/lit/ - Literature

>>13112554
look, I get you're trying to be funny but it just comes off as embarrassing
read.

>>13112554
try actually reading.

>>13112572
No, I'm serious. Why the fuck is he taken seriously? It's no wonder he lent himself to fascism later on considering the utter irrationalism of such a system.

>>13112580
how can you say stuff like this not having read a single word of his?

>>13112554
Only Marxists take him seriously.

so did Heraclitus, Socrates, Hume, Kant, ect.

>>13112590
NAME ONE, PETERSON.

>>13112587
I've read plenty of his. Phenomenology of Spirit, parts of Philosophy of Right, and some of his lectures. It's just embarrassing.

I mean, let me reiterate. The man literally thought the principle of non-contradiction was false. And then he has the audacity to claim that which is rational is real.

The only thing worse than this guy, honestly, is Marx, who is also a Hegelian.

>>13112590
>>13112595
I'M NOT TRYING TO POINT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR CALL YOU A FUCKING IDIOT OR WHATEVER BUT CAN YOU NAME ONE?

Haven’t read him, what do you mean by this

>>13112595
My former philosophy professor, Ms. Shekelstein.

>>13112595
Kek

>>13112554
>>13112596
Nigga, it is obvious to see that you never read hegel, and I'm pretty sure you are retard enough to not capable of reading a book, so I'll give a link;

https://youtu.be/ARarjQYOhA4
watch this video and just little bit more knowledgeable at hegel, at least to take out some pure-bashing memes such as "Hegel thought contradiction is OK".

>>13112554
Contradictions are true
What’s difficult to understand?
Am I missing something?

>The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole. But contradiction as between philosophical systems is not wont to be conceived in this way; on the other hand, the mind perceiving the contradiction does not commonly know how to relieve it or keep it free from its one-sidedness, and to recognise in what seems conflicting and inherently antagonistic the presence of mutually necessary moments.

>>13112595
why would peterson need to name a marxist when zizek already did it for him?

>>13112595
literally zizek

>>13112640
Zizek isn't a marxist, he just pays lip service to his marxist audience.

>>13112616
I've read Hegel. Imagine thinking he didn't think there are true contradictions, even Graham Priest thinks that.

>>13112640
Zizek is a Lacanian Hegelian

>>13112640
that's the joke

>>13112554
With time the principle of non-contradiction is overcome. With time two things can occupy the same position and a thing can become its other.

>>13112685
formal logic and physics are ultimately incompatible

>>13112689
we're not talking about physics or formal logic, we're talking meta-physics. aristotle held the principle of non-contradiction to be the first principle of metaphysics, while hegel thought that it was insufficient as a first principle because reality is not a static identity but a becoming.

>>13112701
metaphysics is formal logic

>>13112685
I’d say it’s more like, the union of what seemed like two things was always meant to be one thing. Same goes the other way. Played in sequence it looks like cause and effect, played in rewind it looks like destiny. You have to get rid of the idea of synthesis, Hegel may has seen it as a stepping stone and therefore useful, but there’s an inherent void of manifest destiny, which is really what Hegel is in about, hence the Phoenix reference. It’s not that x is not-x, but that they belong to each other, they define each other. The other is what it is by direct reference to the other. Epicurus says learning how to live means learning how to die. Birth and death seem contradictory but this is meant, a Hegelian would say destined, to be overcome. Because they are reference to one and the same thing to each other

>>13112656
My god, man, I've seen mile from that. Seriously. ONLY GRAHAM PRIEST thinks hegel is in dialetheism right now in contemporary philosophy field. He is just near logician stemed in analytic logic - not Hussell's phenomenology or Aufheben in dialectic, Die Hard dialetheist, who thinks buddhist nagarjuna middle way can be solved with this way when people in buddhology really dont want to talk at him.
If you really want to give some reference on Hegel then get it in genuine Hegel scholar such as Charles Taylor, or at least Pittsburgh School for allah's sake

>>13112685
I’d say it’s more like, the union of what seemed like two things was always meant to be one thing. Same goes the other way. Played in sequence it looks like cause and effect, played in rewind it looks like destiny. You have to get rid of the idea of synthesis, Hegel may has seen it as a stepping stone and therefore useful, but there’s an inherent void of manifest destiny, which is really what Hegel is in about, hence the Phoenix reference. It’s not that x is not-x, but that they belong to each other, they define each other. The other is what it is by direct reference to the other. Epicurus says learning how to live means learning how to die. Birth and death seem contradictory but this is meant, a Hegelian would say destined, to be overcome. Because they are reference to one and the same thing to each other

