I finished the first read of the objective logic, on to the ‘Notion’. We’re all gonna make it bros. I look forward to getting through this so I can reread it more or less at sight and then maybe I’ll genuinely understand it. I hung out with some guy from work who I saw reading analytic philosophy at his desk but he’s a normie agnostic atheist, very nice guy but what here would be called ‘Reddit’. He was kinda challenging me on my theism, like “wait are you an atheist or a theist?” (I’d made disparaging remarks about religion before, but my apartment has religious books and Marian artwork everywhere, a shrine to the Little Flower even). If by God you mean some dude in the sky who watches you masturbate then I’m an atheist, Aquinas is an atheist too by that metric. So there were cultural differences you might say that made it hard to have a decent convo, all of the philosophers I like are theists, but people like that have a truncated/retarded view of God so they don’t get it. Then I drank way too much out of nervousness and ended up telling stories of past degeneracy and heroin use, like a fucking idiot and massive cunt. What kind of guy talks about heroin with someone from work he hardly knows? After 13 or 14 beers, me.
I have a lot of thoughts on Hegel, I’m warming to the standard “positivist” criticism (Deleuze’s descends from this). His thinking is so monistic; I think Aristotle might have out-Hegel’d him with his views on the particular. To put it in simple terms I don’t think Hegel comes to grips with radical contingency and un-knowability. What’s Aristotle’s most powerful attack on Plato? That unity-itself is the emptiest idea imaginable. Now of course Hegel too rejects these sorts of abstraction. But he still seems to make everything absolutely ideal and I’m not sure about that. But idk dude is dense, thikkkk even, I don’t understand well enough to be criticizing, it’s gonna take a significant amount of time to come to terms with him. On the second readthrough of the logic I’ll write brief summations of every moment, and then on the THIRD reading, you best believe I’ll be a wizardly nigga.
4chan Search
7 results for "fd2ba32d222cbe64af1d72f01a7f8e9c"
>>24789988
>It should be obvious to a well read person that none of these camps are truly opposed.
Maybe you’re more of a Hegelian than you know.
>It should be obvious to a well read person that none of these camps are truly opposed.
Maybe you’re more of a Hegelian than you know.
Schopenhauer has insightful thoughts at times, my brothers and sisters do too and they’re retarded. The Schopenhauerfags need to learn what is SYSTEM. The fact that Schopenhauer is readable is actually evidence of his retardation. Heidegger said intelligibility is suicide for philosophy. Check out Fichte’s Grundlage it was written for freshmen.
>>24698404
Kant wasn’t an autist in real life, only in his study. People who met him said he was a charming, even enchanting character.
Kant wasn’t an autist in real life, only in his study. People who met him said he was a charming, even enchanting character.
>>24672873
>muh thing-in-itself
Yes thank you for illustrating my point, this is the issue. For Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Kant, there is no ding an sich in the sense in which you mean it. How can you have a thing in itself, only problematic for the I, as being a substrate of experience? What is this truth beyond what can be known, yet can be knowing, as “causing” and so on? This is PSEUD SLOP.
>muh thing-in-itself
Yes thank you for illustrating my point, this is the issue. For Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Kant, there is no ding an sich in the sense in which you mean it. How can you have a thing in itself, only problematic for the I, as being a substrate of experience? What is this truth beyond what can be known, yet can be knowing, as “causing” and so on? This is PSEUD SLOP.
>>149678563
Louise swelling up into a big juicy blueberry on the verge of popping
Louise swelling up into a big juicy blueberry on the verge of popping
“One of the best objections one could raise against transcendence idealism is as follows: ‘If nature is your own product, then how is it that you are nevertheless able to learn things from nature? If nature is your own product, then how is any research into nature possible? How could you perform any experiments? You must already be acquainted with nature. Therefore, despite what you claim, nature must also contain for you something more, something you did not expect to find. But this is the characteristic feature of ((posited being)). Consequently, you cannot have produced nature.’
Answer: Here we do no more than learn about ourselves and employ our faculty of judgment to analyze what is posited by the imagination. Nature in its entirety is a product of the imagination.”
Top kek this is why Fichte became a footnote, he simply refused to compromise with normie thinking. He’s actually not crazy and if you understand his philosophy that answer makes perfect sense.
Answer: Here we do no more than learn about ourselves and employ our faculty of judgment to analyze what is posited by the imagination. Nature in its entirety is a product of the imagination.”
Top kek this is why Fichte became a footnote, he simply refused to compromise with normie thinking. He’s actually not crazy and if you understand his philosophy that answer makes perfect sense.