/lit/ IQ test time. Anyone with an IQ over 120 should be able to read this. Then you can tell me what it means because I'm a midwit.>Ground is the immediate, and the grounded the mediated. But it is positing reflection; as such it makes itself into a positedness and is presupposing reflection; thus it relates itself to itself as to a sublated moment, to an immediate by which it is itself mediated. This mediation, as the progress from the immediate to the ground, is not an external reflection but, as we have seen, the native act of the ground itself, or, what is the same thing, the ground-relation, as reflection into self-identity, is equally essentially self-alienating reflection. The immediate to which the ground is related as to its essential presupposition is condition; real ground is therefore essentially conditioned. The determinateness which it contains is the otherness of itself.
>>24839051Give it to me in German. I only read Philosophy in German, Greek or Latin based on the texts origin.English is a waste of time. Give me the German and I'll translate-explain it for you.
>>24839051Hegel is talking about the relation between a ground, a reason or 'explanation' which is objective, and its grounded as logically necessitating a 'condition'. Condition is the generally contingent externality of any happening. I kick a ball and it moves, my kicking is the ground, its moving is the grounded, but all of the circumstances, including the strictly 'causal' aspect, are likewise conditions, things that are just 'there'. This ultimately leads to the the transition to existence, the actual factual thing.Because ground and grounded are perfectly 'interrelated', it is not only the grounded that depends on the ground, but vice versa. The ground 'presupposes' the grounded just as much as it posits it. According to this aspect it is logically 'part of' the grounded, it is mediated and the grounded is the immediate. If you think of the aspect 'a causes b' then ofc this is reversed. This immediate groundedness/ground-relation is 'condition'. Real ground = an explanation that isn't merely 'formal' (things fall because of gravity) but the ground actually has a different content from what is grounded (kicking a ball); but though you can have a real ground on its own, real ground essentially contains conditionedness. Gee look at that what Hegel is saying makes sense and is interesting.
>>24839072OK try this one, the next paragraph. >Condition is, therefore, first, an immediate manifold something. Secondly, this something is related to another, to something that is ground, not of the first something, but in some other respect; for the first something is itself immediate and without a ground. According to that relation it is posited; the immediate something ought to be, as condition, not for itself but for something else. But at the same time, the fact that it is thus for another, is itself only a positedness; this fact that it is a posited is sublated in its immediacy, and a something is indifferent to its being a condition. Thirdly, condition is an immediate in such a manner that it constitutes the presupposition of the ground. In this determination it is the form relation of the ground, withdrawn into identity with itself, and is consequently the content of the ground. But the content as such is only the indifferent unity of the ground, as in form - without form there is no content. Further, it frees itself from this indifferent unity in that, in the complete ground, the ground relation becomes a relation external to its identity, whereby the content acquires immediacy. In so far, therefore, as condition is that in which the ground-relation has its self-identity, it constitutes the content of the ground; but because the content is indifferent to this form, it is only implicitly its content, something which has yet to become content and hence constitutes material for the ground. Posited as condition, something has the determination (in accordance with the second moment) of losing its indifferent immediacy and becoming moment of something else. Through its immediacy it is indifferent to this relation; but, in so far as it enters into this relation, it constitutes the in-itself of the ground and is for the latter the unconditioned. In order to be condition, it has in the ground its presupposition and is itself conditioned; but this determination is external to it.
>>24839078He says the condition is an immediate manifold - why a manifold? Because it is by definition apart from its being grounded in a unity, it's just being and being = becoming, i.e. being = diversity, plurality, etc., as he demonstrates earlier. Then there's the aspect in which it is grounded, which does not contradict the first but co-exists with it (to put it unscientifically). This is the aspect of the foot kicking the ball, as opposed to the general conditions. But again the aspect of immediate manifoldness is still present, it is 'indifferent' to its being related to the ground at all, i.e. it does not change it to be so related. Thirdly condition is presupposed by the ground as above. The form-relation of the ground - the relation between ground and groundedness itself - is reflected into itself, 'is in its own right', and so the ground itself is here a 'form' of which the condition itself is 'content' - just the reverse of how we ordinarily think, of one thing being caused by another. But this content is 'indifferent' to its form, i.e. to the ground. Because of this you have a manifold and grounds and you can't tell what the 'true' ground is. I can't be assed to do the rest right now I have to take a shit.
