Is it weird to think that most of the Science of Logic is genuinely brilliant, but its opening is irreparably flawed? The whole point was to make as few presuppositions as possible. Yet, pure being is likened to pure nothing, even though TO BE and NOT TO BE, strictly speaking, are as far apart as two concepts can be. Even if pure being lacks determination, it still has being. I am reminded of the path of is versus the path of is not from Parmenides's fragments. I am not even sure if pure nothing can even be properly thought of, let alone compared or predicated, since it is not even being. It is pure nothing. And every kind of negation we think of in the world, is a negation of something as something else. So it is always a roundabout referent to being when we use it properly, never pure nothing. So, it sounds like the foundations of the entire work is horribly bankrupt. But the rest of the work is genuinely insightful. Thoughts?
Hegel explicitly anticipates and refutes this objection. The analytical understanding ("Verstand") finds the identity of pure Being and pure Nothing paradoxical because it secretly imports concrete objects or determinate existence ("Dasein"), where negation is indeed always a negation of something, rather than holding fast to absolute abstraction. While Parmenides initiated philosophy by grasping pure Being, he froze it in one-sided abstraction by declaring that Nothing is not. Because pure Being is entirely devoid of any determination, content, or distinction, it offers nothing to intuit or think, making it functionally indistinguishable from pure Nothing. This is a methodological necessity: the beginning must be presuppositionless and unmediated, and its very instability drives the dialectical transition into Becoming ("Werden") and concrete truth, which is only fully justified as a circular whole at the end of the systemHe stole the idea of a duality creating a procedural trinity from Jakob Böhme btw.
>>25542898>Even if pure being lacks determination, it still has beingI'm not sure that works, thpugh, because to say that it still has being would seem to have to mean that Pure Being has a determination in some respect, right? E.g., in the sense of presence or existence or intelligibility or something.That said, I would wonder, though, whether the claim of the SoL as presuppositionless couldn't be questioned from Heideggerian grounds, specifically that the SoL begins with an already assumed theoretical stance. Now, Hegel could presumably justify that by pointing to philosophy as a theoretical activity, and that "presuppositionless" might make sense from where Hegel ends the Phenomenology. But I would then think that a Heideggerian stance (I'm not saying Heidegger actually took this stance specifically with Hegel, btw) would still have teeth in asking about the pre-philosophic experiences that would have to precede any actual philosophic or theoretical experience, since it would seem that Hegel, to the extent he discusses those, only discusses them already within a theoretical system.
>>25543029>making it functionally indistinguishable from pure Nothing. The "functionally indistinguishable part is working overtime to ignore a key difference. Being is, nothing is not. Indeterminacy is not the same as not being able to be determined whatsoever. Nothing is not, and there's nothing you can do (no pun intended) which can overcome that categorical error.>>25543030>I'm not sure that works, thpugh, because to say that it still has being would seem to have to mean that Pure Being has a determination in some respect, right? E.g., in the sense of presence or existence or intelligibility or something.Well yes, that's the point, which is why you cannot equate pure being and pure nothing except in a sophistical sense. Furthermore, being can be indeterminate, but nothing is not even indeterminate. Personally, I can see being and nothing be used in a more restricted sense, to describe the metaphysics of intelligibility, but nothing more than that (no pun intended).
>>25542898>>25543044This explains it properly. Just put on subtitles if you don't speak german. I'd start watching from somewhere around minute 6 but it also doesn't hurt to just watch the whole thing if you're interested in Hegel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_KE4VwPDk&t=707s
>>25543089I've already seen this video. It's a good explanation of Hegel, down to the seminar clips and Zizek cameo. It does not offer a solution to the problem I posed.
>>25542898>I am not even sure if pure nothing can even be properly thought of, let alone compared or predicated, since it is not even being.Actually pure nothing and pure being are the same thing. They need to part into an anachronism in order to become serperate things.
>>25543132>Actually pure nothing and pure being are the same thing.the presuppositionless science, everyone
>>25543134It's called logic.
>>25543107Yes it does. You just missed it.
