[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 373 KB, 635x800, external-content.duckduckgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15935461 No.15935461 [Reply] [Original]

I'm going through his Difference essay and I'm getting filtered hard.
Where can I read more about his terminology. There's so much I didn't see in Kant, Fichte and early Schelling. I also believe that he gave some more specific definitions to some of them, or even changed them.
I'd like to go all the way from, let's say, identity and speculation and end wherever the fuck PoS leads me.
Is there a book or some sort of list just for this?

>> No.15935513

The Hegel Dictionary - Continuum
A Hegel Dictionary - Blackwell
Both free on lib.gen

>> No.15935536

>>15935461
Why can't you see it anon? He is making things up. Read actual philosophers.

>> No.15935541

>>15935513
Thank you very much! Would you say that either one is superior?

>> No.15935556

Spoke to my prof once about how to apply pre Hegel german idealist and Kantian terminology in hegel and I got a +20min non answer, which resulted in pretty much being convinced to see every previously seen word new.

>> No.15935562

>>15935541
Look up the terms and judge for yourself

>> No.15935570

>>15935536
Kinda true but he was still brilliant
>>15935556
Sounds right

>> No.15935591

>>15935556
Not gonna lie, my man still had great prose.

>> No.15937109

to be honest you already need a firm grasp on Fichte and Schelling (and Rheinhold) to understand the text. BUt he is writting strictly in their words and not in PoS or anyhting similar.

>> No.15938268

>>15935461
Read Schelling's Ideas for natural philosophy to get a grasp on his subjective subject-object objective subject-object distinction along with the "vanishing point" for both.

Beyond that, just read Harris's introduction to that book beforehand if you skipped it, because it basicaly clears everything up. If you've already read Fichte you should be golden- to be honest you should be good to go already, maybe you didn't understand Fichte?

>> No.15939520
File: 64 KB, 800x800, phenomenology_clown_colors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15939520

>>15938268
>subjective subject-object objective subject-object distinction
this is what german idealism does to your mind.

bumping

i am currently being filtered by the beginning of his section on self-consciousness in pos

>> No.15939623

>>15939520
>buy this book
>just to have it open in public places when waiting
>make hmmm noises constantly while flipping through pages

>> No.15940515

>>15938268
>maybe you didn't understand Fichte
Sometimes you don't know what you don't know. Are you referring to something specific and fundamental to understanding German idealism after him?

>> No.15940876

>>15940515
An understanding of Fichte is essential to understad this text, that's why I mentioned it. Maybe if you tell us exactly the part, or paste a passage of the text that filters you. we can get a better idea of why/what you're having trouble with

>>15939520
it's just weird middle period Schelling shit, probably the shortest period in all of german idealism (for good reason). For PoS try reading Harris's commentary on the paragraphs you're struggling with in his Hegel's Ladder. It's up on libgen

>> No.15940953
File: 665 KB, 1440x1149, introductory summary for you simpletons.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15940953

Plato's Parmenides, Sophist, and Philebus.
He's talking about Likeness and Unlikness, Limited and Unlimited, Monad and Dyad: Damascius' One-all and the All-one.
Where Hegel and all philosophers since (and including) Aquinas failed—is resolved in Damascius, hearkening back to Philolaus.

>> No.15941045

>>15940953
this has nothing to do with the difference essay

>> No.15941306
File: 44 KB, 800x450, 1592944217142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15941306