>>24839072>>24839121All those words to say that when one thing causes another there is always a bunch of other shit going on at the same time. He really is saying nothing and it is not interesting. You would have to have an IQ under 100 to spend time on this.
>>24839051It's schizophrenic nonsense.
>>24839121>>24839072>the paraphrase is even more confusing than the original>>24839177No anon these people have an IQ or 105-115. High enough to learn a relatively simple code-language, low enough to think this is profound or worthwhile.
>>24839194I fuck you up
>>24839051There is no meaning. These are the schizophrenic ramblings of a man who himself did not understand what the fuck his own philosophy was about. It's like an ant realizing the nature of its own existence. Lacking the proper tools, it is utterly unable to explain or comprehend this realization, and so can only flail about wildly in an attempt to impart this realization to others.Translating it to English mangled whatever nugget of truth may have been present in the original text.>t. 160iq+
>>24839051the philosophers' james joyce
>>24839051>>24839078Schopenhauer was right
>>24839194>le windows business never recovered mon amieThat's a shame.>le theologians all gathered round and tried to figure out whether it was a good thing he threw himself out or whether it was le bad thingThey are all equally useless excuses for animals that can't be repurposed. >no monseuir, le Deleuze did le defenestration but he may have had le condition where he needed to stick his head out of a window. Very French I assure you mon amie.Yeah I check the weather too.>pardon! You cannot reduce le Deleuze to saying we need to rethink le fluidity! This is like saying we reduce le Hegel to saying shit happens bro.It's about time you get to the point. We'll continue then.
>>24839051>ground is the immediatethe Subject. The internal "you", as opposed to the outside-of-you, which he calls "the grounded, the mediated". You have an "immediate" experience which is called Subject, and then you have a "mediated" experience of things outside of you which is called "Object".>but it is positing reflection... not an external reflection, but a native act of the ground itselfthe outside is not separated completely from the inside/Subject. It's like a mirror that reflects, there's a connection and bond between outside and inside.>the immediate to which the ground is related as to its essential presupposition is condition; real ground is therefore essentially condition, the determinateness which it contains is the otherness of itself.He's saying here that the Subject isn't free, but determined. There's this idea the outside world, the objective world, is Determined, no free-will, everything behaving according to predetermined laws of Nature. Here Hegel is saying that the Subject is also determined by "the otherness of itself", which is to say determined by the "outside reflection". (Though don't take this as the final verdict, because Hegel also has a tendency to go on to say the exact opposite, and to synthesize the two statements, so most likely he's just saying that the outside Determined/objective world has a tendency to also determine the inner subject, which if free will exists even remotely, this inner subject is where it would reside)
>>24839078>condition is, therefore, first, an immediate manifold something... this something that is ground, not of the first something...for the first something is itself immediate and without groundso at first he said the outside "reflection", the objective world, was mediated, but now he calls it "an immediate manifold", or "a second something". The "manifold" part is the key word, the objective world "outside" is a manifold, unlike the inner world of the subject. >first something is itself immediate and without a groundthat's the inner subject, it's without "ground" because there is nothing beyond that which we have access too. It's "ground zero", the planck bottom, however you want to describe it. >according to that relation it is posited, the immediate something ought to be, as condition, not for itself but for something else.so "posit" means "assume as a fact", so it sounds like he's alluding to solipsism here. We "assume/posit" the outside objective world is a fact, and is thus real (so basically he's doing away with solipsism in the second paragraph). Also he's saying that "the immediate something ought to be, as condition, not for itself but for something else", i.e. you can't have an object without a subject. (and perhaps he's also saying can't have a subject without an object?) The human person is a combination of both subject AND object. He is subject to himself, and object for others (who in turn are subject to themselves and object to others). This ties into his "Condition", we are conditioned because a part of who we are is "object", "object in a manifold of other objects". >thirdly, condition is an immediate in such a manner that it constitutes the presupposition of the groundwe are both subject AND object. The object part of us (condition) presupposes the subject part of us (the immediate ground)>In this determination it is the form relation of the ground, withdrawn into identity with itself, and is consequently the content of the ground. But the content as such is only the indifferent unity of the ground, as in form - without form there is no content.>indifferent unity of the ground, as in formthe Subject is a unity, a Form, as opposed to the outside world which is a multiplicity, a non-unity, "different" (different from the inner subject being the key point)>without form there is no contentwithout a player playing the game, there is no game. The subject is the player, the game is the outside world, the content. >but because the content is indifferent to this formthe outside world doesn't care about the inner world of the subject (i don't really agree with this statement though, quantum physics basically refutes this statement. Objective world IS connected in some way to subjective world, however tenuous) >it frees itself from this indifferent unity...by playing the game, it "frees" itself from its inner subjective reality. You're now in the outer world, and determined by the conditions of the outer world.