>>13112554

>>13112712
i'm dying of boredom rn

>>13112711
Not really, I took a Hegel class from a Hegel scholar and read the Science of Logic. Not only does Hegel actually endorse contradictions in said text and in the Encyclopedia Logic, since I read his words verbatim on the subject, but from my professor and other Hegel scholarship I read for that class, I think it's far from controversial to say Hegel endorsed contradictions. I've since had the chance to talk to other Hegel scholars in person when visiting PhD programs I applied to, and it was never put into doubt when I brought it up, quite the contrary. It's true that the matter is more complicated. Although Hegel accepts contradictions existing, he thinks contradicting existents are ontologically "less real." Fullest reality would solve the contradictions.

>>13112705
i'm afraid that's not true.
>>13112712
i'm well aware, i was explaining in simple pictorial language. put concisely, we would say that a contradiction in terms is overcome by an abstraction from those two terms to a new third term term which embraces (preserves) and cancels the old contradiction.

>>13112749
>i'm afraid that's not true.
lol

>>13112736
>Ctrl + F "Hegel"
>Total 7
>most of them were bragging about (you)
>feelbadman.jpg

Suddenly you have all of it and the way you opened this thread became outstanding as winterfell battle!

Seriously, if you know some type of PhD who talks like this then give me some papers, of Acceptance of contradiction in Hegel and relation with paraconsistent logic, with the link such as philpapers.org
I really need it in my paper the part containing history of non classical logic, the whole reason I know this such well was this

ahem

>>13112787
Schopenhauer took him seriously, he just didn't like him. I bet most of his dislike stemmed from jealousy though, that old coat wearing bastard garnered all the attention.

>>13112554
Contradictions CAN be true though. It's flawed human logic and arrogance that leads us to believe otherwise.

>>13112796
he disliked hegel because he was his polar opposite

>>13112787
no

>>13112554
*teleports behind you*

>>13112787
>be Schopenhauer
>the world is just an idea
>the world is actually will, blind striving
>the world is suffering
>the world is evil
>unless your a genius
>women suck

vs

>be Hegel
>the world is realized in the idea
>history is a people’s destiny toward freedom
>the abstract is more real than the actual
>there are stages of consciousness, there is merit in everything
>the real is rational and the rational is real
>God is not only a cause but a result

Cmon guys

>>13112780
I made that post but no other post in this thread, and I'm not OP. I am actually pretty down with dialetheism myself. I don't have any papers to give you but I recommend you take a look at Science of Logic 11.287:

>One must concede to the dialecticians of old the contradictions which they pointed to in motion; but what follows from them is not that motion is not but that it is rather contradiction as existent.

Or 11.289:

>The upshot of this examination of the nature of contradiction is that, if a contradiction can be pointed out in something, by itself this is still not, as it were, a blemish, not a defect or failure. on the contrary, every determination, anything concrete, every concept, is essentially a unity of distinguished and distinguishable elements which, by virtue of the determinate, essential difference, pass over into elements which are contradictory.

I also recall Hegel speaking of the contradiction of a sick man in that he would have the concept man, but in being sick he does not fully have it or something like that, in the Encyclopedia Logic. I seem to remember that passage committing him to dialetheism but I don't have it with me to check.

>>13112554
*teleports behind you*

>>13112554
>This guy LITERALLY thought contradictions could be true.

>>13112554
Because the west's last serious philosopher was St Thomas Aquinas

>>13112837
>ruminates aristotelian logic
>shits theological nonsense
>serious philosopher
gr8 b8 m8

Deterritorialization

>>13112837
Really "actualized" your "potential" faggotry on this one

>>13112842
>>13112848
Tough talk from brainlets that refute themselves in the first page of their first book.
It's Thomism or burst. Nothing more to say.

>>13112873
Not those anons but this is a very closed-minded take about the entirety of post-Aquinas western philosophy. Are you a Catholic?

>>13112873
I don't know why you bother to come here and beat your chest, Feser. /lit/ is a Kantian board.