>>25543134Without "something," there cannot be "nothing." Without "nothing," there cannot be "something." The two concepts presuppose one another. Thus, the pure form of the one is the pure form of the other.
>>25543141I've watched it three times in full while I was trying to answer this question. It doesn't address the problem. It just gives the refined boilerplate response, which makes the assumption I was directly trying to critique. If it doesn't, give me the time stamp and I'll show you exactly how it fails.>>25543136Yes the logic where everything is actually the same even though it is different, and you can presume things but also be presuppositionless. I guess Hegel and his followers are geniuses and retards at the same time. This is logic.
>>25543146Being comes from being. But nothing cannot even be. Nothing has no relation to being. It cannot even participate in a relation, since relations are between beings. You have a point when it comes to presence and absence, but these are predications and relations of being, not between being and nothing. That is a sloppy category mistake.
>>25543153How would being come from being?How would being exist without nothing? There has to be a nothing from which a something can be distinguished.In their primordial form, both concepts constitute a unity. They are the same but the substance is flawed, because of this flaw this empty substance becomes alien to itself.It separates from itself ("sich anders werden") and in this producing a third concept: the process of becoming. By parting from each other it becomes the subject and the reference back to the original state: the object. It becomes a stranger to oneself so as not to become empty again.
>>25543197Why does being need nothing to exist? You need to explain how it is possible for there to be relations with nothing, since a relation with nothing is no relation. Besides, what is wrong from being coming from being? That is literally how all change happens in the universe. This is an answer in search of a question, a question that is innately nonsense.
>>25543207>a relation with nothing is no relation.Umm, yes it is. >what is wrong from being coming from being?It is logically incorrect.
>>25542898See: https://warosu.org/lit/thread/25141441That thread refutes every single post in this thread, including the schizoid alcoholic who will soon pounce.You're welcome/thread.
>>25543239>read post>“Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.”there's the ball gameit's like you niggers can't even process the argument that I am making. I guess to be a Hegelian you need to shut off your brain and run on autopilot
>>25543242>there's the ball gameThat's not a phrase people say.
>>25542898>TO BE and NOT TO BE, strictly speaking, are as far apart as two concepts can beNothingness negates itself, as Heiedegger said. To not be and to be are two sides of the same coin. All attributes contain their opposite.
>>25543242You didn't read shit lol. You're a nigger and a jew (the same thing) and illiterate (also the same thing) and will never understand Hegel.
>>25543244>whoa, he said there instead of thatnot an argument>>25543248I verbatim quoted the point where you made the critical mistake that Hegel seems to make. Clearly, I read what you had to say. You also do not have an argument, and you are seething because of it. Anyway, I think we're done here unless you are going to actually address the point being made. There really isn't any reason to have an ego contest over this.
>>25543275seethe, cope, and combust. Your thread has been refuted by every work on Hegel in the history of the world and you are too dumb to realise it. There is nothing to refute because you literally cannot neither read nor think. Close the Science of Logic and do something more apt to your abilities, such as smelling your own farts
>>25543275You didn't quote the point. You quoted the quotation, holy retard!
>>25543290You should engage in healthier forms of self-talk. There's no way that that is productive.
>>25543296You're grasping at autistic straws. The point of the quote is that he interprets Hegel as conflating indeterminacy with pure nothing. And if that's what Hegel believed, which I think is the correct interpretation, then both he and Hegel are categorically wrong. Indeterminacy is a property of being. Pure nothing is not indeterminate. To attribute indeterminacy to nothing makes it behave like being, which is impossible by definition. There is no similarity between pure being and pure nothing. Period. If you can't address this point without insults, diversions, and non sequiturs, then I will happily take this W to the bank.
>>25543306Treating "indeterminacy" as a predicate or property wrongly imports concrete, determinate existence ("Dasein") into pure abstraction. If "pure Nothing" were distinguished from Being by a differentiating trait, that trait would itself be a determination ("Bestimmtheit"), reducing it to a determinate nothing ("bestimmtes Nichts") rather than pure nothing ("reines Nichts"). Because pure Nothing is absolute, unmediated negation devoid of all content, it possesses no internal distinction or structure. Consequently, both pure Being and pure Nothing are equally unmediated indeterminacy, any alleged difference between them is purely subjective opinion.
