Hegel's Problem

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
StencilPania
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:13 am

Hegel's Problem

Post by StencilPania »

Before anything else, the mandatory pleasantries. Hello, hail, what have you. It's nice to make your acquaintances.

But to the point... Regarding Hegel's philosophy.

At first glance, he seems to have quite a bit to say regarding the the purported direction of the board here. Absolute nature of reality? Bingo! (if I'm wrong on this count, I apologize)

But I think that this is a valid point- it shows how somebody with a good starting point can end up in bedlam when he applies his learning, which is incongruous with this good idea at its core, to reality as a whole.

Of course, the central 'good idea' of his thinking comes from Heraclitus. The Absolute Idea stays the same by changing- which is analagous to the Logoslehre in Heraclitus' Fragments. I think that this constitutes the central power in Hegel (as I agree more or less wholeheartedly with the Logos-idea).

But now look- he applies this to history and now calls everything a progression to the realization of this idea. He quite literally poisons the wells of both ideas by importing the logos into history, and vice-versa. Whatever 'good' there is to glean from his writing is horribly marred by the fact that he's now CONVINCED himself of his own truth/proof to the detriment of saying anything truly valuable.

We end up with Santayana's quote about him: "He described what he knew best or had heard most, and felt he had described the universe."
____

I am not going to pass further judgment here. I merely think that Hegel is illustrative of an important way in which one can go wrong. If I have unwittingly bought into this problem, then I take full responsibility for being wrong too- even if that means being wrong in a way that I've misunderstood the entire playing field.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hello & welcome,

Hegel, sure. Right now I'm a bit out of time but I hope to add more later. It's a slow forum for people who chew rather long on things.

Could you say something about the link between Kant and Hegel? Or any central theme to distinguish in German idealism?
User avatar
amerika
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by amerika »

StencilPania wrote: But now look- he applies this to history and now calls everything a progression to the realization of this idea.
This is necessary to maintain the fallacy that what we need are "new" ideas, not qualitative improvements, because the new ideas thing can be applied to an egalitarian mindset.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Hello StencilPania and All

Yes, you have "misunderstood the entire playing field". Your mistake is to look at history objectively. With objectivity you see only the surface appearance of things. Understanding history requires formulas such as dialectical movement. Your mistake is understandable because objectivity is the only system of rational though you know.

Hegel is synonymous with absolute Idealism and at the core of Idealism is the search for metaphysical, logos-consistent logic. Real logic is the origin of the formulas that reveal immanence. Real logic cannot be objectivity because logic is an aspect of the creative cause and objectivity is not creating the world. This analogy closes on the crux: Idealism aspires to know the Mind of God. It is better to say, “Idealism aspires to know Mind / immanence and then extrapolate to the creative cause; the very essence of creation”. Absolute Idealism believes it can better understand creation than science because it is focused on the genuine logic of creation.

Idealism has two big feats to perform: the defining of ontology and teleology as expressions of logos logic. Ontology is the immanent structures that support life. Teleology is the study of determinism in history whereby immanence and the creative cause are revealed. To know what history is progressing towards, one first has to know ontology. Of the two areas of study, ontology is the major statement. Teleology is the minor, supporting explanation.

Ontology and teleology are a pigeon pair; a dichotomy because real logic concerns dichotomies. Reflection will soon yield the realisation that only dichotomies satisfy the parameters of absoluteness.

Ontology is a hard nut to crack. Hegel tried, but had more recognition for his teleology, i.e. dialectical movement. It was astute to join ideas with political actions as dialectical movement.

That I understand to be the entire playing field.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

StencilPania wrote: merely think that Hegel is illustrative of an important way in which one can go wrong. If I have unwittingly bought into this problem, then I take full responsibility for being wrong too- even if that means being wrong in a way that I've misunderstood the entire playing field.
Not sure what I've to add to your remarks but some thoughts I had earlier on the good man, to start with the opinion of Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer, wrote:If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right. -- from On the basis of Morality, Schopenhauer
Hegel, being often accused of obscurantism replied pretty clever, perhaps too clever that it is "not the philosopher who thinks abstractly, but the layman, who uses concepts as givens that are immutable, without context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he transcends the limits of quotidian concepts, in order to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language appear obscure, esoteric, and mysterious to the layman". And yet I do think Hegel ended up obscuring more than enlightening, not engaging in philosophy but more providing a speculative mode of thinking, materializing in religion-as-system, ideological at root with truth as "continuous world-historical process" instead of being always the individual’s subjectivity, informing the social being to move as "spirit".
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Oy, Diebert, why are you slagging-off my philosophical brother? No fair-enough, Hegel deserves all the criticism he gets, but your truths about the failings of his philosophy illustrate a point I have already made: namely truths do not tell the full story. Along with the deficiencies you should make some positive acknowledgments.

