kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It's a quote from the Introduction of 'Logic' about the nature of the particular and universal...thought you'd appreciate the subtlty...
[HELP] Reading Hegel's Philosophy of History
- Thread starter Illyrian
- Start date
gorski
customised free radical
I did, as I said openly. However, "change of tagline" is what I meant: as in paraphrasing it or...? Not sure I understood correctly the phrase in this context... Anyways, its a minor thing...
Look at this:
Something to insist upon...
In its complexity it sure as hell isn't something straight forward, simple and easy... Especially when applied to History...
Look at this:
Something to insist upon...
In its complexity it sure as hell isn't something straight forward, simple and easy... Especially when applied to History...kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Ah...simply that I'd changed my tagline (yours being 'customised free radical') from shitting dicknipples...
I'm not gonna jump ahead by reading that. I'm up to S16 of the Introduction and getting my reading in on the tube...certainly makes for better reading than the Metro
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
notice no mention of Habermas in your defence of Hegel, G. Don't you think that he effectively goes back to a formalistic Kantian approach to reason - aesthetics/morality/natural science etc.
If you carry on insisting that philosophy has given way to practice - in circumstances where you've given up on the possibilty of revolution in actuality - then you're left with the meekest mildest reformism and thought that's only appropriate to it.
Habermas - from Hegel to Marx and back (in effect) to Kant. No?
If you carry on insisting that philosophy has given way to practice - in circumstances where you've given up on the possibilty of revolution in actuality - then you're left with the meekest mildest reformism and thought that's only appropriate to it.
Habermas - from Hegel to Marx and back (in effect) to Kant. No?
Something to insist upon...
To nitpick, I think you're wrong about it not being simple, although you are absolutely correct about it being not straight forward or easy. Simple things have few parts and what Hegel is getting at here does not have many components but it is nevertheless very difficult to grasp. Hegel's application of his system is shockingly simplistic in my opinion, which is why I don't care for it when it is applied to inherently complex subjects like history. On the other hand, the exposition of his system is quite wonderful.
---
I think Kyser's reading the right book. Small piece of advice is that I think you should read the part about the Notion before reading about Being and Essence. The section on the Notion (especially the subjective Notion) has a lot of sound stuff in it, it also has the most clues as to what 'speculative' philosophy is about and it illuminates what the previous two sections are about. The doctrine of Notion is simply good philosophy and philosophy done well has a lot in common with other philosophy done well, so it shouldn't seem so strange. Hegel's doctrines of Being and Essence are very difficult and quite arbitrary. Its difficult to follow what he's doing but its even more difficult to see why he's doing it.
gorski
customised free radical
I hereby chastise you, sir K_S, for putting down Metro, as opposed to Tube, whereas in actual reality it ought to be the other way round, i.e. dialectics has eluded you once again...
I think Habermas is right when he states that Adorno and co. have hit the wall and didn't get very far in their gloomy and rather dark, pessimistic outlook. I also think he is right in trying to bring various traditions together and take the best from them all. He is also right to state that we are still living in Modernity and that its achievements ought to be preserved and then built upon, not easily dismissed out of hand. Not without a viable alternative, that is.
I disagree with him, if I understood him correctly - most vehemently, as the case may be!!! - that some kind of consensus is how we shall arrive at "truth".
My old professors [Gajo Petrovic, Milan Kangrga etc.] at Zagreb Philosophical Faculty were certainly no liberals. Quite the opposite: "Thinking of Revolution" was the staple diet. I am its child, as it were! However, they do know that minimum standards have to be kept not to fall under the level of Modernity. Hence their[M.K., for instance] involvement in changes there, from the "real-soc" system to capitalism and democracy.
However, one shouldn't jump to conclusions about what my stand is re. Revolution.
And there are at least a few possible answers to that Q. Firstly, we must note that no "Marxist" tradition is obliged by any such "universal" notion any longer. Marxism is no longer bound by anything in any direction, re. the Qs of Revolution, nationalism, violence etc. [as it was with various "Internationals", that is or Soviet Union under Stalin.]. And it ain't necessarily a "bad thing"!
In other words: we do not need to subscribe to any of those "traditionally held" notions if it doesn't pass the critical judgement of our own Reason.
Does that sound reasonable to you, A8? That we might be ever so slightly different in answering the Q "How do we get to a non-exploitative society, not based in the notions of dominance for power-purposes and amassing [wealth, power, possesions etc.]" etc. etc.?
Habermas learnt his approach from Arendt and her insights into the matter of violence and its consequences on the "newly established society" are essential, I think!