>>25543306You are genuinely retarded and obviously are not interested in understanding what Hegel is saying. The "point" you "quoted" is the sixth 3000 character post in the thread that goes on for several more posts. Hegel does NOT conflate indeterminacy with Nothing. You want someone to spoonfeed it to you in a handful of sentences. You will not get that. If you want to understand, read a Hegel scholar, or if you are too stupid, read the thread. Now if you please, I take dubs in cash.
>>25543324>>25543325That is the issue. Nothing is not determinate. Nothing is not indeterminate. Nothing is not what's left after abstracted. Nothing cannot even be abstracted and contemplated. Nothing is not a negation. Nothing is not devoid of content, nor is it full of content. Nothing is neither immediate nor mediated. Nothing is not a relation, and it has no relation. Nothing simply is not. That is all you can say about it without overstepping your bounds. In fact, I would be cautious about even saying that much. The proper response to nothing is quietism. Your response required special pleading, where you waver between properly treating nothing and then immediately breaking the rules that you set in an arbitrary manner. Hegel commits much of the same errors, even though there is a genuine glimmer of proper thinking in this manner in his work. I think he was desperate in wanting to earn himself a place in the stars, so he tried to pull a sophisticated magic trick, but a little bit of careful thought reveals the trick. >>25543325>Hegel does NOT conflate indeterminacy with Nothing. Is that so? Let's take a look at what you wrote:>If we truly hold being in its purity, we find that there is nothing there to hold. The thought collapses into the thought of emptiness itself. A Hegelian will try to motion that this collapse is not caused by us. It is being’s own indeterminacy.>To hold being purely is to deprive it of every determinacy by which it could be held. But being held without determinacy is indistinguishable from emptiness. Being therefore is not “converted” into nothing by an external act, but is revealed as nothing by the very purity that makes it begin. Seethe and cope some more. Uh oh, stinky.
>>25543347>"Nothing simply is not" => performative self-contradiction: the very moment you think or speak of Nothing (even to demand quietism) you grant it a presence within thought, demonstrating that pure Nothing cannot be isolated from Being without immediately collapsing into it
>>25543347Read again very slowly, sweaty. And while you are at it, read before, and read after, moron. Tell me you're an undergraduate without telling me you're an undergraduate. It's the same fucking thing every year.
>>25543351>the very moment you think or speak of Nothing (even to demand quietism) you grant it a presence within thought, demonstrating that pure Nothing cannot be isolated from BeingNTA but that's kinda like saying that "silence" cannot be talked about because the moment you audibly utter it, it's no longer silent. Descriptions don't have to carry the properties of the things described.
>>25543351Not really. You grant something else a presence within thought, sure, but it's not pure nothing. What the demand for quietism does is call to attention an error, since what you intend can never be what you actually intend, since you can only think of being. Nothing can't refer to its pure self. That is like saying that a square can be round. It's a broken term that can only refer to negations of being, which is how it colloquially functions. Pure nothing is as meaningful as gfijobdiobfdg.>>25543352I read it again to humor you. It's the same bait-and-switch every single time. Sorry, but you don't have a disciplined mind, you don't want to be held accountable for your errors in thought, and I don't have any desire to follow you down your rabbit hole where beings are nothings, men are women, and all sorts of Finkelthink.
>>25543355False analogy because "silence" is a determinate physical phenomenon in the world externally referenced by a linguistic sign, whereas pure Nothing in logic is not an external object standing apart from a descriptor.
>>25543356>read a dense Hegel thread in 2 minutes. Yeah okay, sweaty. Keep coping and seething. I hope you wrote your infantile thoughts sometime soon in and try to publish it in a reputable paper, only to be laughed into the grave by anonymous editors.
>>25543364You fellas need to learn how analogies work. There being a difference is what makes it an analogy instead of the identical case. Though, naturally, there also has to be a similarity, too. In this case, that descriptions don't have to carry the properties of what they are describing. Regardless if there exists or doesn't exist actual absolute silence anywhere, the analogy works precisely like analogies do.
