/lit/ - Literature

>>9853303


Among the other features of this dogmatic image of thought is the presupposition of a good will on the part of the thinker, that human beings are naturally inclined towards thinking and the truth. People are often hard of hearing, eyesight, or even memory, yet that thinking is a difficult task, perhaps even something that must happen violently and involuntarily *to* the thinker is beyond all consideration for some. Certainly, if you reduce thinking to be entirely a matter of propositions, oppositions, negations, and reflection, error would appear to be the only error that a thinker could make. That a thinker could not merely err, but be stupid or malicious rarely crosses these people's minds. Perhaps it is because Hegel is the most supreme pit of stupidity. Having bathed in it, and breathed in its fumes, Hegelians have become so stuupid themselves they cannot imagine life otherwise.

What I mean here by stupidity is the inability to tell sense from non-sense. A proposition or question is nonsensical when it deals with something entirely unimportant and irrelevant. Error only becomes the primary foe of thought when you are a game show contestant. The real enemy is nonsense. If we go around asking about "the present king of France" we are asking a nonsensical question. It cannot be true nor false. Ordinary philosophers are rescued from nonsense because they *preserve* the common sense distribution of importance. That is, they are content with the way common sense prioritizes and cuts up the common field of sense, and content themselves with tracing it. Hegel however, being the model of an idiot, must alienate common sense notions by negation, and on its journey back to itself, it "discovers" the church, the state, and even God, reuniting harmoniously back in Kansas with a simple negation of this negation. Hegel's "circle of circles" is incapable of even thinking of decentering itself, of questioning the sensibility of what it entails with. It never moves beyond the slavish mindset of the dialectician, it instead enthrones stupidity. No amount of "reflection" can save thought from its own stupidity, it will just hide it with smoke and mirrors.