/lit/ - Literature

Hegel-tier bullshit

>>11891458
>Hegel-tier
Based

>>11891458
>bullshit
Cringe

Hyper-consciousness?

>>11891454
relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self

a system of the self interlinked within the self intelinked within the self intelinked within one stem

>>11891454
He means that the self is not conscious experience but rather the Experience which relates itself to itself in the sense of Internality. Experience-as-such and as-my-own, thereby circumventing the materialists who claim that the soul is a chemical phenomenon.
So
>“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self.”
essentially means the 'I' identifier is NOT consciousness-as-phenomenon but instead resides in that uniqueness of Experience which must be internal to yourself; Internality-as-Principle, as opposed to Consciousness as concept or even mechanism of observation etc.

Do you think these Hegelian motherfuckers take a second to look at themselves when they write this shit to go “damn is ANYONE gonna know what the fuck this means?”

>>11891458
>>11891515
It makes sense only you must not be stupid and must spend time upon the thought which is intricate and reaching for the limits of what can be said about some of the most complex subjects that can be contemplated.

>>11891493
Absolutely based post, fucking nailed it. Faith as internality.

>>11891493
Excellent post

>>11891493
I'm not sure if this will help clarify, but take for instance your experience at this moment.
Your self is not the aggregate of data impute from the external world (of which your body has come, is entirely of, and will return to, which is the reason you can interact with it at all) but instead your self is that unique Internal relation which arises amidst what is experienced consciously. Therefore, it is not all the phenomenon which come to be observed (consciousness as mechanism of observation) or even that which does the observing as most people conceive it to be, it isn't that "voice" inside but is rather that Principle of internality which allows for this relation of conscious-observation and external world to begin with.
Another way of looking at it would be to see it as the self is the only thing that can be called genuinely YOURS or you. Your body is of the external world. Your conceptions and observations as well. However, the Internality in which those participate is uniquely yours and does not arise from these things but rather precedes them and even facilitates them, at least in relation to your own self.
("The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self.”) and so on.

>>11891603
Kierkegaard's subject is the atma

>>11891609
>Kierkegaard's subject is the atma

>>11891609
Kierkegaard highlights the eternal "availability" of faith as an a priori inwardness, while the Hegel otoh temporalizes the atma as the dialectic ramification of sense-certainty

>>11891613
Of course it is, read Fear & Trembling and the relation of the individual to the universal

>>11891624
No you're a fucking retard. Nigger-rigging the highly analytic and rigorously construed notions of a Western philosopher with an ill-defined and easily manipulatable meme term from an Eastern faith. You're a bogus pseudo-intellectual

>>11891632
I imagine this is how Schelling spoke to Hegel most of the time

>>11891632
>I can't think outside pre-packaged boxes

"No."

>>11891493
My reading of it goes like this—Man is a synthesis between the finite and the infinite, etc., and the self as a relation is not negative unity but the positive third term—that is, man is body and soul/mind, but neither of these is the self, nor is the emergent interaction between the two the self (negative unity), but the self is the positive term (spirit, spirit is the self) which relates the two in their relation. Man is thus a body-soul-spirit triad, with his subjectivity prior to and not dependent on either his physical form or his cognition, but relating the two in the self-relation. Similar to your take, I think.

>>11891643
Absolutely nothing to do with what I said. The Hindu tradition is its own dialectical tradition with its own array of thinkers and its diverging array of conceptions of any particular terms.
Taking a term like Atman and saying DURR THIS IS WHAT KIERKEGAARD WAS TALKING ABOUT is the equivalent of a Chink reading Chinese philosophy and saying "Oh this is what the Westerners call the soul"

>>11891661
I agree.
>that is, man is body and soul/mind, but neither of these is the self, nor is the emergent interaction between the two the self (negative unity), but the self is the positive term (spirit, spirit is the self) which relates the two in their relation.
Exactly along this line, yes.

>The self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self relating to the self

>>11891664
Internality is witness-consciousness, simple as that

>>11891702
>simple as that
t. Retard

>>11891690
based as fuck recursions

>>11891707
Individual as the field of disclosure is prior to what is disclosed, this is the ground for faith

>If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.

>>11891661
>>11891664
>>11891702
>>11891725
>>11891766
This place has become as bad as /x/.

>>11892125
Note that happens whenever Eastern shits with the biggest non-arguments come in to remind them any idea actually developed by Westerners can be shoehorned to compare with their worthless drivel

>>11892125
>>11892140
Nice arguments.

>>11892172
POO IN THE LOO

>>11892183
Come back when you're detecting resonances of Evola in Kierkegaard, you east/west, continental/analytic, faith/rationality pseuds make me retch

>>11892192
POO
IN
THE
LOO

>>11892195
yawn

>>11892125

Your FACE has become as bad as /x/.

>>11891493
>essentially means the 'I' identifier is NOT consciousness-as-phenomenon but instead resides in that uniqueness of Experience which must be internal to yourself; Internality-as-Principle, as opposed to Consciousness as concept or even mechanism of observation etc.
I've said this in "what is art?" threads in relation to aesthetics using different terminology since I haven't read Kierkegaard and the responses I get are all "fuck off retard" tier. Are art threads just full of cancer, or what?

How does one deal with "the frozen past" has Kierkegaard put it? The time that is determined behind you, the frozen wasteland of spent moments which path-determines your current location and circumstance. It's sort of existentialist I don't know.

>>11892306
>Are art threads just full of cancer, or what?

Yeah they're mostly just filled with dipshits mad that people aren't still painting like Micheangelo and even bigger retards who think contemporary art is defendable