/lit/ - Literature

>>22756837
>You are implying that you are exempt from engaging
no retard I am implying you should at least know the prequisite knowledge to engage in the discourse before going in leeroy jenkins style, getting absolutely and rightfully filtered, and then complaining that the discourse is nonsense. Of course it's nonsense-- TO YOU RETARD-- because you haven't put in the work to understand the terms, the history, the personalities, etc., The Science of Logic is not a textbook for noobs in philosophy; it has an audience mind: PHILOSOPHY PROFESSORS. So no shit regular people don't understand it, they don't understand a lot of things-- that's why lawyers, and doctors, and priests, and scientists exist. Does the lawyer teach you the entire system of law whenever you consult him? FUCK NO. If you really want understand law it's a fuck ton of work. That's why law school takes YEARS. And the same goes for medicine, religion, science, and, yes, philosophy. Seethe all you want Hegelians do not give a fuck. Start with the Greeks and then maybe one well you'll get Hegel.

>>22737189
yes

>>22730863
>How did Hegel surpass Kant ?
no one is going to really answer this on 4chan since the only answer is the running through the Dialectic yourself. The reason Hegel makes so many people angry is that Hegel's solution to the problems of metaphysics cannot be explained second hand-- the inquirer has to reason through himself with Hegel as his guide through the Dialectic to the solution. I can tell you "yes Hegel answered such and such to such and such question" but you can always respond with "why?" at which point we've already entered the Dialectic and would have to run through the Dialectic all the way to the end for final satisfaction: which would be one long ass thread that no actual 4chan retard would follow through to the end since they don't actually want answers (since that would require actual work) and instead just want the pleasure of contemplating the idea of there being an ultimate answer that they COULD know if they one day decide to look for it as opposed to wallowing in the despair of the current nihilist Zeitgeist.

>>22657802
because that's not what he meant. he meant what he said.

>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste; it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense, under which label we understand the limitedness in space and time of a race of men

>>22647778
>blocks your path

>tfw you actually belong on /sci/ not /lit/

>>22604541
>can't into spekulative Logik
ngmi

>I have been only too often and too vehemently attacked by opponents who were incapable of making the simple reflection that their opinions and objections contain categories which are presuppositions and which themselves need to be criticised first before they are employed.

>>22580900
>why would you when it's obviously wrong and retarded.
ngmi

>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it; and, unless it is in the state of perfect indifference that security confers, it is bound to detest and persecute it.

How did we go from this high iq take like:
>[Philosophy] only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense, under which label we understand the limitedness in space and time of a race of men
and
>[In Philosophy] there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.

To this midwit take:
>Kit Fine has described his general approach to philosophy as follows: "I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made."

Contemporary Anglo metaphysics is ngmi

>>22557964
don't worry smoothbrain

>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste; it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense, under which label we understand the limitedness in space and time of a race of men

>>22521987
The absolute final GOAT.

>Absolute idealism, however, though it is far in advance of vulgar realism, is by no means merely restricted to philosophy. It lies at the root of all religion; for religion too believes the actual world we see, the sum total of existence, to be created and governed by God.
Amen.

>>22503180
>Obviously everybody in history (including myself and yourself) got it all wrong,
ngmi

>>22500827
unequivocally false

>Absolute idealism, however, though it is far in advance of vulgar realism, is by no means merely restricted to philosophy. It lies at the root of all religion; for religion too believes the actual world we see, the sum total of existence, to be created and governed by God.

>>22497415
>that whicever system of logic you use wont apply properly to the real world

>Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig
t. Herr Hegel

All the UAP/UFO stuff going around has me wondering. Would phenomenological philosophy apply to nonhuman intelligence the same as it applies to us? That is, do the notions of subject/object, noumenon, phenomenon, etc. apply universally to all intelligent beings or have we merely applied them universally because we are the only intelligent beings that we know of? Is there a way to tell, or to prove it one way or the other?
Would an ayylmao be capable of reaching Absolute Knowing? Would the Greys be able to become practitioners of Advaita? Discuss.

>>22485415
>The truths that are attainable directly can't be subject to any system, they're what the systems are built on.
also false brainlet. Speculative truth supervenes on the propositional truths by, through, and only at the END of the dialectic through which the system as a WHOLE is manifested.

>what logic is cannot be stated beforehand, rather does this knowledge of what it is first emerge as the final outcome and consummation of the whole exposition.

>This ideality of the finite is the chief maxim of philosophy; and for that reason every genuine philosophy is idealism.

>Even common sense in everyday matters is above the absurdity of setting a universal beside the particulars. Would any one, who wished for fruit, reject cherries, pears, and grapes, on the ground that they were cherries, pears, or grapes, and not fruit? But when philosophy is in question, the excuse of many is that philosophies are so different, and none of them is the philosophy — that each is only a philosophy. Such a plea is assumed to justify any amount of contempt for philosophy. And yet cherries too are fruit. Often, too, a system, of which the principle is the universal, is put on a level with another of which the principle is a particular, and with theories which deny the existence of philosophy altogether. Such systems are said to be only different views of philosophy. With equal justice, light and darkness might be styled different kinds of light.

>>22479268
>Its just a guess that propetulates philosophy for hundreds of years.

Herr Hegel:
>Even common sense in everyday matters is above the absurdity of setting a universal beside the particulars. Would any one, who wished for fruit, reject cherries, pears, and grapes, on the ground that they were cherries, pears, or grapes, and not fruit? But when philosophy is in question, the excuse of many is that philosophies are so different, and none of them is the philosophy — that each is only a philosophy. Such a plea is assumed to justify any amount of contempt for philosophy. And yet cherries too are fruit. Often, too, a system, of which the principle is the universal, is put on a level with another of which the principle is a particular, and with theories which deny the existence of philosophy altogether. Such systems are said to be only different views of philosophy. With equal justice, light and darkness might be styled different kinds of light.

>The battle of reason is the struggle to break up the rigidity to which the understanding has reduced everything.

>>22476061
>That's what it's like reading the Upanishads if you are not initiated.

>>we may answer those who thus insist on the truth and certainty of the reality of objects of sense, by saying that they had better be sent back to the most elementary school of wisdom, the ancient Eleusinian mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus; they have not yet learnt the inner secret of the eating of bread and the drinking of wine. For one who is initiated into these mysteries not only comes to doubt the being of things of sense, but gets into a state of despair about it altogether; and in dealing with them he partly himself brings about the nothingness of those things, partly he sees these bring about their own nothingness. Even animals are not shut off from this wisdom, but show they are deeply initiated into it. For they do not stand stock still before things of sense as if these were things per se, with being in themselves: they despair of this reality altogether, and in complete assurance of the nothingness of things they fall-to without more ado and eat them up. And all nature proclaims, as animals do, these open secrets, these mysteries revealed to all, which teach what the truth of things of sense is.

>>22462914
so was Hegel