Kant is a metaphysician, but because he [figuratively] shot metaphysics in the foot, he gets categorised as a Rationalist. So who in the modern era has represented metaphysics in terms of qualifying for the front rank? In my opinion only Hegel makes the grade; he is the sole modern example of what metaphysics is about. I discount Schopenhauer as a great metaphysician. So, though deficiencies predominate, Hegel keeps metaphysics’ flame alight. And that is a big plus. It might be the only plus, but philosophy would be poorer were Hegel to be dismissed as your criticisms suggest he should.

To be balanced in your assessment you should acknowledge the difficulty of finding metaphysical logic and articulating a definitive metaphysic, which Hegel aspired to do. Since logic’s etymology is distinctly metaphysical, someone has to represent metaphysics. We cannot have mystics [who bear witness to the logos] representing metaphysics, so let us be grateful for Hegel.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Rod wrote:To be balanced in your assessment you should acknowledge the difficulty of finding metaphysical logic and articulating a definitive metaphysic, which Hegel aspired to do. Since logic’s etymology is distinctly metaphysical, someone has to represent metaphysics. We cannot have mystics [who bear witness to the logos] representing metaphysics, so let us be grateful for Hegel.
Okay, fair enough. I hereby acknowledge the difficulty of finding metaphysical logic and articulating a definitive metaphysic. And I'll be grateful for Hegel like one can be grateful for many significant developments in history. Yet I also still think Hegel ended up obscuring more than enlightening. The question here is if that's necessary a bad thing, considering what I think is driving much of (metaphysical) life and existence. But in the context of what I believe philosophy to be, existential at the core, I dismiss him as philosopher.

Existential philosophy, to be clear, is for me about asking the deepest questions about human nature at ones own peril. Not some fear for the freedom of the individual (Sartre's anguish) but actually fearing its disappearance -- while desiring it nevertheless. Existentialism then as foremost a personal struggle, existential, internal survival including death and procreation, closer to San Juan de la Cruz than Miguel de Cervantes.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Diebert, you dismiss Hegel without reason and I am unimpressed. It seems unsubstantiated opinions are perfectly OK around here, but they don’t wash with me. I’ll give you something to think about regarding Hegel and you can decide whether your opinion is the gold-standard you think it is.

Firstly, your position is not well drawn in regards to existential and existentialism. I reckon existentialism is a good word wasted on a bunch of poseurs. I’ll let you tidy-up your position.

We are agreed that Hegel was a terrible writer. I have read a theory that his obfuscation in regards to Christianity was to hide his true thoughts from Lutheran authorities that may have made it hard for him to put bread on the table. Metaphysicians tend to love esoteric lore and hate exoteric practise. But there are no excuses. He’s a shocker.

From a very small book entitled “The Essential Hegel” [1997] by Paul Strathern p. 10 we get this explanation for his inspiration:
“… Hegel experienced some sort of profound mystic vision. This appears to have been in the form of an insight into the divine unity of the cosmos, where all finite division was seen as illusory, everything was interdependent, and the ultimate reality was the whole.”

For a metaphysician a mystical experience is de rigueur. The above is a standard description of the genre. Hegel returned to this inspiration all his life. It is important to know this.

Hegel was a boring lecturer, but occasionally he was possessed by a spirit that elevated his comments to the inspired. This is what his pupils especially wanted to see, and they put in the hours till it happened. Mystical experience and ‘extra-personal’ inspiration are the hallmarks of informed, metaphysical minds.

Hegel would be a great philosopher on the strength of his teleology. The “Philosophy of History” [1964] by William H Dray is a slim book because it is extremely hard to philosophise about history. On p.67 R. G. Collingwood is quoted as saying, “In Hegel’s work “history for the first time steps out fully-grown on the stage of philosophical thought”.” The respect we have for history began with Hegel, but you, Diebert, do not rate him.

