>The fact that it has been necessary to make a completely fresh start with this science, the very nature of the subject matter and the absence of any previous works which might have been utilised for the projected reconstruction of logic, may be taken into account by fair-minded critics, even though a labour covering many years has been unable to give this effort a greater perfection. The essential point of view is that what is involved is an altogether new concept of scientific procedure.
>>25308308I wonder why the germans let these cranks gain such influence
>>25308316>cranks
>>25308308He did nothing useful or made anything useful in his life
>>25308350cope
>>25308350he destroyed Europe though!
>>25308350truthnuke, he was an evil proto-totalitarian right along with Fichte and Kant (his doctrine of non-lying would have you imperatively tell the Nazis that you hid the Jews in your basement)Locke and Hume and Descartes and Leibniz mog these hacks
>>25308373cope
>general logic>specious reasoningthat's funny
>>25308373>he was an evil proto-totalitarian right along with Fichte and Kantevil how exactly?
>>25308465post-Kantian headcanon grifts are literally all his fault
>>25308308I'm something of an enthusiast myself in these esoterotica matters.
>>25308587
>>25308628
>>25308373>his doctrine of non-lying would have you imperatively tell the Nazis that you hid the Jews in your basementNo it wouldn't, lies by omission/by witholding the whole truth are fine with him.
>>25308308He redefined what logic was. So no he did not reinvent logic he just created a metaphysics of pure thinking and called it ‘logic’.
>>25308308I wish to know where this Hegelian logic is taught and where do logicians pay homage to Hegel as an eminent name in the history of logic.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.
>>25308848nlab I guess
>>25308308Mogged and obliterated by every mathematical logic textbookPhilosofaggot “theories” get a haha so cute pity mention in the intro chapter then the entire actual book is filled with mathematics
>>25308846>>25308908holy cope.
>>25308943You’re one of those retards who thinks Hegel’s logic gives you a ‘new way of thinking’ in everyday life. You’re wrong, you got filtered.
>>25308953midwit take. read more.>A slothful mind finds it natural to say: ‘Don’t let it be supposed that we mean to be in earnest with our philosophy. We shall be glad inter alia to study Logic: but Logic must be sure to leave us as we were before.’ People have a feeling that, if thinking passes the ordinary range of our ideas and impressions, it cannot but be on the evil road.-Encyclopedia Logic section 19n(a)
>>25308848Sider is a logician who has potentially considered Hegel's legacy as a candidate for post-modal logic
>>25308976Can you post a proof instead of rambling?
>>25309017lol more evidence of midwitery. just read more bro. don't be a midwit>to want the nature of cognition clarified prior to the science is to demand that it be considered outside the science; outside the science this cannot be accomplished, at least not in a scientific manner - Science of Logic section 92
>>While in the example already often quoted, in which Socrates is both one and many, the two thoughts are made to fall asunder, it is left to speculative thought alone to bring the thoughts together, and this union of what is different, of Being and non-being, of one and many, &c., which takes place without a mere transition from one to another, constitutes the inmost reality and true greatness of Platonic philosophy. This determination is the esoteric element in Platonic philosophy, and the other is the exoteric — the distinction is doubtless an unwarranted one, indicating, as it seems to do, that Plato could have two such philosophies — one for the world, for the people, and the other, the inward, reserved for the initiated. But the esoteric is the speculative, which, even though written and printed, is yet, without being any secret, hidden from those who have not sufficient interest in it to exert themselves. To this esoteric portion pertain the two dialogues hitherto considered, along with which the Philebus may in the third place be taken....
>>25309191
I don’t understand how he wrote this shit but was a huge normie in real life, not even remotely schizo.
N A C H K A N T I S C H E RI D E A L I S M U S
>>25309408From what I've read Hegel was exposed to mysticism and esotericism early in his life and he didn't turn away from it. He would have been encultured, so it's customary to keep hidden or offer only what is applicable or even offer only that which could be recognized more as a salutation than what would pass for a truth. >Let us speak, even if it's bad. To be silent is worse, all suppressed truth turns poisonous. - Nietzsche The irony is that by the time Nietzsche developed his most volatile exoteric writings without the aid of esotericism he wound up creating the everything is esoteric club despite trying to challenge them. >Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>>25310250>From what I've read Hegel was exposed to mysticism and esotericism early in his life and he didn't turn away from it. Wouldn't that have to be qualified somewhat? While he does, e.g., identify mysticism with speculative thought in the Encyclopaedia, he also insists that it's rational,>When one speaks of the mystical today, it is normally taken to be synonymous with the mysterious and the incomprehensible, and the mysterious and incomprehensible are then...regarded by some as something genuine and true, but by others as belonging to superstition and deception. In this regard, it should be noted first that the mystical is indeed something mysterious, but only for the understanding, simply because abstract identity is the principle of the understanding, whereas the mystical (taken as synonymous with the speculative) is the concrete unity of those determinations that count as true for the understanding only in their separation and opposition. So when those who recognize the mystical as the true are likewise happy to call it the absolutely mysterious and leave it at that, they express that, as far as they are concerned, thinking likewise has the significance solely of positing abstract identities, and that in order to attain to the truth one must renounce thinking or...that one must take reason captive...Thus, everything rational is to be called at the same time ‘mystical’, by which...nothing more or less is said than that it goes beyond the understanding and in no way that it is to be regarded generally as inaccessible to thinking and as incomprehensible.>He would have been encultured, so it's customary to keep hidden or offer only what is applicable or even offer only that which could be recognized more as a salutation than what would pass for a truth.According to Heine, he seemed more anxious to be open about the extent of his rationalism,>One beautiful starry evening, we stood, the two of us, at a window, and I, a young person of twenty-two, having just eaten well and drunken coffee, spoke rapturously about the stars, calling them the habitations of the blessed. The master, however, mumbled to himself, “The stars, ho! hum! the stars are just leprous spots glowing on the sky.” For God’s sake – I cried – is there no happy place up there to reward virtue after death? Hegel just stared at me with his pale eyes and said cuttingly, “You took care of your sick mother, and you didn’t poison your brother. Do you really expect to receive a tip?” – After these words, he looked around anxiously, but seemed to grow calm soon afterwards when he saw that it was only Heinrich Beer approaching him to invite him to a round of whist."
>>25310288I'm taking Hegel's side on this and I'm saying you shouldn't poison your brother and you should take care of your sick mother. I suppose I don't know for certain, just autobiographical peices claiming he was raised around it. In lectures he spent a large chunk of writing on a mystic. Hegel also claimed he had wisdom, I agree with his purification rituals and I'm a huge fan of his death rites. He did shit with a triangle, a circle, and a square. Maybe he had wisdom, maybe he didn't. I've done shit with just a triangle and a circle so I know shit can be done with just those 2. Maybe the square is where the wisdom comes into this. I'm just telling you now that a square is 2 triangles so maybe I'm not cut out for wisdom. I also agree with him on the whole not thinking to get things done thing. Genius unappreciated, difficulty overhyped.