>>25543356>Not really yada, yadaIf "pure nothing" were truly meaningless noise, you couldn't analyze its properties, compare it to round squares, or prescribe quietism for it. The moment you attempt to define what "nothing" can or cannot refer to, you prove it is an active abstraction in thought whose immediate collapse into Being validates Hegel's thesis.
>>25543364The analogy holds because the relations posited are meant to be essential. Whether we are talking about something physical or something logical, it doesn't matter. >>25543366It's been more than an hour since you posted it. It's just a few 4chan posts. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to read, especially if you've read it before.
>>25543371Analogy belongs strictly to empirical picture-thinking ("Vorstellung"), which compares external traits of finite objects, whereas pure Nothing is an unmediated logical category devoid of any external properties to compare. Attempting to use empirical comparisons to explain pure logic shows you cannot grasp pure abstraction.
>>25543374>If "pure nothing" were truly meaningless noise, you couldn't analyze its properties, compare it to round squares, or prescribe quietism for it. So close, yet so far away. The truth of the matter is that you were never comparing pure nothing to round squares. You weren't doing anything except contorting yourself. Round squares don't have properties. They don't exist, not even in thought. To think a round square is to think of some abomination of circle or square, or some other shape entirely, but never a round square. Likewise, that is what it means to think of pure nothing. The attempt to analyze "pure nothing" and treat it as a properly-defined concept, aka as being or a being, is like trying to perform a party trick or worse, trying to sink more and more money in an unwitting attempt to rescue a clearly doomed enterprise. Sorry, but it's time to admit that jig's up or to cut your losses. >>25543385This is just cope at best and intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy at worst.
>>25542898The work is wrong and even evil but there's nothing wrong with Being-Nothing that doesn't apply equally to the entire enterprise. Being is indeterminate, nothing is the determinate-indeterminate. Indeterminacy itself is, in itself, determinate. He states this explicitly albeit briefly, it makes the whole move lucid.>as far apart as two concepts can beRight, the one is the negation of the other.>Even if pure being lacks determination, it still has being.It doesn't "have" anything, it just is what it be. It's sheer indeterminacy, pure thinking.>I am reminded of the path of is versus the path of is not from Parmenides's fragments.Hegel is the final outcome of Parmenides via Platonism and Kant. But Hegel's nothing is a 'nothing that somehow is', not the nothing of Kant's noumenon. You should really be asking questions like 'how does this all even work, why is it meaningful?' etc. and not get lost in the weeds of the deductions. You do need to understand the deductions thoroughly but you also need to think about the big picture which Hegel also talks about. PoS is critical for placing the Logic in its proper context.
>>25543385>Analogy belongs strictly to empirical picture-thinkingThat is false, analogy (and embodied analogy in particular) is the basis of all thought down to pre-conceptual cognition. I'm so happy we get to rely on cognitive scientists instead of philosophers who will jump through 10 theoretical hoops just to avoid facing an objection lol. Pure copium.
>>25543385>Nothing is an unmediated logical category>pure abstractionFancy words for "a concept I have nothing to show for". Even fancier that you think analogies cannot apply to it. Which means you cannot actually think about it. Is this a concession, Anon-kun?
>>25543399Mostly fair points, though I've done enough quibbling for today that I don't want to repeat, so I'll get to the meat of it. It seems like the only value that the SoL seems to possess is to describe an ontology of thought, perhaps one could say a "phenomenology" of thought. It is not a work of ontology in the sense of being qua being (and more). It simply fails on that regard for the reasons I have demonstrated.
>>25543410What‘s an „ontology of thought“? Don‘t get fooled anon the sol is basically meaningless unless you buy Hegel‘s whole program and why would you? Why should you? It‘s an elaborate game with some neat observations on the way. When Hegel wrote it I guarantee you he did not „follow le concept“ he basically went top down starting with being-essence-concept. Kant is the greater philosopher and for Hegel PoS is his best work. But you can find legions of freaks online who think studying sol teaches you deep theology etc.