There is more to Hegel and history than dialectical movement. I strongly recommend the chapter on Hegel in “From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophic Quest” [1984]. You can get it via the internet. Therein you will find his philosophy of history in a very accessible form. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one has written a better speculative philosophy of history.

With regards to ontology, here are four facts. [1] Hegel sought a metaphysical logic. [2 & 3] His theory of social order he called Objective Mind and his theory of our basic human nature he called Subjective Mind. You can see that they were supposed to be reciprocals. In my Topic, “Explicit Absolute Truths”, I make reference to National Mind and Individual Mind. Same creatures, different names, they are reciprocals, and they are a big deal. [4] Hegel envisaged the rationalising of religion. It is quite simple: logos must eventually be understood as logic and thereby we will come to understand Christ’s mission. It is involved but when logic is united with the creative cause philosophy is largely done. People laugh about Hegel aspiring to write the ultimate text. With his prose it is a joke, but in terms of ideas he knew where he had to go. Those four facts are milestones on the road to Idealism’s success.

Stack those points up against your unsubstantiated opinion. Think also of all the names of various ranks from “Named Individuals” to forgotten scholars that Hegel influenced negatively and positively. Explain how he was not ‘existential’ and what your grasp of the word is.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod: but when logic is united with the creative cause philosophy is largely done.
The above statement proposes two absolute causes, one that causes logic and one that causes creativity. Is this logical?
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

I fail to see the error that you see Pam. I think you are splitting invisible hairs. I will expand on logic finding the creative cause. I thought I did this in a reply to you that involved knowing your Individual Mind.

Do you remember my metaphysical model of reality? Logic has to be found in appearances and used to construct immanence. Success in explaining the reciprocal relationship that joins Individual Mind and National Mind opens the way to comprehension of the creative cause.

You are amazing, Pam. You reject philosophy but you want exactitudes, and I still cannot see how my statement could be construed to imply two causes.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod: I still cannot see how my statement could be construed to imply two causes.
You assert logic can find 'creative' cause as if logic is a separate causal force from 'creative' cause. Which has lead to you believe that Mind is two (separate or independent) minds that can join. If you cannot see the problem with this blatant 'cutting of reality in two' then I leave you to your model of the joining of logic and creativity.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Pam, you have the monist idea that creation is caused by one entity. The creative cause includes logic and energy combined. Everything in my philosophy is dichotomous; I hold to reality as the product of dichotomous monism. This has been clearly stated and it is inferred above in connection with Mind. Earlier I had assumed you could and had taken cognisance of this. Your second sentence in your second utterance explains your viewpoint: “If you cannot see the problem with this blatant 'cutting of reality in two' then I leave you to your model of the joining of logic and creativity.” – This is entirely monist. If you develop your argument or viewpoint it would be easier to address your errors.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Pam Seeback »

Pam, you have the monist idea that creation is caused by one entity.
An assumption presented as an absolute.
The creative cause includes logic and energy combined.
And yet you said that in order for philosophy to be largely done, logic is united with the creative cause. Allow me to try one more time to show you your contradiction, which of course is the antithesis of absolute idealsim: If logic is already present in the creative cause which you imply above, what is this 'joining' with of which you speak?
Everything in my philosophy is dichotomous; I hold to reality as the product of dichotomous monism. This has been clearly stated and it is inferred above in connection with Mind. Earlier I had assumed you could and had taken cognisance of this.
I am familiar with the philosophy of dialectic monism. It's premise of "a whole necessarily expressing itself dualistically" (wiki) is illogical because it pre-supposes absolute knowledge of the whole before it attains to absolute knowledge. It is to this ignorant supposition of knowing the intent of the causality that I direct my logical criticisms.
Your second sentence in your second utterance explains your viewpoint: “If you cannot see the problem with this blatant 'cutting of reality in two' then I leave you to your model of the joining of logic and creativity.” – This is entirely monist. If you develop your argument or viewpoint it would be easier to address your errors.
This is a delightful happenstance. You believe I am in error, I believe you are in error. Let the error game begin! Note: as stated above, I am not a monist.

