WHAT. IN THE LIVING FUCK. IS THIS, HERR FICHTE?????
>>25640019Total mental masturbation with 0 purposeInstead of reading ts you should be reading things that help you make money
>>25640019Not-(a-dog) contains a-dog. A-dog does not contain not-(a-dog). Therefore by stipulating Not-(a-dog) one only abolishes the a-dogness of a-dogness in distinction to the abolition of a-dogness by Not(-a-dog). To create a not-a-dog creates dogs by reference: you can't negate a null. A negation doesn't create a null, it creates a negative form of the positive form, so the positive form is sustained.Not-a-dog + a-dog => no particular dog but dogness still exists.Are you new here? Go read Aristotle.
>>25640031ok but where did he get an x from, bitch?
>>25640031Andrew Tate says: 2+2=5You can say 2+2=4But then if a strong man comes and says 2+2=5, he can beat you and fuck your girl until you give in and believe that 2+2=5That’s a tateism I believe in
>>25640031Spbp. I am curious as to what grander point he's illustrating through this example however. I've never tried to read Fichte before. Also curious to know why OP cracked this open in the first place.
>>25640038Why can't you be funny?
>>25640029rich dad poor dad
>>25640036X is all things which are not A.A is a-dog is (All things which are not-a-dog)-A is not(-a-dog) which is the specific notness of not-being a dogX is all things which are not dogs.Linguistically negations aren't annulments. Negations imply the positive. (Don't think of a monkey.) -A is the specific absence of dogness. X is all things which aren't dogs.
>>25640039Negations not being nullifications is the basis of puns or plays on words. They're probably reading Fichte to prepare to read Difference and Repetition.
>>25640019philosophy is just cope
Yin and yang, man, like, whoaDiscursive reason that affirms or denies is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Bite the bullet, baby
>>25640019Isnt this pretty basic philosophical logic? Literal basic ass computers do this shit.
>>25640019Yes negation presupposes what it negates.
>>25640029What Protestantism does to a mf
>>25640029>Instead of reading ts you should be reading things that help you make moneysuch as?
If you negate an xor gate, you still need an xor gate in the first place and a system that recognizes what it is even if you didn't negate it
You actually made me dig out my copy from under the mound of empty chips bags and 40s of OE just to answer you. I forewarn you that part 1 is the easy bit. You have entered a world of pain.He is demonstrating here the PSR or rather indicating how it already has been demonstrated. X is that in which a and !a are the same which allows them even to be distinguished from one another. Contrast with thetic judgments in which there is no third. Fichte’s language is intensely autistic but it’s not a complex point. What is posited with !a is not what is “particular” to a but rather what is common to both=X. Insofar as X they are the same, and any two “differing” things will offer you a concrete example (blue is not red but both are colors, colors=X). Note how this differs from the noumenal object of the second foundational principle which is absolutely other. Don’t forget it it’s important in part 3.Fichte is demanding and he is worth it. I recommend manically pacing back and forth reading him by day then get drunk in the evening and reflect on what you read.
wtf even is going in this thread?
I curse the day you faggots memed me into reading this shit!
>>25640038go to a different board
>>25640143jews are winning in this thread, and that's a good thing.
>>25640143>wtf even is going in this thread?Anal[ytic philosophy]. This is why all the cool kids read Deleuze and Spinoza.
>>25640143Retards pretend that Fichte is le funny nonsense man and one anon actually explains the text.
>>25640181>>25640180anyone interested in philosophy should be forced to take at least 1 semester's worth of Logic courses so that they can parse and apply even basic symbolic logic.
>>25640185>anyone interested in philosophy should be forced to take at least 1 semester's worth of Logic courses so that they can parse and apply even basic symbolic logic.Anyone interested in philosophy should be forced to take at least 1 semester's worth of Hegel courses so they can parse and apply even basic German Idealism.I don't disagree with your penchant for anal, I think we both agree that undergraduate degrees have the purpose of making their graduates capable of learning any area of the discipline's work.
>>25640185why this world is so irrational
>>25640195>why this world is so irrationalBecause negation isn't nullification, THAT IS THE JOKE.
>>25640193I dont think that is directly aplicable because symbolic logic is how you apply logic regardless of what specific school of thought you are investigating more specificly. It applies to fucking computer coding as much as it applies to Fichte
>>25640031Let a-dog equal nog. Let not equal nig.Nignog contains nog. Nig does not contain nignog. Nignog only nogs to the extent of nignog.
>>25640200wrong sir! wrong! logic presupposes the wissenschaftslehre, not the other way around.
>>25640224maybe, but you are going to employ it regardless of your study as long as your world view interacts with empirical experience to some extent.
>>25640199but how?
Yea, no. I'm not doing this. Fichte, back on the shelf you go.
>>25640256I don’t believe you. You’ve had a taste, now you need to drain the cow. That’s how German idealism works. And if I’m wrong - well, it’s your map plapjack.
>>25640019its basically an iteration of the modern concept of dialectics (i say modern to distinguish from say Plato's dialects)
>>25640102Doing Onlyfans
>>25640019WTF. I know people like to attribute Fichte's dialectis to Hegel, but this are straight up Hegelian dialectics. Did Hegel stole them from Fichte or is this posterior to Hegel's writings?
>>25640036X is a sort of quasi empty conceptif -A annuls A, but in being posited both annuls and posits A, X is that part of A which remains
>>25640038Tate is a moron but you have to admit he is right about this. what is the point in being "right" if someone can just force you to do and say whatever he wants?
>>25640019>A=-Awe're all just gonna ignore this?
>>25640354If you have to ask probably you'll never know.
>>25640143I just took a dump in a flask
>>25640416>gets punched and gangraped for hours on end.
>>25640019He;'s saying the way A interacts with its opposite changes the nature of its opposite, and suggests a third value to represent that change. The language is very clear, but I don't do math, so I don't se e the importance.
>>25640019Honestly what is the point of analytic philosophy? Like what is it used for? I kind of understand it but I honestly have no idea why and I'm really not sure it has any practical use.
A>that's a water bottle-A>no that's a piss bottleX>It's a bottle
>>25640236imagine it like a question, that already implies a minimum set of information.by that in a way the question already contains the answer and you cannot take it out of it.
>>25641112>analytic philosophy might be the lowest iq response in this thread, and the other replies are already sub 60 iq
>>25640019Put very stupidly, if i ask you "Are you a Dongle?" and you respond "what the fuck is a Dongle" and i respond "oh you must be a non-Dongle then", you would still have no idea what the fuck i am on about. non-Dongle negates Dongle, but contains it, because it requires you to get what Dongle is.
>>25641114no-A is -A , not some half assed mod of A>>25641208No.no reason to be imprecise.
>>25641205Sure this is modal logic, but that is a sub-discipline of analytical philosophy, no?
>>25641227So a mod is different than a negation in this case, as a water bottle can become a piss bottle? Or is that just semantically overinterpreting the analogy.
>>25641579this is like a 100 years before analytic philosophy
>>25641645I guess I always had associated it with its more modern applications and thus viewed it as an analytical thing.
>>25640413If you disagree with this we will literally lynch you as a heretic.
>>25641112I assume you mean prepositional logic, right?If you are, its one of the most plainly applicable branches of philosophy even in hard things like finance and coding. coding literally uses prepositional logic as its base. AND, OR, NOT, IF/THEN, etc. IF A equals B and B equals C then A equals C. A analytical philosophy is just taking strict logic to its extreme using formulaic rigor.
>>25641585the negation of a bottle isnt changing what goes in it