>>13112877
I've become Catholic when I realized the whole of the """""enlightment"""""'s philosophy was based on pretending that Thomism had been btfo.
But nobody actually addressed anything close to the point.
>>13112883
>Kantian
Pure lol

Aufhebung is not contradiction. The Absolute is without contradiction...

>>13112910
And yet It constantly contraddicts itself.

>>13112893
Thomists have a habit of saying this, but I've never seen one who could offer a robust response to the Kantian objections. They either retreat into silence or start gibbering about "non-contingency," after which they retreat into silence anyway because they realize how idiotic the words they just typed were.

>>13112830
The title of the book is "World as Will and Idea." Regarding the stuff about women: Hegel thought living in a desert turned you into a retard, Kant thought blacks were subhuman, Stirner thought there was a clear Negroid-Mongoloid-Caucasoid interaction that corresponded to the stages of the Fichtean dialectic. As for Marx:
>The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I'm glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation.
Not all ideas age well.

>>13112943
I was making the case for Hegel anon wtf

>>13112923
Perhaps people stop arguing with You because they realize You're a retard and feel bad about humiliating you?
Ever thought of that?

>>13113202
I discounted that possibility immediately because they all start off like you, blustering, swaggering, supremely confident in their unmatched Scholastic intelligence and Big Daddy Tommy, then desiccate, friable as a clod of red dust, on contact with the Transcendental Dialectic. I'm waiting. Show me how retarded I am by using Thomistic Scholasticism to sufficiently refute the Kantian objections.

>>13113196
I know. I think you misrepresent Schopenhauer egregiously. He never says that "the world is evil," or that "life is evil," or any such nonsense. Is the rock that falls and crushes your limbs "evil"?

>>13113235
He makes the case for it numerous times when he says the will leads to desire which leads to suffering making life evil for all stuck in the chain except for the genius who overcomes his desire and carries around a copy of the Upanishads have u read him anon?

>>13112943
>Hegel thought living in a desert turned you into a retard, Kant thought blacks were subhuman
What the fuck? How could they think that? Those are among the most intelligent men who have ever lived, yet even they had such prejudiced and baseless opinions about things...

>>13113254
>suffering is evil
If you had read him, you would realize how idiotic an interpretation this is. That something is undesirable does not make it "evil." And he says in World as Will and Idea that two fundamental temperaments have access to knowledge of the Will: the "saintly" and the "artistic." To conflate these as "genius" is a reduction no one who read him would ever make.

>>13112554
Hegel straight up notes the law of non-contradiction as a truism, in passing, in one of his texts. Also, you don't know about his actual philosophy.

>>13112834
lol

>>13112830
exactly, artie thought and hegel taught

>>13112883
lit wishes it was kantian, but that said, wheres the space in kantianism for shitposting?

>>13112554
not that i endorse hegel, i do agree with artie that hes a charlatan. its not that there is no substance, its just sparse and simple when it is. more power to hegel for making it seem profound. i bet he would have been a captivating lecturer.

the problem here is only apparent. take: 'all things change' and 'all things stay the same'. that it is a contradiction is only troubling to someone who doesn't comprehend it at level beyond logical though, on a meta-ontic plane you might say.

>>13112596
no, all that's real is rational and contradictions are real so they're rational e.g. the set of all sets is the dialectical movement at the heart of set theory

>>13113270
Kant basically never left his hometown and blindly believed the ludicrously racist accounts of European explorers of foreign lands. He should've utilized more of his critical thinking skills.

>>13112830
the virgin Schopenhauer vs. the chad Hegel

>>13112554
And they do exist. Prove me wrong, PROFESSIONAL TIP = You can't.

>>13112580
>It's no wonder he lent himself to fascism later on

holy fuck

look, if you're going to regurgitate the same old midwit analytic platitudes of the early 20th century anglo cult of anti-idealism go right ahead, in this day and age you cant expect the average person to create any thought more profound than crass materialist borderline scientism anyway, you're products of your environment. i get it.

but for the love of god leave analytic ethics behind. literally some of the dumbest shit ever uttered came from the likes of russell and popper. HURR DURR HEGEL WAS A FASCIST BUT ALSO A COMMUNIST HURRR MUH OPEN SOCIETY just stop. ethical philosophy is dead enough as it is.