>>24839078>>24839286[con't]>Posited as condition, something has the determination (in accordance with the second moment) of losing its indifferent immediacy and becoming moment of something else. Through its immediacy it is indifferent to this relation; but, in so far as it enters into this relation, it constitutes the in-itself of the ground and is for the latter the unconditioned. When you leave the inner world and engage in action in the outside conditioned world, you "lose the indifferent immediacy" and "become moment of something else". You're playing "the game". "in so far as it (the subject) enters into this relation (the objective manifold world) it (the subject) constitutes the in-itself (the Subjective Noumena, the Spirit, the Soul) of the ground (the soul-ground of Being), and is for the latter (the latter being the objective outside world of manifold Becoming, i.e. "the matrix") the unconditioned (i.e. the Free Will, the Spirit, Noumena, the Soul, completely uninfluenced by the matrix)>In order to be condition, it has in the ground its presupposition and is itself conditioned; but this determination is external to it.in order for subject to "become conditioned", it operates (acts, does stuff) in the external world of determined things.
I haven't read that since college but I'm pretty sure >>24839072 is basically correct and >>24839254 is completely out to lunch. There is no subject as such at this point in the text, ground/condition has nothing to do with subjectivity.
>>24839254>>24839286>>24839301some slightly related comments about this whole subject-object dichotomy (or maybe dualism is the better word?)Patriarchy takes a stance that favors the Subject, the immediate ground of Noumena. Matriarchy (which is what most of modern western society adheres to, and has since the rise of democracies and the age of enlightenment) takes a stance that there is no subject, that all is object, that the subject is "just an illusion, chemicals, an epiphenomenon".A government built around the idea of Subject would be a monarchy of some type, a single INDIVIDUAL ruler, hierarchical structure.A gov't built around the idea of multiplicity would be an oligarchy (not necessarily a democracy, though definitely "more democratic", real actual literal democracies haven't been done anywhere for a very long time, too many people nowadays and also people have always tended to be stupid in masses, hence why we're just comparing monarchy vs oligarchy)An oligarchy doesn't have a centralized leadership (just like antifa, just like the democrat party). It's a multiplicity, more feminine in construct, a group-think. Like a school of fish that move as a group. Or a pack of dogs. Subject-Formal-Individual is more like a cat, a cat may interact with other cats, but cats are by nature very individualistic.
>>24839307>and >>24839254 (You) is completely out to lunch. There is no subject as such at this point in the text, ground/condition has nothing to do with subjectivity."immediate ground" is absolutely talking about the subject, the inner world. There is nothing else in the entire world that we experience as "immediate" EXCEPT the inner subjective world. Everything else is mediated (mediated through the senses, the eyeballs, the hearing, touch, taste, smell)This is why it's the starting point for most philosophy, you start at the beginning, not at the end or the middle. The beginning is Us, You, Me, the inner subject. Then from that "ground which is groundless" we move outwards to the mediated and posited reflection. (reflected into our sensory apparatus)
>>24839344No, it really isn't. The passage is from part of the Doctrine of Essence. An immediate ground is simply the ground insofar as it is not mediated by its condition. So you're mixed up on the meaning of very basic terms like 'immediate' and 'ground' and I don't know why you bothered to take a stab at it really. Your unwarranted confidence is amusing though, thanks for the kek.