In a nutshell, my argument is that since rationality is caused (by the causality) that also causes irrationality, logic (or irrationality) is not, nor can ever be, the ontological absolute.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

If modern humans wish to live in harmony with nature, or if they seek philosophical resolution, they must join an idea of logic with logos-logic, hence logic must unite with the creative cause. The process is pains-taking because firstly logic must be found and secondly used to construct an immanent system. If the system is True, you can spy the creative cause, hence the third step is dependent upon preceding accuracy. The third step is the squaring of the idea / definition of logic with the logos.

In regards to rationality and irrationality, the problem is to break free of objective thinking. Objectivity is human reasoning trying to make sense of our place in relativity. It is possible to think rationally along completely different lines. The Pure Reasoning of logos-logic cannot be manipulated or interfered with. It has extremely strict parameters. I will soon post an essay that includes my definition of logos-logic.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Rod wrote:The respect we have for history began with Hegel, but you, Diebert, do not rate him.. .... Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one has written a better speculative philosophy of history.
The context in which I'm trying to discuss philosophy here does not include exploring "speculative philosophy" of any (materialized) history. It's not that I'm rejecting such activity but I do reject it as philosophy following the terms I just outlined. Existentialism is not about any movement towards God, truth, perfection or any "harmony with nature": no trace of the teleological at all . It could be described perhaps easier as God, truth, perfection already pouring down, as a given (otherwise, why reason at all?). Human here being as essentially disharmonious, so what is it one strives for then?

Existentialism however, begins with the human subject and not with any matter, object, history or historical materialism. It's just another discussion without as much overlap as you seem to be suggesting. Perhaps it's not even a real discussion, a critique I'd understand. Your efforts seem as philosophical as a the efforts of a common scientist. As long as you think "logos" must be understood as logic and one can "come to understand Christ's mission", then we're not even in the same discussion yet with hardly any term defined or agreed on. No problem though but you're not asking questions, you're just stating your own references. You are somehow presuming I have some position but that's the whole issue here: the subject and existential and spiritual experience. The only positions relevant here are those which show how feeble they all are: fundamentally uncertain and ambiguous. And how poor subjects, "ich und du", are propping up a position of make-belief through our discourse, as to raise our cloud platform. Good beautiful luck!
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod wrote:If modern humans wish to live in harmony with nature, or if they seek philosophical resolution, they must join an idea of logic with logos-logic, hence logic must unite with the creative cause. The process is pains-taking because firstly logic must be found and secondly used to construct an immanent system. If the system is True, you can spy the creative cause, hence the third step is dependent upon preceding accuracy. The third step is the squaring of the idea / definition of logic with the logos.

In regards to rationality and irrationality, the problem is to break free of objective thinking. Objectivity is human reasoning trying to make sense of our place in relativity. It is possible to think rationally along completely different lines. The Pure Reasoning of logos-logic cannot be manipulated or interfered with. It has extremely strict parameters. I will soon post an essay that includes my definition of logos-logic.
Your intellect has a tight grip on your awareness or is the other way around? No matter. A moment will come when it will fail you. Until then, happy hunting!
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Hi Diebert, its great to meet again with existentialism as the subject. I will tell you what is wrong with existentialism from an Idealist perspective.

I have revisited your comments of 3/4/16 above and taken this quote:

“Existential philosophy, to be clear, is for me about asking the deepest questions about human nature at ones own peril.”

You best clear-up the matter of whether the “Existential” you refer to above is existentialism or the best ideas in philosophy as a whole.

Now, down to business.

Firstly, historical context. I see existentialism as enjoying the lime-light in Idealism’s absence as some kind of ‘metaphysical-lite’. It anguishes over the human predicament in modernity with great concern for ‘being’. With an eye to the Topic, existentialism has its moment while Idealism awaits a new voice and therefore it prevails in the great pause between 1831 when Hegel died and now. Thus existential has been ‘filling-in’ for Idealism. It’s a stop-gap with entertainers and poseurs who impress persons who do not appreciate what Idealism is trying to achieve, needs to achieve and subsequently leaves the public stage open to the second-rate.

There are three deficiencies in existentialism that I see.

1. On the matter of ‘being’, we are social beings and our identity has to be seen with reference to socio-political matters. Existentialism does not have a commitment to political philosophy and anthropology / social relations. It covered the spectrum from communists to Nazis, but that was incidental to focusing on ‘the plight of individual being’. I must admit that this criticism will be rounded out by an essay I am preparing on ontology. Anyway, without the ability to join individuality to society in a deep way, individuality is anchorless.