>>13112626
Based

>>13112554
Contradicting statements can and often are true. That's because neither represents the wholeness of truth.

>>13112554

This guy LITERALLY thought contradictions could be true.

And yet, contradictions do not exist. Curious.

>>13112554
Consider the contradiction you perceive there, and if you're in the correct or he is.

>>13113435

> All satisfaction, or what is commonly called happiness, is, in reality and essence, negative only. . . . We are not properly conscious of the blessings and advantages we actu- ally possess, nor do we prize them, but think of them merely as a matter of course, for they gratify us only negatively, by restraining suffering. Only when we have lost them d* we become sensible of their value; for the want, the priva- tion, the sorrow, is the positive thing, communicating itself directly to us. . . . What was it that led the Cynics to re- pudiate pleasure in any form, if it was not the fact that pain is, in a greater or less degree, always bound up with pleasure? . . . The same truth is contained in that fine French proverb: le mieux est Vennemi du bien—leave well enough alone
>For as the phenomenon of will becomes more complete, the suffering becomes more and more apparent. In the plant there is as yet no sensibility, and therefore no pain. A cer- tain very small degree of suffering is experienced by the
lowestspeciesofanimallife—InfusoriaandRadiata; even in insects the capacity to feel and suffer is still limited. It first appears in a high degree with the complete nervous system of vertebrate animals, and always in a higher degree the more intelligence develops. Thus, in proportion as knowledge attains to distinctness, as consciousness ascends, pain also increases, and reaches its highest degree in man. And then, again, the more distinctly a man knows—the more intelligent he is—the more pain he has ; the man who is gifted with genius suffers most of all.

(1/2)

>>13113435
>The young hydra, which grows like a bud out of the old one, and afterwards separates itself from it, fights, while it is still joined to the old one, for the prey that offers itself, so that the one snatches it out of the mouth of the other. But the bull-dog ant of Australia affords us the most extra- ordinary example of this kind ; for if it is cut in two, a battle begins between the head and the tail. The head seizes the tail with its teeth, and the tail defends itself bravely by stingingthehead; thebattlemaylastforhalfanhour,un- til they die or are dragged away by other ants. This con- test takes place every time the experiment is tried. . . • Yunghahn relates that he saw in Java a plain, as far as the eye eould reach, entirely covered with skeletons, and took it for a battle-field ; they were, however, merely the skeletons of large turtles, . . . which come this way out of the sea to lay their eggs, and are then attacked by wild dogs who with their united strength lay them on their backs, strip off the small shell from the stomach, and devour them alive. But often then a tiger pounces upon the dogs. . . . For this these turtles are born. . . . Thus the will to live everywhere preys upon itself, and in different forms is its own nourish- ment, till finally the human race, because it subdues all the others, regards nature as a manufactory for its own use. Yet even the human race . . . reveals in itself with most terrible distinctness this conflict, this variance of the will with itself; and we find homo hommi lupus.
>If we should bring clearly to a man's sight the terrible sufferings and miseries to which his life is constantly ex- posed, he would be seized with horror; aiid if we were to conduct the confirmed optimist through the hospitals, in- firmaries* and surgical operating-rooms, through the prisons, torture-chambers, and slave kennels, over battle-fields and places of execution ; if we were to open to him all the dark abodes of misery, where it hides itself from the glance of cold curiosity, and, finally, allow him to look into the starving dungeons of Ugolino, he too would understand at last the nature of this "best of all possible worlds.'* For whence did Dante take the materials of his hell but from our actual world? And yet he made a very proper hell out of it. But wihen, on the other hand, he came to describe heaven and its delights, he had an insurmountable difficulty before him, for pur world affords no materials at all for this. . . . Every epic and dramatic poem can only represent a struggle, an effort,afightforhappiness; neverenduringandcomplete happiness itself. It conducts its heroes through a thousand dangersanddifficultiestothegoal; assoonasthisisreached it hastens to let the curtain fall; for now there would remain nothing for it to do but to show that the glittering goal in which the hero expected to find happiness had only disappointed him, and that after its attainment he was no better than before.

