/lit/ - Literature

>>21966486
>Is it not an illusion to believe that reality has an internal logic, that ideas have a coherence, that contradictions can be solved?
No

>>21660523
>irrational desires
Or so it would seem...

>>21601500
>In an idealist paradigm it's not a problem
And yet so many find this pill to hard to swallow.

>Plain minds have not unreasonably taken exception to this subjective idealism, with its reduction of the facts of consciousness to a purely personal world, created by ourselves alone. For the true statement of the case is rather as follows. The things of which we have direct consciousness are mere phenomena, not for us only, but in their own nature; and the true and proper case of these things, finite as they are, is to have their existence founded not in themselves but in the universal divine Idea. This view of things, it is true, is as idealist as Kant’s; but in contradistinction to the subjective idealism of the Critical philosophy should be termed absolute idealism. Absolute idealism, however, though it is far in advance of vulgar realism, is by no means merely restricted to philosophy. It lies at the root of all religion; for religion too believes the actual world we see, the sum total of existence, to be created and governed by God.

>...the imagination of ordinary men feels a vehement reluctance to surrender its dearest conviction, that this aggregate of finitude, which it calls a world, has actual reality; and to hold that there is no world is a way of thinking they are fain to believe impossible, or at least much less possible than to entertain the idea that there is no God. Human nature, not much to its credit, is more ready to believe that a system denies God, than that it denies the world. A denial of God seems so much more intelligible than a denial of the world.

200 years after Hegel and these "plain mind" still can't accept the truth.

>>21588356
Nope.

>The only mere physicists are the animals: they alone do not think: while man is a thinking being and a born metaphysician.

To my bros struggling to understand what Hegel means by "sublate" ("aufheben").

From the man himself

>Spirit on its part is not merely a world beyond Nature and nothing more: it is really, and with full proof, seen to be spirit, only when it involves Nature as absorbed in itself. Apropos of this, we should note the double meaning of the German word aufheben (to put by or set aside). We mean by it (1) to clear away, or annul: thus, we say, a law or regulation is set aside; (2) to keep, or preserve: in which sense we use it when we say: something is well kept or preserved. This double usage of language, which gives to the same word a positive and negative meaning, is not an accident, and gives no ground for reproaching language as a cause of confusion. We should rather recognise in it the speculative spirit of our language rising above the mere ‘either-or’ of understanding.

>>21569154
Only momentarily, as a moment in the development of absolute knowing, and so your quote is out of context and only a half truth. The full truth is that there would also be no empirical physics without ideas, and therefore thinking and ideas and idealism are also a presupposition and condition of empirical physics, whether the physicist knows it or not.

>>21536524
And use that as the context for

>The whole of philosophy in this way resembles a circle of circles.

>>21533231
>...we find thought opposed to immediate knowledge and faith, and, in particular, to intuition. But if this INTUITION BE QUALIFIED AS INTELLECTUAL, we must really mean intuition which thinks, unless, in a question about the nature of God, we are willing to interpret intellect to mean images and representations of imagination. The word faith or belief, in the dialect of this system, comes to be employed even with reference to common objects that are present to the senses. We believe, says Jacobi, that we have a body — we believe in the existence of the things of sense. But if we are speaking of faith in the True and Eternal, and saying that God is given and revealed to us in immediate knowledge or intuition, we are concerned not with the things of sense, but with OBJECTS SPECIAL TO OUR THINKING MIND, with truths of inherently universal significance. And when the individual ‘I’, or in other words personality, is under discussion — not the ‘I’ of experience, or a single private person — above all, when the personality of God is before us, we are speaking of personality unalloyed — of a personality in its own nature universal. Such personality is a thought, and falls within the province of thought only. More than this. Pure and simple intuition is completely the same as pure and simple thought. Intuition and belief, in the first instance, denote the definite conceptions we attach to these words in our ordinary employment of them: and to this extent they differ from thought in certain points which nearly every one can understand. But here they are taken in a higher sense, and must be interpreted to mean a belief in God, or AN INTELLECTUAL INTUITION OF GOD; in short, we must put aside all that especially distinguishes thought on the one side from belief and intuition on the other. How belief and intuition, when transferred to these higher regions, differ from thought, it is impossible for any one to say.

>>21457436
>you know that you can't levitate yet feel the need to lie.

Tsk tsk tsk. What a mediocre mind you must be to not be able to contemplate the conditions that would make organically-produced anti-gravitational effects actual.

Hegel: >But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim.

>>21455258
You are on the path my son. Continue onward in your dialectic until you see the solution. Then will ascend to the stand3 of speculation.


Gott mit uns