2. Without concern for history and the politics of the day, its ontological concern is a farce. There is no search for constants. It is not even looking for what is permanent in human nature.

3. It does not aspire to change anything, especially ideas, and least of all big ideas like logic. It is crazy to accept your list of “given” and not go in search of what is behind those givens.

Do you really believe I am “fundamentally uncertain’? And, kindly remember I have told you were you can get my philosophic feast. Also it is not possible to transport serial Ideas into a Forum such as this. And, in response to your concluding comments, is it fair to describe your philosophic position as “shifty”?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Rod, while I'm not sure if we're in the same discussion yet, sharing the same interests, lets see what we can do.
“Existential philosophy, to be clear, is for me about asking the deepest questions about human nature at ones own peril.”

You best clear-up the matter of whether the “Existential” you refer to above is existentialism or the best ideas in philosophy as a whole.
Truth, reason, wisdom.... they all are naturally questioning existence and promoting self-knowledge. But as some kind of historical category, shifty as it may be, the essence of any "Existentialism" points to a certain opposition against "traditional systematic or academic philosophies" in the last two centuries, rather like Kierkegaard and his opposition ot the Danish state church. And in some ways the modern state church is bigger than ever. In the end, it's not even a movement, just the latest incarnation of known thinkers who were at least wise enough to state that "existence precedes essence". And for that reason I borrow the term to define the type of philosophy which interests me. More Kierkegaardian than Sartre I suppose.
1. On the matter of ‘being’, we are social beings and our identity has to be seen with reference to socio-political matters.
You're talking about various feedback mechanisms and intricate dynamics. It's not the existential view on identity. "Socio-political matters" might be in this context just as well be some reference to a world of daemons. It's not a world one can really fully access, like the microbiological. You're limited to the theoretical and crude experimental here.
2. Without concern for history and the politics of the day, its ontological concern is a farce. There is no search for constants. It is not even looking for what is permanent in human nature.
Only after it's understood that there's nothing permanent to find. That insight could "free" one up to be busy with history and politics in a whole other context, with whole other type of goals. Naturally that goes against the theology of any object-oriented "state church".
3. It does not aspire to change anything, especially ideas, and least of all big ideas like logic. It is crazy to accept your list of “given” and not go in search of what is behind those givens.
The first statement has no base, where does aspiration come from, how does change happen? It assumes way too much, that whole statement appears to be an artefact of looking through some kind of teleological "lens". No list of "givens" should be ever accepted of course, not within philosophy. Such doubt however sounds very existential to me.
Do you really believe I am “fundamentally uncertain’?...And, in response to your concluding comments, is it fair to describe your philosophic position as “shifty”?
The uncertainty is a given for my platform indeed. It leads me to view other people's certainties as artificial, geriatric helpers because of some fear of falling. Which is how I view the development of self and individuality, any development of consciousness as far as I can see. The question is however: can we go without? What would be left? How much of ourselves is actually caught up with the things we hold to be true or self-evident?
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Very well argued Diebert. I thought I had you pinned, but you wriggled brilliantly. I will let other enter this debate and will read your replies over again at a later date. Cheers.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Hegel's Problem

Post by Rod »

Diebert, I have had more time to afford to your responses.

Let me paraphrase your opening reply: Yes Rod, existentialism has taken the opportunity presented by your "great pause" to be the opposition to mainstream philosophy.

In regards to the totemic "existence precedes essence", "No". It is the other way around. Metaphysical essences precede appearances / existence, which is the point I am making on my Topic.

Re. your response to Quote 1. In regards to the limits of conventional reasoning you are quite right. I do claim to have made the socio-political reciprocal to our essential nature and this radically changes knowledge of identity. Still, I acknowledge you couched your response brilliantly with references to daemons and the inaccessibility of the microbiological. You pick good non-similes for your case.

Your responses to Quotes 2 & 3 repeat the above pattern. Conventional philosophy leaves much to be desired, etc, and you make easily-drawn inferences.

You did not actually do any wriggling; you answered squarely and gave us a lesson in existentialist scepticism. I recognise your ability to debate by taking words like 'shifty' and 'uncertainty' and using them how you prefer. The point I make in my paraphrase is that you know how to use your opponent's point. So again, very well argued, Diebert.

If I establish that essence precedes existence, that will make existentialism impossible, but you will manage. Thanks. It was fun.
Locked