Praxis is a workhorse of a notion of Praxis School of thought I belong to. There is a narrower one, in the traditional scheme of things, and then there's this one, overarching, which includes Theoria, Praxis and Poiesis, as they claim that those are not separable and that they must be considered in their totality and dialectical directedness at each other, not just their particularity.
They never gave up on the possibility of Revolution but are sober when it comes to actual possibility of it here and now. {Pointing to the non-existance of Revolutionary Subject, of course, in the present circumstances.} Dreaming it up is one thing, actually acting as if it is there quite another... Oh, well: that's why they were interested in an epochal change to Capitalism first [so we actually recognise each other formally and procedurally, having guaranteed each other a certain minimal set of rights and duties], as a way forward from our totalitarian society back in former Yugoslavia. Then, we can act freely, assemble, agitate, speak etc. towards a union of [formally] free men choosing to act towards substantially free society, free of constraints of private ownership of means of production etc. [as opposed to the previous state of affairs where it was your duty only, "built into you" but not freely chosen etc.].
In a non-prescriptive manner, I might add... I.e. they knew full well that they have not seen the future and that they had no Godly inisght into all the exigencies and possibilities future may hold, hence no ethically or otherwise prescriptive position is humanly viable.
I am not a non-critical Habermasian, as it were. But I will learn from anyone, if I find there's something to be learnt there. And he is certainly doing his part towards exploring the emacipatory paths in this, in many ways, dreary place but on the other hand a place which ought not to be short-changed either...
Ernst Bloch, to give another example to accent the point, certainly knew why he chose to be in West Germany, as opposed to East Germany, for instance... And kept working on Utopian principles, nonetheless... The two are not mutually exclusive!
I think Habermas is right when he states that Adorno and co. have hit the wall and didn't get very far in their gloomy and rather dark, pessimistic outlook. I also think he is right in trying to bring various traditions together and take the best from them all. He is also right to state that we are still living in Modernity and that its achievements ought to be preserved and then built upon, not easily dismissed out of hand. Not without a viable alternative, that is.
I disagree with him, if I understood him correctly - most vehemently, as the case may be!!! - that some kind of consensus is how we shall arrive at "truth".
My old professors [Gajo Petrovic, Milan Kangrga etc.] at Zagreb Philosophical Faculty were certainly no liberals. Quite the opposite: "Thinking of Revolution" was the staple diet. I am its child, as it were! However, they do know that minimum standards have to be kept not to fall under the level of Modernity. Hence their[M.K., for instance] involvement in changes there, from the "real-soc" system to capitalism and democracy.
However, one shouldn't jump to conclusions about what my stand is re. Revolution.
And there are at least a few possible answers to that Q. Firstly, we must note that no "Marxist" tradition is obliged by any such "universal" notion any longer. Marxism is no longer bound by anything in any direction, re. the Qs of Revolution, nationalism, violence etc. [as it was with various "Internationals", that is or Soviet Union under Stalin.]. And it ain't necessarily a "bad thing"!
In other words: we do not need to subscribe to any of those "traditionally held" notions if it doesn't pass the critical judgement of our own Reason.
Does that sound reasonable to you, A8? That we might be ever so slightly different in answering the Q "How do we get to a non-exploitative society, not based in the notions of dominance for power-purposes and amassing [wealth, power, possesions etc.]" etc. etc.?
Habermas learnt his approach from Arendt and her insights into the matter of violence and its consequences on the "newly established society" are essential, I think!
Praxis is a workhorse of a notion of Praxis School of thought I belong to. There is a narrower one, in the traditional scheme of things, and then there's this one, overarching, which includes Theoria, Praxis and Poiesis, as they claim that those are not separable and that they must be considered in their totality and dialectical directedness at each other, not just their particularity.
They never gave up on the possibility of Revolution but are sober when it comes to actual possibility of it here and now. {Pointing to the non-existance of Revolutionary Subject, of course, in the present circumstances.} Dreaming it up is one thing, actually acting as if it is there quite another... Oh, well: that's why they were interested in an epochal change to Capitalism first [so we actually recognise each other formally and procedurally, having guaranteed each other a certain minimal set of rights and duties], as a way forward from our totalitarian society back in former Yugoslavia. Then, we can act freely, assemble, agitate, speak etc. towards a union of [formally] free men choosing to act towards substantially free society, free of constraints of private ownership of means of production etc. [as opposed to the previous state of affairs where it was your duty only, "built into you" but not freely chosen etc.].
In a non-prescriptive manner, I might add... I.e. they knew full well that they have not seen the future and that they had no Godly inisght into all the exigencies and possibilities future may hold, hence no ethically or otherwise prescriptive position is humanly viable.