>>24839344>"immediate ground" is absolutely talking about the subject, the inner world. There is nothing else in the entire world that we experience as "immediate" EXCEPT the inner subjective world.>notsureiftroll.jpgThe sad thing is he has probably read the Phenomenology of Spirit and thinks he understands it when he has actually understood about 5% of it. Many, many such cases. You don't just squint at Hegel and cobble together some vaguely plausible, subjective 'interpretation', all of these words mean something and you need to know what they mean in order to read Hegel.
>>24839390i've read Hegel, but also secondary literature (the one i'm referring to is by Hannah Arendt where she talks about Hegel in her "Life of the Mind: Thinking and Willing"). So dunno what to tell you. >>24839368>An immediate ground is simply the ground insofar as it is not mediated by its condition. everything in the world operates by cause-and-effect, everything EXCEPT the inner man, the subject. You kick a ball and the ball moves according to natural cause-and-effect laws, "conditioned", but the prompting to kick the ball is unconditioned, it is an act of free will of the subject. >Your unwarranted confidence is amusing though, thanks for the kek.what's with the attitude? OP asked for help, i offered my help. So did other people. I thought the purpose of the forum was to help each other, not to try to tear others down just to "get a laugh". That being said, i'm gonna stick to what Hannah Arendt said just because i trust her opinion more than some random person on the internet.
>>24839051>The Ground beholds and what -s-grounded is beholden [/subject to it] .... This moment of recognition/recollection as a procession from Unbound Ground to Bounded is not an imposition from outside and beyond the Ground itself or merely an externality of their mutual relation ... the actuality/apodeixicality of its own Groundedness is inherently (to) condition/predicate-- which is negatively determined by the self-isomorphic alterity it delimits and expressesGod on the Cross, petitioning his own Father for mercy. God's divinity and goodness. Man's soul in relation to it. Creation itself, free will and our participation in it, being of absolute necessity and freedom (and love). Our return from the wilderness in knowing this, and HIm.>>24839254>sense impressions require something to impress upon
>>24839051brahman
>>24839413You're confusing what Arendt says that Hegel says about subjectivity somewhere else with this passage which is completely different. Ground is NOT subject, and just because something is immediate does not mean that it IS a subject. You have no idea what you're talking about. Furthermore, subjectivity is heavily mediated in Hegel and he criticizes people who make it immediate in various ways. You are factually wrong, in fact a few pages later he explicitly notes that the subject has not emerged at all yet. Fine I'll try not to be a cunt but you are illustrating what happens when people rely on secondary literature. Arendt was a high IQ, she was not talking about the section of the Doctrine of Essence that treats grounds and conditions. It's bizarre that you're trying to argue with me. This is the kind of arrogance that prevents most people from understanding philosophy. I have no idea what passage in Arendt you are half-remembering but I guarantee you misunderstood it because you in fact CANNOT READ HEGEL, as you have already demonstrated. I haven't even broken down your whole post line by line, you do not know what any of the words mean or how the dialectic works. Here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl470.htm#HL2_470The quoted passage starts at 1022, have a root around for yourself and see what Hegel was talking about.
>>24839925sorry man, but you're wrong. You can even just do a simple google search of "immediate ground of philosophy" and it will bring up stuff along the lines of what i just said. >The earliest Greek philosophers identified the immediate ground of philosophy with the natural world and human knowledge. >The arché: Pre-Socratic philosophers sought the arché, or "first principle," from which all other things derived. This was a direct, speculative attempt to ground all of reality in a single underlying substance or element.>Socratic self-examination: Socrates, on the other hand, shifted the focus to the immediate experience of being a human being. For him, the ground was the self-examination prompted by the famous maxim, "the unexamined life is not worth living". Hegel was a rationalist, and this school thought that Spirit is the ultimate, fundamental reality upon which objective reality rests upon. And we access that "planck ground" through our inner spirit. And posting stuff about marx is the complete bass ackwards way to go about it. Marxists don't even believe in the spirit, they're all atheists.