(1/2)

>>13113435
>The cheerfulness and vivacity of youth are partly due to the fact that when we are ascending the hill of life, death is not visible ; it lies down at the bottom of the other side. . • . Towards the close of life, every day we live gives us the same kind of sensation as the criminal experiences at every step on his way to the gallows. ... To see how short life is, one must have lived long. . . . Up to our thirty-sixth year we may be compared, in respect to the way in which we use our vital energy, to people who live on the interest of their money; what they spend today they have again tomorrow. But from the age of thirty-six onward, pur position is like that of the investor who begins to entrench on his capital. • . • It is the dread of this calamity that makes love of pos- session increase with age. . . .So far from youth being the happiest period of life, there is much more truth in the re- mark made by Plato, at the beginning of the Republic, that the prize should rather be given to old age, because then at last a man is freed from the animal passion which has hith- erto never ceased to disquiet him. . . . Yet it should not be forgotten that, when this passion is extinguished, the true kernel of life is gone, and nothing remains but the hollow shell; or, from another point of view, life then becomes like a comedy which, begun by real actors, is continued and brought to an end by automata dressed in their clothes.

(2/2)

>>13115072
Wtf I love butterfly now

>>13113435
>How unwillingly we think of things which powerfully in- jure our interests, wound our pride, or interfere with our wishes ; with what difficulty do we determine to lay such things before our intellects for careful and serious investigation. ... In that resistance of the will to allowing what is contrary to it to come under the examination of the in- tellect lies the place at which madness can break in upon the mind. ... If the resistance of the will against the appre- hension of some knowledge reaches such a degree that that operation is not performed in its entirety, then certain elements or circumstances become for the intellect completely
suppressed, because the will cannot endure the sight of them; and then, for the sake of the necessary connections, the gaps that thus arise are filled up at pleasure; thus madness
appears. For the intellect has given up its nature to please the will; the man now imagines what does not exist. Yet the madness which has thus arisen is the lethe of unendurable suffering ; it was the last remedy of harassed nature, i. e., of the will.

(2/2)

To-
>>13115292
>>13115311
>>13115319
>>13115331

>>13113435
I await your response anon :)

>>13112787
FUCK existence, FUCK hegel and FUCK old women

>>13115292
Is this Hegel? Cuz holy absolute brainlet
>durrr we only know what happy is because sometimes we sad
Fr? They called this nigga the next Aristotle?

>>13115363
that's schopenhauer

>>13115368
no it's kant

>>13112554
>This guy LITERALLY thought contradictions could be true
Didn't this idea more or less come from Kant? Isn't that just German idealism in general?

>>13115340
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between something that is evil and something that is undesirable. If you notice, the words "evil," "malice," "villainy," etc. do not appear in a single sentence of a single passage you have quoted. Does affirming the Will cause suffering? Yes. Sorrow? Yes. Pain? Yes. Evil? Not necessarily. Schopenhauer thought evil sprung from a lowly, bestial individual will inclined to egoism that affirms its own negative emotions and relations to others as pleasurable, as shown in this passage from "On the Basis of Morals":
>Yet to feel envy is human; to enjoy Schadenfreude is devilish.There is no more unfailing sign of a thoroughly bad heart and profound moral baseness than an inclination to pure, heartfelt Schadenfreude.
>Egoism can lead to crimes and misdeeds of all sorts, but the misfortune and pain it causes another is merely a means and not an end, and thus occurs only accidentally. In contrast, for malice and cruelty another’s suffering and pains are an end in itself the attainment of which is a delight. For this reason these constitute a higher degree of moral depravity. The maxim of extreme egoism is: ‘Help no one; rather, harm everyone if (thus always still conditioned) it brings you advantage.' The maxim of malice is: ‘Harm everyone as much as you can.'
>Just as Schadenfreude is only theoretical cruelty, so cruelty is only Schadenfreude in practice, and Schadenfreude will appear as cruelty as soon as the opportunity occurs

Evil requires cruel intent. The Will in general has no intent, exists in every creature, every plant, every stone. It is absolutely blind (as well as metaphysical) and therefore not susceptible of evil.

>>13115692
Very nice. I must admit I had a personal falling out with Schopenhauer that makes me exaggerate him a bit. Thank you for the post, top quality

>>13115388
No. Kant attempted to solve contradictions through practical reason. Hegel believes he can solve them through theoretical reason.

>>13112596
Negativity is not contradiction. It's the outline of a thing.
Remember the "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form." quote from the Heart Sutra? That's what Hegelian negativity is.