BidenPresident
Verified User
You have the knowledge of a college freshman in the third week of an intro to philosophy class. Have some modesty.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hegel vs. Kierkegaard
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
You have the knowledge of a college freshman in the third week of an intro to philosophy class. Have some modesty.
You have the knowledge of a college freshman in the third week of an intro to philosophy class. Have some modesty.
So you made the mistake of assuming I wrote the OP, but are now simply incapable of acknowledging you were wrong and what I did was post some thoughts by an expert scholar - standard practice on jpp.
BidenPresident
Verified User
So you made the mistake of assuming I wrote the OP, but are now simply incapable of acknowledging you were wrong and what I did was post some thoughts by a n expertscholar - standard practice on jpp.
You're too emotional to do philosophy.
BidenPresident
Verified User
This is from the introduction of Hegel's, Phenomenology of Spirit.
"The more conventional opinion gets fixated
on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect
a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It
does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as
the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees in it simple
disagreements. " (preface, p. 2)
Hegel is explaining what he thinks philosophy is about. He is contesting the idea that philosophy is about being right or wrong and pointing out mistakes.
"The more conventional opinion gets fixated
on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect
a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It
does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as
the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees in it simple
disagreements. " (preface, p. 2)
Hegel is explaining what he thinks philosophy is about. He is contesting the idea that philosophy is about being right or wrong and pointing out mistakes.
Last edited:
You're too emotional to do philosophy.
You have posted frequently about science, even though it is obvious you never passed freshman year physics or chemistry - but I don't pursue you around the board scolding you about it.
I am not interested in the reasons for your obsessive resentment, you are the one who has to live with it.
BidenPresident
Verified User
"Such minds, when
they give themselves up to the uncontrolled ferment of (the
divine] substance, imagine that, by drawing a veil over self-consciousness and surrendering understanding they become the
beloved of God to whom He gives wisdom in sleep; and hence
what they in fact receive, and bring to birth in their sleep) is
nothing but dreams." (preface, sect 10)
The work of thinking and analysis cannot be substituted with revelation. Hegel is here saying that right belief cannot be the purpose of philosophy.
they give themselves up to the uncontrolled ferment of (the
divine] substance, imagine that, by drawing a veil over self-consciousness and surrendering understanding they become the
beloved of God to whom He gives wisdom in sleep; and hence
what they in fact receive, and bring to birth in their sleep) is
nothing but dreams." (preface, sect 10)
The work of thinking and analysis cannot be substituted with revelation. Hegel is here saying that right belief cannot be the purpose of philosophy.
A little thread drift here on the difference between what we learn and what we retain. The more difficult the topic the more I have to reread it 2 or 3 times until I understand it. Only then can I decide if I agree or disagree. Carl Sagan is one of my favorite writers but I didn't retain a word he wrote because his writing style makes it too easy of a read. I can sit for a few hours, dig deep into my mind and recall every chapter of a German writer simply because it was such a difficult read. German writers taught me how to think.
BidenPresident
Verified User
"86. Inasmuch as the new true object issues from it, this dialectical
movement which consciousness exercises on itself and which
affects both its knowledge and its object, is precisely what is
called experience [Eifahrung]. "
This section seems available to understand. Hegel's project is explaining experience. By phenomenology he means the science of experience.
The passages I quoted do not seem to be too hard to comprehend.
movement which consciousness exercises on itself and which
affects both its knowledge and its object, is precisely what is
called experience [Eifahrung]. "
This section seems available to understand. Hegel's project is explaining experience. By phenomenology he means the science of experience.
The passages I quoted do not seem to be too hard to comprehend.
BidenPresident
Verified User
This section of Hegel is a bit more complicated. But he is now explaining what the meaning and process of consciousness is.
"Consciousness
simultaneously distinguishes itself from something, and at the
same time relates itself to it, or, as it is said, this something exists
for consciousness; and the determinate aspect of this relating,
or of the being of something for a consciousness, is knowing. "
More difficult, but I think worth trying to figure out. Consciousness does not just directly apprehend the world but makes an object out of it and thinks about it as a new object.
You can read all the commentary you want, but this section is the essence of his philosophy.
"Consciousness
simultaneously distinguishes itself from something, and at the
same time relates itself to it, or, as it is said, this something exists
for consciousness; and the determinate aspect of this relating,
or of the being of something for a consciousness, is knowing. "
More difficult, but I think worth trying to figure out. Consciousness does not just directly apprehend the world but makes an object out of it and thinks about it as a new object.