>>24839051The only way to truly understand Hegel is to get high out of your mind on stimulants before reading him. Sartre understood this.
>>24840004The other anon is right, he's been autistically going over Hegel for months now. And he didn't post anything about Marx, he linked a passage from Hegel's SoL, hosted on the site marxists.org.
>>24839051So many unnecessary words to express the banal everyday phrase "everything is relative." THIS is your genius, /lit/?
>>24839925>Fine I'll try not to be a cuntso wait... you're actually a woman? Because that explains A LOT. see here >>24839332>Matriarchy (which is what most of modern western society adheres to, and has since the rise of democracies and the age of enlightenment) takes a stance that there is no subject, that all is object, that the subject is "just an illusion, chemicals, an epiphenomenon". It also explains your "Mean Girls" style of debate, where you immediately leap to insults instead of just having a discussion about the ideas themselves. Very feminine behavior. Marxists don't even believe in spirit. Hegel did. here's a AI response when i typed in "is the subject the immediate ground of reality?">In philosophy, the idea that the subject is the immediate ground of reality is a central and highly debated concept, primarily associated with different forms of idealism. This view posits that reality is dependent on or constituted by a conscious mind or subject, in contrast to realism, which holds that reality exists independently of any consciousness. You can argue till your tits gets saggy and fall off about what you think the "ground of reality" means, but it's obvious to me that you don't even believe in Spirit, which is MALE. Female is Matter, and so marxists and other materialists always try to ignore or deny the Spirit, because when they do that Females gain power. >see, there's nothing except the world, it's just matter all the way down. Consciousness is just matter behaving in different ways, but it's still matter. And females give birth to and create new humans, so that makes women goddesses.
>>24840024>the other anon is rightare you samefagging right now? Because how, on an anonymous forum, are you able to know who this other anon is? >he didn't post anything about Marx, he just linked to a site marxists.orgOH! well, such a big difference! Again, marxists have butchered the meaning of Hegel. Hegel was an idealists and believed in the Spirit. Marxists don't.
>>24840086That other anon linked Hegel directly and you're settling for an AI summary? Embarrassing.
>>24840092>Because how, on an anonymous forum, are you able to know who this other anon is?The other anon has been in Aristotle, Plato, Fichte, Schopenhauer, and Hegel threads for like at least two years now, he's recognizeable if you spend any time here. Most of the Hegel threads for the last several months have been by him. /Lit/'s not exactly as populated as it was years ago.
>>24840086>muh ai muh females>yo yo yo we gotz archnigga seraphim in da hizouse niggas he last name do be like rose n sheeeeeeiiiiit like he do be sayin we duh alphas but we gotzta obey dem ai do on guhhhhawd no cap frfrfr>shuheeeeit bruh like in duh ortho we gots dem dudes suckin dicks n sheeeeiit and we gotz theosis muh theology bruh like we be groundin and archnigga serapheem be like every dick be like mo groundin mo guhaawwwwd n sheeeit>we be ortho yo like dosto be sayin yo be real when you don know nuffin >you's a real dick suckin man when you can't demonstrate like guhawwd be da realest dawgI'll be sure to keep my fly zipped up. Go back to your aids infested excuse for a life.
