/lit/ - Literature

Two wrongs make a right.

The negation is produced as that which is other than the same. There is a duality of other/same, so the duality needs to be negated, meaning the other (as "negating" the same) itself has to be negated: a negation of the negation has to take place.

This doesn't take place simply by eliminating some contingent manifestation of the negation. The initial negation of the same is a logical product, even emanation, of the same. For the negation to be negated, it must be at a higher level that reveals there is in fact no contradiction (negation) between the two. So the dialectic moves "upward," to higher syntheses of apparently and momentarily contrasted oppositions.

>>15115100

>>15115217
Oh it's a breast.

>>15115100
I negated his mom last night

>>15115100
In classical logic, the negation of a negation, that is not-not-A, is equivalent to A.
In constructive logic, there is no law of the excluded middle and no double negation elimination, so not-not-A is not equal to A, rather it just means that A would not be a contradiction. It is not the case that something not being contradictory means it's true - something being true means it's proven, and that's a stronger statement than something being consistent. There exist things that arent contradictory, but are not true, these are different things.

>>15115229
I thought it was an egg. I’m too brain let

Negate that which negates you. A professor once gave a (stupid) example of where he was protesting during occupy Wall Street. Somehow, the bastard found his way onto the roof of a building with bank offices near the top floors. They unfurled a banner that read “a negation of a negation is an affirmation”. They were negating (either by protesting or through some delusion of real social change) their oppressor (a negation).

But read less Hegel. Read more Goethe :)

>>15115100
Hegel was a word magician (illusionist) and a hack

Hegel's only objective was to advance his academic career. To accomplish it he jumbled as many words as he could and published them. He achieved his goal. That is all there is to it.
>people to this day are falling for it

you have the self and the non-self, when you have both at the same time (either self positing non-self or non-self positing self) there is a contradiction, when we reflect on this contradcition we transcend it and something new emerges (neither self nor non-self but the unity of both mediate through their mutual co-destruction)

Whenever he says negation he is talking about the infinite

>>15115217
? this doesn't help at all

>>15115100
somethings are not
>e.g. it is not raining
but just because it is a negation doesn't mean it can't be negated
>e.g. rain is the negation of the negation of 'not rain'
he uses this in particular ways but at it's heart it is a very simple idea

>>15115217
As far as I understand it, this is the best representation.
There are three moments of negation for Hegel and the first moment is a moment of self-identification in the sense that concepts are identified by what they are not, this is being at the first moment
The second moment is the revelation that any concept carries with it a contradiction that seem unsurpassable, think Kant's antinomies
The third moment is the negation of that negation, where the antinomy is merely an apparent antinomy and reason can do away with it. As a result of this you get a number of aphorisms that result such as "pure being and pure nothingness are one and the same" "a free will is not free without content"

I'll be honest though, I cant guarantee my understanding, I've only loosely read Taylor's Hegel and a new interpretation published in the last two years

known known
known unknown
unknown unknown
unknown known

coffee without cream =/= coffee without milk

>>15115258
N E G A T E D