>>15941045
>philosophically illiterate speaks
Damascius denies the identity thesis: “we can say, therefore, that knowledge completely accords with the content of knowledge, but it is not the content of knowledge.” Damascius criticizes the Neoplatonist theory of intellection and the identity thesis that underlies it, emphasizing the substantive differentiation between the knower and the known to show that the intellect never encounters its object, Being, as it is in itself. Moreover, he uses premises supplied from within Neoplatonic metaphysics to demonstrate this nonidentity of subject and object. There seem to be three steps in his refutation of the Neoplatonic identity thesis. In step 1 Damascius accepts Proclus’ theory of intellectual reversion but concludes (step 2) that reversion entails the nonidentity of the knower (intellect) and the object known (knowledge). Finally, in step 3, Damascius then applies this denial of the identity thesis to Neoplatonic epistemology and concludes that the intellect never knows Being as it is in itself, since the intellect can never be strictly identical with Being. It is this last application that raises the most interesting questions about Damascius’ own theory of knowledge. By analogy to the Skeptics, who assert that the intellect knows only its own pathe, and never reaches the object itself, Damascius concludes that the intellect knows its object qua object known. While the Skeptics maintain that the mind can only know the phantasia, or impression, Damascius renders this doctrine with the Neoplatonizing counterpart, that intellect can only grasp the phanon, or appearance, of Being. ...Damascius recommends that knowledge must be unitive or rather, that there must be a release from all knowing, if Being is ever to be encountered as it is.
...
As Damascius comments, in unified knowledge, the mind does not attempt to assimilate the object. Rather, the mind completely abandons itself and itself becomes the object; the object itself no longer exists, and hence the mind no longer desires to discover it. Here, one can no longer speak of intellect knowing being. Rather, because intellect offers its separate identity to the aspect of the One it contemplates as unity, it is not possible to posit intellect as an absolutely separate and distinct hypostasis. In quoting the phrase, “outside the intellect” from the Chaldean Oracles, Damascius suggests that intellect is not separate from the One. This nondual approach brings the One into all the hypostases without thereby collapsing them. Again using metaphorical language, Damascius describes the experience in which intellect disappears: “We attempt to look at the sun for the first time and we succeed because we are far away. But the closer we approach the less we see. And at last we see neither Sun nor other things, since we have completely become the light itself, instead of an enlightened eye”.

>> No.15941663

>>15941306
can you explain what this has to do with Hegel's 1801 essay "The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy"

>> No.15942090

>>15939520
I realize my original post was meant to quote
>>15941663

>> No.15942573

>>15941663
I don't know what my post has to do with this essay because I didn't read it (or any Hegel), but I did read about Damascius in this one secondary book I keep pasting from. You can read more of my opinions about philosophy in "The synthesis of the objective and subjective" available on Amazon

>> No.15943767

bumping

>> No.15945289

>>15940876
I haven't read the entirety of Fichte. I read Wissenschaftslehre and about his works and his philosophy online (I'd much rather read more of his books, but my library has a very poor selection (I one almost got into a fight with them because they threw out de Sade's books)).
But since you mentioned subjective subject-object objective subject-object distinction, for example. Subjective subject-object is the identity of the subject and object understood as an inner turmoil, unrest and an event of mutual continuous unification and separation, which arises from the very essential character of self-activity which is the process of synthetic establishment of both subject and object and their identity as a free act. The I itself. That's what and how I got it from Fichte.
How does Fichte define identity? If I'm not mistaken, Hegel does it as a difference.
How does Schelling do it and how does it lead him to his objective subject-object?

>> No.15945294

>>15945289
Also, while we're here, what the fuck does Hegel mean by "Idea"? Every explanation I read just talks about how it leads to Absolute Idea, but not what it actually is.

>> No.15945860

a bump

>> No.15945921

>>15942573
Not you me, my post about Neoplatonism was for you not OP

>> No.15946016

>>15935461
if you understand neither gödel nor hegel, you are just retarded.
if you understand gödel but not hegel, you are ok.
if you understand both gödel and hegel, you are retarded and delusional.
if you understand hegel but not gödel you are extremely retarded and extremely delusional.

>> No.15946103

>>15946016
And why is that?

>> No.15946786

>>15946103
Answer me, you coward!

>> No.15947358

>>15945294
for Hegel, Idea is the realized concept. Concept is something which is self-mediated, where it is internally differentiated but its unity persists in its differentiation- it is other than itself but still itself in its other.
But a concept can be merely subjective. When the concept is both subjective and objective, e.g, external to itself but in such a way that it isn't other to itself, it's the Idea. Idea is concrete reality which is fully interpolated with the concept, really neither subjective nor objective, because it's the concrete unity of both.

>> No.15947746
File: 16 KB, 271x186, this guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15947746

>>15935461
>reading anything from that goblin

>> No.15947751

>>15947746
What's your argument?

>> No.15947773

>>15947751
a smug chinese cartoon