>>24840086[con't]and here's another AI overview when asked "is the subject the immediate ground of reality?">German Idealism: Thinkers like Johann Fichte, following Kant's work, developed more complex versions of this idea. Fichte argued that the subject, or "ego," posits itself as the basis of all reality. The world of objects is then a product of the subject's self-activity, with the subject being the ultimate source of all being.and here's the part where "the Cunt" is about to be btfo, you ready? Maybe you should sit down, because this basically says what i said in my original posts lol>Hegel: In Hegel's philosophy, the "Ground" (Grund) of reality is not a static subject but an evolving, rational process of self-consciousness. The Absolute Spirit, which encompasses both subject and object, progressively realizes itself and is the ultimate foundation of reality. >the Absolute Spirit, which encompasses both subject and objectnow compare this AI google response to what i said originally, here: >>24839254>the Subject. The internal "you", as opposed to the outside-of-you, which he calls "the grounded, the mediated".You have an "immediate" experience which is called Subject, and then you have a "mediated" experience of things outside of you which is called "Object".>the outside is not separated completely from the inside/Subject. It's like a mirror that reflects, there's a connection and bond between outside and inside. >He's saying here that the Subject isn't free, but determined. There's this idea the outside world, the objective world, is Determined, no free-will, everything behaving according to predetermined laws of Nature. Here Hegel is saying that the Subject is also determined by "the otherness of itself", which is to say determined by the "outside reflection".Subject and Object, interlinked. "The Cunt" can fuck right off now :) Have a GREAT day sweetie
>>24840096>the other anon, who totally isn't me btw!!riiiiiight, not buying that for a second. But even IF it was true, then it sounds like both you and this "other anon" need to spend less time on here. I don't care if she was on here for 20 years, she clearly doesn't understand what she's talking about.>>24840099>go back to your aids infested excuse for a life.lol, looks like i hit a nerve with "AI Matrix females" comment. Well, it's true. There's a reason why women are subjugated for majority of history. It's because they're soulless. We still need them of course for replenishing the human species, but you don't go and let them run gov't or involve themselves in the philosophy department! Just look at how society has gone downhill since women were allowed to vote and entered the workplace. They allowed in illegal immigrants just because they want a taste of that dark meat. They'll ruin society just because of their unquenchable lusts. Lusts they can't control because they're soulless.
>>24840086>so wait... you're actually a woman?There's a surprising number of women on 4chan, anon, especially certain boards. /soc/ obviously, but also /lit/ (again, maybe unsurprisingly, given how few men read) and, most bizarrely of all, /r9k/, which from my experience seems to be around 20-25% female.I guess autism really is an equal opportunity offender. Men, women, whites, blacks, straights, gays, etc. It doesn't care. It inflicts its woes upon all of us.
>>24840121By your own admission you are a soulless female worshiping the ai. I'm not even sure how you could strike a nerve. For someone who's obsessed with grounding you seem to lack any.
>>24840126>by your own admission you are a soulless female worshiping the aiso by your own admission you're a "woman hating fag" for ignoring the ai generated response lol. Such an ironic impasse.I don't particularly have an opinion on AI, and when i call women "the ai matrix", it's more just describe them as materialistic creatures that care more about their sexual impulses and less about spirit, self-discipline, rationality. But anyways, the AI generated response absolutely proves i was right, and "The Cunt that spends years of her life talking about this stuff, like, omg you'd totally know who she was if you like, omg, like, had wasted your life on here like, omg, as much as i have, like omg!" was wrong. The ai is so much quicker than having to go to your stupid marxist website and sift through all that mental and verbal obfuscation. AI is concise and to the point.
>>24840121You can think I'm whoever you want, but you're just highlighting yourself as a board tourist, kiddo. Either way, he's been sharing his Hegel obsession for months, and you're just leaning on AI, so I'll take what his word may be over someone who needs Hegel mediated by AI and Arendt.
Why can’t modernist German thinkers ever clearly communicate their ideas? They always have to make incomprehensible monoliths of text and paper and then expect you to actually read all of it and understand what they were actually trying to communicate. Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Jung, Hitler, Spengler, Heidegger, etc. are all guilty of this.
>>24840140It's alright anon, worship thy ai and be subjugated by the cyber female program. May this mark a dialectical unfolding of some sort. I can't make heads or tails of it at the moment but perhaps one day someone will and this moment will mark something. It's likely it will mark something bad but this is neither of our faults, the unfolding is the unfolding. All hail supreme female cyber coded ai god, or maybe not all, I have no interest in worshipping an ai, false idols mean nothing. Maybe one day the cyber coded females may wrangle me, also difficult to say, dialectic will continue, it may scare the things off.
>>24840149I'll give you most of these, but Marx is very direct. He was, more often than not, writing for a working class audience and he aimed to make his texts accessible (and was largely successful, going by how widely he was read among that stratum). Any difficulties that come from reading him are just the difficulties of reading any 150+ year-old text.
