This is embarrassing. Why did anyone ever take Hegel seriously?

This is embarrassing. Why did anyone ever take Hegel seriously?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Continental philosophy starts to make a lot more sense when you realize that it’s an entire school of thought that regularly falls for sloppy thinking like this.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, Hegel is the biggest fraud in the history of philosophy and his historicist view paved the way for existentialism, materialism and individualism which are the root causes of the collapse of western civilization. We know.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What's the problem here? Seems logical to me

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I don't understand how he gets from "what has been, is not" to "the 'Now' is". He seems to be taking the principle from formal logic that not(not(X)) is equivalent to X and applying it in a loose, haphazard way to a scenario where it doesn't actually apply.
      >The moment that was Now, has already been superseded - it has been
      Ok
      >What has been, is not
      Sure
      >So we've negated the negation, and the Now 'is'!
      Well no, that's not how this works. It's hard to even formulate a criticism because it's such a non sequitur. You can't just say "we went through two steps that kind of look like logical negation if you squint hard enough, therefore we arrive back at the starting point". When he says "what has been, is not" he's really just stating an empty truism - a rephrasing. There's no "movement" in that proposition back to the starting point.
      This is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking that Russell and Moore wanted to reject with analytic philosophy.
      He continues to go off the rails by assuming that he's somehow shown that "the Now is actually a plurality of Nows". There may or may not be a substantive metaphysical thesis in there worth exploring, but Hegel has neither formulated a substantive thesis or provided argumentative support for it because he's basically just playing free association games with words.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The "problem" with logic is that you can kinda just make up your own rules. What is wrong with that conclusion? I have a hard time understanding why people have such a hard time getting into his stuff.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Not him but I agree with him, it appears to be a series of non-sequiturs.

          >I have a hard time understanding why people have such a hard time getting into his stuff.

          Well if "his stuff" makes no sense, why bother getting in to it?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't even about not making any sense, he is basically saying that the "Now" isn't "a thing", but a movement instead of a thing. Is that so hard to understand?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              It unironically "makes more sense" than saying that everything is made of water. And I don't see anyone complaining about Thales.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              No, that's retarded and defending your interpretation of what is written on the page dumber.

              He is not asserting that the Now doesn't exist, but asserting that the Now "consists of a plurality of nows" (eg minutes, hours, days) which ultimately encompass everything when taken together. And he thus ends with with "learning that Now is a universal", which does not follow from his specious logic.

              It's sophistry. Stop defending this fucking garbage.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                When you realized you thought that the logic was bullshit, was it at the same individual moment that you decided it was bullshit?

                Or does knowing it's bullshit happen right after deciding it is bullshit?

                If the two movements are simultaneous then you could process an infinite number of propositions and conclusions in a single moment. Whether we slice it in a milli second or an hour, whatever the space of two "frames" is.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This isn't a syllogism, he's describing the most atomic moment in the dialectic. Speaking the 'Now' happens from a point of place that has superseded it just by also being a 'Now.' There is a kind of self-propulsive sameness in the Idea.

        It's the first chapter in the Phenomenology, the rest of the book is that 'substantive thesis' or 'argumentative support' just by demonstration.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This is my interpretation of the thing: that as I move from the "now" into the "has-been", I claim that "it is not" - but WHEN is it not? Surely it is not NOW. However I shake the proposition, I find myself asserting something about the state of things NOW. And from thence the plurality of nows.
        This is more obvious in his other demonstration: I name something This, but "this is really something other", and by claiming that I have already vindicated This since the Other is also a This.
        >This is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking that Russell and Moore wanted to reject with analytic philosophy.
        I think this is just a question of sloppy style. But sloppy, or at least lazy thinking I can find in Russell's and Moore's critiques of Hegel.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        No it's actually perfectly reasonable. And by reasonable I don't mean intuitive, but following reason. First there is an assertion, "now", which is followed by a second assertion which further determines the first, "that 'now' is no longer 'now' but a past 'now'", but which considered again becomes a reassertion of the past 'now' against the present 'now'. Presently the past 'now' is asserted, i.e. the past is now. In other words, a time is pointed out and given a sign and this sign persists even though the original referent disappears.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Or put even simpler, the act of pointing out something that is supposedly immeidate "this thing RIGHT HERE" involves conceptual operations which betray mediation.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's because you are smart and other people are stupid. Good job!

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Thousands of smart people worked on Christian theology for thousands of years. It was still all bullshit. It's not hubris on my part to point out that it was all bullshit.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Reading PDFs is embarrassing.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Are you rich?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Nope. PDFs are just terrible. If someone shares a pdf with you disregard their input immediately.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >picks a bad pdf
          Yeah, whatever.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            All pdfs are bad pdfs. I did not pick a bad pdf. As in, I did not even pick a pdf.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          .pdfs are better than .epubs because it looks more like an actual tangible page, the artificiality of reading on a screen is counteracted somewhat and you have suspension of disbelief

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            the intentional avoidance of critical thinking or logic is really the reason you read pdfs? To avoid critical thinking?

  6. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Behold a man levels of sophistry
    Philosophy would have benefited from more Diogenes-level shitposters.

  7. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Because Fuck You that's why.

  8. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.