You can read all the commentary you want, but this section is the essence of his philosophy.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Hegel is referring back to Plato and Socrates. We can reason about the world and find truth from that process. We don't need outside experts to tell us what the truth is.
Do you agree or disagree with Hegel on consciousness? Please explain why.This section of Hegel is a bit more complicated. But he is now explaining what the meaning and process of consciousness is.
"Consciousness
simultaneously distinguishes itself from something, and at the
same time relates itself to it, or, as it is said, this something exists
for consciousness; and the determinate aspect of this relating,
or of the being of something for a consciousness, is knowing. "
More difficult, but I think worth trying to figure out. Consciousness does not just directly apprehend the world but makes an object out of it and thinks about it as a new object.
You can read all the commentary you want, but this section is the essence of his philosophy.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Do you agree or disagree with Hegel on consciousness? Please explain why.
Agree. Consciousness is a mediator. Typically we think consciousness is merely subjectivity. Here he is saying that thoughts themselves have objectivity.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Do you agree or disagree with Hegel on consciousness? Please explain why.
Let's say you are looking at a tree. We form a perception of the tree. The perception is about the tree, yet exists independently in our consciousness.
The objectivity of the perception is the fact that we hold it in our consciousness.
The earth exists for awareness? Come on BP, help me out here.Agree. Consciousness is a mediator. Typically we think consciousness is merely subjectivity. Here he is saying that thoughts themselves have objectivity.
BidenPresident
Verified User
The earth exists for awareness? Come on BP, help me out here.
I don't think I said that. Consciousness does not cause the materiality of the world.
Hegel vs. the materialism of Newton and the empiricism of Locke. This seemingly gets at the question of what kind of knowlege science is giving us, and whether or not it is giving us insight into ultimate reality.
Though he admires Newton, Hegel regards Newton’s work as making it possible for Locke’s philosophy to become nearly official. The commitment to perceptual modes of knowledge and the shunning of deeper metaphysical considerations are products of this mode of thinking. If the world is defined as merely the action of corpuscles, the laws governing corpuscles will be all that will be studied; everything else will be ignored. And the discovered causal laws could, in fact, be entirely different without raising any surprise or concern. If instead of F = ma, the relationship had been F = 5m + 3.2a, it would be no occasion for debate. Thus, the scientist gives us no complete comprehension of the natural world. Through these mere summaries of. correlations and cause-effect sequences, he never arrives at what the rest of us call “reality.” Nothing in the Newtonian achievement explains just why the laws are as they are. Why is everything the way it is and not some different way instead?
According to Hegel, we ought to be looking not merely for those causal connections revealed in scientific laws but for the reason behind the laws, because reality is rational.
Source credit: Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Oxford University
The brain has to interpret what the eyes see. If we both paint the same tree, we'll end up with 2 different trees. That makes the tree subjective.I don't think I said that. Consciousness does not cause the materiality of the world.
BidenPresident
Verified User
The brain has to interpret what the eyes see. If we both paint the same tree, we'll end up with 2 different trees. That makes the tree subjective.
Or you could say there is no tree separate from perception.
it depends on one's goals.A little thread drift here on the difference between what we learn and what we retain. The more difficult the topic the more I have to reread it 2 or 3 times until I understand it. Only then can I decide if I agree or disagree. Carl Sagan is one of my favorite writers but I didn't retain a word he wrote because his writing style makes it too easy of a read. I can sit for a few hours, dig deep into my mind and recall every chapter of a German writer simply because it was such a difficult read. German writers taught me how to think.
I leaned a lot of physics without ever having actually read Newton's Principia or Einstein's landmark 1905 paper on special relativity. I certainly never read the original research papers of James Clark Maxwell or Niels Bohr, nor were they required reading in any physics class I took.
On the other hand, I have made it a project in the last three years to learn something about 2,500 years of western and eastern philosophy.
That simply does not leave me the time to read the collected works of Plato, Aristotle, Laozi, Mencius, Boethius, Abelard, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sarte, Heidegger, etc.
The only realistic way for me to approach this is to learn about these thinkers and their philosophies by reading survey books and learning from scholars who are subject matter experts.
When I examine the tree using DNA, it will look half human. The entire multiverse is made of the same elements. Hegel was unaware of this at the time.Or you could say there is no tree separate from perception.