. When it spreads further, deal with it at home. Hospitals are for the high risk individuals, not for the pussies. We need to keep open drive thrus and stores. There is no way to get food to everyone without exposure. Exposure or starve

We won't run out of hospital beds. Beds only for the very old and weak! Everyone else deal with it at home. It's like being drunk. You feel sick then you feel good

Reason is naturally intuitive. It learns logic. Whether logic is logical is debated. With the insane logic eats itself like a snake eating its tail. The insane are very smart but can't handle their genuis. In our eyes they are an example of a botched attempt to be genuis.

Fear is a sin: http://www.godrules.net/library/aquinas/278aquinas_e1.htm

In general this pandemic has given me a big rush. I'm only feeling empathy in a few situations. A lot of people are acting like idiots

Then he is scared

intelligible. ok

Reason is a faculty, logic is something it does. Reality is separate form our normal cognition. We don't grasp it accurately, without work

If we use cause and effect to make sure we maintain order, then the correct order is thus, unless I'm being stupid...

Intuition which cannot be defined logically belongs to reason , or reason belongs to intuition because both of these can exist without logic. Therefore logic sits at the bottom of the cause and effect chain. We can remove logic without remove the others. — Antidote

Very good

We cannot remove the others without losing logic — Antidote

Logical skepticism can freeze intuition, at least apparently, and reason then acts strangely

Fascinating!

Because you would be connecting thoughts with intuition. Logic and intuition are the halves of reason. This is all hard to explain. Logic and intuition interact in multiple ways, very various

To put this in perspective, two million people die yearly from flu like-related illnesses worldwide. The Spanish flu had the advantage in 1918 because of the weather then, and also that there had just been a 4 year world war and everyones' immune systems were weak from FOUR YEARS of high stress. So fifty million died. We have lots of vaccines and medicines in our arsenal now and it is only growing.

"To speed things up, scientists are turning to untested classes of vaccines, and RETHINKING every part of how they are designed, evaluated and manufactured. If the approach works, we will, for the first time, have identified a new disease and developed a vaccine against it while the initial outbreak is still ongoing." (emphasis mine, newscientist dot com)

Other teams are working on understanding how the virus affects the body, so maybe new drugs will be able to stop the life-threatening aspect of the illness. Like help your breathing and stuff

Logic cannot exist without reason but reason can exist without logic? — Antidote

A koan in the East is used to counter the logic of Aristotle. They stand opposed, apparently. Hegel might be a bridge between them. Read his first published book. Jung thought Hegel's subconscious was leaking out ideas, but Jung was not a philosopher. He might have been right on a psychological level though. Aristotle could maybe beat Hegel at chess, so to speak

Those who have lost reason, but still maintain logic? — Antidote

They think so much that relativism kicks in but they are unable to handle it. That's why they say crazy things. That quote was from Chesterton but could have been from Jung.

Reason is a power. Logic is a mold you put it in. Whether we are reason itself, see the thread on Sartre on this forum

What is more fundamental for Sartre and Heidegger , knowing our transcendental consciousness or the transcendental universe!? I've only read the latter a little. Fun thread