>>25543401Embodied analogy describes how finite human minds construct psychological representations ("Vorstellung"), whereas pure logic examines the immanent, objective necessity of thought itself ("das reine Denken"). Pointing to pre-conceptual cognition merely admits an inability to separate empirical mental mechanisms from pure speculative thought.>>25543405Pure logic explicitly requires abstracting from all sensory intuition ("Anschauung") and empirical content. Asserting that what cannot be visually pictured cannot be thought simply surrenders to naive empiricism,.
>>25543514>whereas pure logic examines the immanent, objective necessity of thought itselfIt really doesn't. Words are just established metaphors. There is no "pure logic", there's just so much abstraction that you can't even tell what embodied content is being utilized. >pre-conceptual>speculativeLol
>>25543405A priori conception of transcendental knowledge is one of the most basic aspects of European philosophy, coming directly from Neoplatonism. Read Wittgenstein, or better yet just study the Vedanta, one of the several epistemological Buddhist schools or Taoism.This kind of knowledge is difficult to express so you need to study it yourself to understand, but as an example, know that you cannot understand something that is truly empty because even the emptiness is a positive concept you are envisioning, while emptiness itself is the absence of any character. So you can imagine how it would appear, and have a good grasp of its attributes, yet by the nature of our consciousness it is impossible to imagine it without attributes.
>>25543600Adding on a little, I think your main issue is completely failing to understand the element of abstraction which is fundamental to reading Hegel, so you really need to get a good grasp of preceding literature (theological writing is actually very useful here) before you try and understand
>>25543600>it's not pre-conceptual>it's a priori transcendentalSee, you jump through so many hoops you end up confusing yourself. If what you're trying to talk about is neoplatonic and wittgensteinian knowledge, then that is precisely pre-conceptual and precisely based on embodied relationships - metaphor and analogy. There is no way to escape this and trying to claim that there is a theoretical safespace called pure logic where we finally escape the weight of not just embodied metaphor, but empirical charge whatsoever is to misunderstand what words are at all.
>>25543548Claiming that pure logic is merely established metaphor commits a fundamental category error by confusing the sensory origin of words with the immanent necessity of the thoughts they express.While language historically draws upon sensory metaphors, its true operation is precisely to sublate ("aufheben") and annihilate immediate physical existence, elevating thought into pure universality.
>>25543610My main issue is that I understand people who came after Hegel. Cognitive scientists. Who studied abstraction and language and there is quite literally no way for a human agent to get to this "pure logic" safespace in >>25543621. It's just not how discoursive reason works.
>>25543623You misunderstood. The metaphor is not hidden away in history, instantly burned up with by the fire of our conscious reason. The words are the metaphors/analogies. And your mind builds ideas using these metaphors. It's not that there is some "pure thought" you acquire age 15 after reading Plato for the first time. You're combining metaphors all the way down, and if sufficiently motivated, you gaslight yourself into believing you've escaped the embodied aspect that all human language and human thought inherently moves in... but it is not so.When you used the word 'express' in your post, it wasn't just an unfortunate fact that your mind reached for a word historically loaded with 'a thing exerting its likeness onto a separate medium'. That was the thought. That was the metaphor.
unironically OP got refuted long ago and this entire thread is being kept alive because of samefagging and anons not appreciating that OP is a self-congratulating mong
>>25543621>There is no way to escape this and trying to claim that there is a theoretical safespace called pure logic where we finally escape the weight of not just embodied metaphor, but empirical charge whatsoever is to misunderstand what words are at all.That isn't an argument of any kind, you're just saying that it can't happen, which is absurd. You also cited modern cognitive scientists, but logicians have embraced the concept of metalogic invented (as with most of their field) from analytical philosophy.>>25543646Once again you're confusing the fact that you can conceive something mentally with the statement that some concepts are ineffable. Those are not synonymous, proving which is the explicit intent of what I told you to read.>>25543647He is basically yes, well saged I guess
>>25543647Wdym? I curbstomped the Hegelfags multiple times, it wasn't even close. Nice try at samefagging though. I see you.