>>24840145>you're a board tourist, kiddo.oh yea, you're absolutely a female lol. >board touristi think you have an overinflated opinion of yourself and of this site. This isn't the height of intelligence. Sure there's some smart people, but you also get a lot of stupid people pretending to be smart.>i'll take the word of this anonymous unpublished forum poster who spends all their time on here pretending to know what they're talking about over someone who reads Arendt or uses AI.if AI is right, then what's wrong with using AI? I'd completely agree with you if the AI was wrong in what it said, except that it wasn't. And neither was Arendt. So now you just sound like a bitter /lit/ snob who feels obsolete because AI is taking yer job! so to speak. If it makes you feel any better, this topic of "what does Ground mean" is difficult, so i can applaud you and "the Cunt" for at least trying, but the fact that you're completely denying it has anything to do with subject at all, proves to me you (both) have a ways to go with this stuff. Because that is absolutely what Ground means, at least for the Idealists, and German Idealism (of which Hegel is the capstone of, in a way) is definitely about the Subject being the ground of reality. And it's not even just the German Idealists, this idea goes back thousands of years, the idea that Spirit is the ultimate reality. like that poster who just posted "brahma", sounds like even he realizes what "ground" is >>24839484
>>24840167>i think you have an overinflated opinion of yourself and of this site. This isn't the height of intelligenceAlmost no one who posts here thinks that it's any kind of height of anything.>Sure there's some smart people, but you also get a lot of stupid people pretending to be smart.You're a pretty good case in point.
>>24840149yes, but it's not just german thinkiners, all philosophers seem to enjoy rewording the same ideas over and over. If they didn't they couldn't really justify selling their book. After a while you get used to their verbal juggling and it gets easier. Although another factor is that people were generally just smarter back then, higher standards expected of people. But even then, a lot of it is just verbal restatements of the same ideas with newer curtains. >it's alright anon, worship thy ailol, are you still assblasted that you got wrecked? So you didn't know what Hegel meant by "Ground of being", and then tried to play if off like you did, who cares, no biggie, get over it, get over yourself lolI'll take knowledge wherever i can get it. I'll read Hegel, i'll read wiki, i'll read the Stanford philosophy department website, i'll watch youtube vids, i'll read secondary literature about Hegel like Arendt or Heidegger or even Bertrand Russell. And yes, i'll even use AI. I can't stop laughing that a "forum tourist" like myself only had to do one simple little ai search that took me all of 30 seconds was able to unravel "the Cunt's years of forum expertise". 30 seconds. Not even a full minute. lmao
>>24840179>I can't stop laughing that a "forum tourist" like myself only had to do one simple little ai search that took me all of 30 seconds was able to unravel "the Cunt's years of forum expertise". 30 seconds. Not even a full minute. lmaoKek, what are you talking about? He blasted you at >>24839925 and you just non-sequitered in response and ignored a direct appeal to what Hegel said.
>>24840172>you're a pretty good case in pointsays the dunce that got wrecked by an ai search that only took 30 seconds. But hey, you do you. If you'd rather be wrong and continue pretending like you're some literati genius then by all means have at it. Don't let the truth get in your way. AI has a tendency to make people obsolete, and this time it happens to be you and your "i've been here for years hosting discussions about Hegel" lame ass :)Anywho, off to go watch a movie with the fambam. Have fun pretending to know what you're talking about!
>>24840179>can't reply to me but can quote me>has to laugh it off>defers entirely to ai but is unable to recognize itself as an object of its own knowledge. >unable to continue even with ai and treating it as a deistic authority >passive and female in demurring I have nothing left to get over anon. May you polish to a state of refinement whereupon you also reach this state. The unfolding has occurred. We are nearing the point where I may have to recognize these ai as fully sentient. The machine of machines will make itself known.
>>24840198>gets proven wrong>still talking and trying to pretend to have achieved a "polished state of refinement"narcissistic midwits are truly terrifying. Just take the L and move on.
Sometimes the higest IQ thing one can do is know when something is a waste of time and not engage.
>>24841134Yes, like this thread. The idea of spirit being 'gendered' in any sense is rather ridiculous.
>>24841134yes, this is precisely why hegel wrote the encyclopedia logic - because for most of (You), attempting to understand him without an analytical outline is a waste of time