I am not a non-critical Habermasian, as it were. But I will learn from anyone, if I find there's something to be learnt there. And he is certainly doing his part towards exploring the emacipatory paths in this, in many ways, dreary place but on the other hand a place which ought not to be short-changed either...
Ernst Bloch, to give another example to accent the point, certainly knew why he chose to be in West Germany, as opposed to East Germany, for instance... And kept working on Utopian principles, nonetheless... The two are not mutually exclusive!
gorski
customised free radical
gorski
customised free radical
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I'm obviously improving cos I get this joke
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Waaaaaaang keeeeerz
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Been on the GBH, butchers?
He only chose to re-think the world in its totality....
Before I start I would like to say that post 96 was very interesting and if you have the time and inclination it would be good if you could expand on the political involvement of the Praxis school.
I'll see if I can sum up in the fewest possible words what's important in Hegel (from Hegel's pov).
The key influences for Hegel as I see it are Aristotle and Spinoza. Everything important in Hegel exists in those two. That is realism, (soft) empiricism and absolute idealism. The world is knowable and can be known logically. That's not to say that logic produces the knowledge, it is just to say that logical form is the ultimate expression of this knowledge. Hegel is concerned with the grasping of truth for the sake of truth but without recourse to abstractions. In the final analysis there can be no empty categories resting on pure necessary and sufficient definitions. Such purity of existence is pure non-existence as both are featureless. The motion of thought can nevertheless be captured. Central to great philosophy from a Hegelian point of view is the sublime treatment of the soul - what it means to be a living subject. It is not to be asked what this is exactly but we know what it isn't. It isn't the belief that there is a thing called the 'soul'. It isn't the denial that the soul exists. The first leads to empty abstractions and the second to a sort of scepticism or philistinism (Kant). The subject and the object are to be placed logically in relation to the absolute thus by passing existential questions. Both the identity and the difference within the identity must be emphasised. It is when the world is thus comprehended exactly as it is in its essense that the most profound philosophy is realised.
Its as simple as that. But I don't think it will make any sense unless you have grappled with metaphysical questions and seen the futility of such grappling yourself.
I should add that Marx and Engels rejected completely the above that is they rejected everything philosophical in Hegel. Rather they put Hegel's logical analysis to work. In doing so they showed a far greater understanding of Hegel than any of the Hegelians who simply mangled Hegel for their own purposes.
No, it's Heraclitus, as he "didn't leave out any of Heraclitus' statements out" of his system...
But that's not much. Sadly very little of Heraclitus' philosophy has survived.
Do the originals even exist wrt Heraclitus? If I'm not mistaken all that exists are quotations in others works.
Pre-Socratics, yes... Fragments and other's reporting...
For instance, he is well known to have criticised studying too many things because if that was beneficial these things would have certainly taught both Hesiod and Pythagoras...
See philosophy is utterly simple at root. It couldn't be any other way. Though I think there is still something to be said for the encyclopaedic approaches of Aristotle and Hegel. The vastnessness of their knowledge illuminates their philosophy. The same way that looking at a statue from many points of view helps you appreciate the statue, but you can still appreciate it from one position.
gorski
customised free radical
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/heraclitus/herpatu.htm
http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/Heraclitus.htm
Btw, look at these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
Many years ago I argued in Ancient Greek Philosophy class that Einstein plagiarised from him - a lot...
Look: http://plus.maths.org/issue17/xfile/index.html - the stance...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm
http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/Heraclitus.htm
Btw, look at these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
Many years ago I argued in Ancient Greek Philosophy class that Einstein plagiarised from him - a lot...
Look: http://plus.maths.org/issue17/xfile/index.html - the stance...
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm
Thanks for this! Interesting stuff.
Yeah, I know about Zeno's paradoxes.
Many years ago I argued in Ancient Greek Philosophy class that Einstein plagiarised from him - a lot...
Look: http://plus.maths.org/issue17/xfile/index.html - the stance...
This confuses relativity with quantum mechanics. I don't see any connection between Zeno and relativity.
The bit about worldlines is closer to the mark, though. However you could make a similar comment on Newtonian physics and indeed Cartesian geometry. The point is that you can graphically represent time as a dimension of space. That is you can represent motion in a static picture.
This is more interesting. I think introducing modern physics to a discussion about Zeno is not helpful though. I don't think Zeno was trying to show that space/time are discrete. I don't think that modern physics shows that they are anyway. Certainly discrete space-time is hugely problematic for general relativity - this is exactly the problem with unifying GR with quantum field theory.
Galileo came up with relativity and I think this was truly original. I think the Greeks (certainly Aristotle) had an unquestioned notion of absolute rest.
Nope, you're still not there...
Well you're not exactly helping by talking about modern physics!!
Similar threads
