Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
you can't
I perfer sound thinking
why would you need to rationalize the obvious ?
without objects , from the micro to the macro , you wouldn't be , you wouldn't exist
Yes, Hegel is just poetry. Better to study engineering, and neither Hegel nor whatever antiphilosophy is hip at the moment...if one wants direct worldly significance. Compared to physical science, philosophy is a pillow (soft). Doesn't matter that science is grounded on an implicit metaphysics. They got it covered?
This is an attack on Psychiatry. I just offer it to show the vulnerability of "soft science." Philosophy is literature for repressed mathematicians?
It's a free country, man. I'm quite aware that Hegel is difficult, often attacked, etc. But I stand by his system as deeper than Kant's.
But let me say that absolute idealism is not really idealism anymore.
It's not like Berkeley. It's name is related to its parentage.
The title of this thread is why Hegel isn't really an idealist.
The real is the rational and the rational is the real. The dichotomy is bogus because it's illogical.
Of course it's pragmatically useful.
And Hegel is indeed from a practical view just brilliant poetry.
Do you like Rorty? Rorty is a bridge from Hegel to the useful folks.
I think much of analytic philosophy is a cowardly retreat from everything that makes philosophy worth the trouble.
Of course Rorty was a member of the tribe, but he crossed the aisle and united the clans.
Here's the thing. Clear language is great. But language is often metaphorical. You can't calculate philosophy as if metaphor is clear as math is clear. And the denial of metaphoricity is highly questionable in my book.
Language requires interpretation. It's not a perfect medium.
Yes, the continental boys are often full of S, and many of them bore me. But the best part of the cont. tradition engages the real difficulty of communication. I don't like reductive theories of meaning, which sometimes flatter the reducer.
The self-consciousness of the absolute is a brilliant notion.
I dug up a 3rd party interpretation. I have littered the metaphysics section with my own interpretation.
Let me stress that as much as I love Hegel, the idea is more important than the man.
So if my interpretation is wrong (a matter of debate), it's still at the moment what I would prefer to the official Hegel-line.
Yes, H is poetry. As is much of philosophy. But that statement is itself poetry, in that it is metaphorical, as is much philosophy. Check out the roots of the word poetry.
Antiphilosophy? To oversimplify: a contempt for metaphysics. (Which includes ontology.)
We want a miracle! Give us cold fusion. Give us something we can use! Not all this babble! Think positivism and its offspring.
The literature thing is sincere.
Phil is fiction dressed as nonfiction?
Sorta-kinda.
What is truth? Well, that's no easy question. Anyone can talk sh*t, so philosophy is soft.
It's tangled up in aesthetics, opinion, morality, politics. Just like psychiatry.
Not so long ago, homosexuality was a disease. Mores changed and "science" followed suit.
The humanities, god love them, are soft.
What does it mean to have a degree in the humanities? That the teacher liked your opinions? That you remembered the plots of certain books? And this is coming from someone who spent many years on literature.
Physics is different. You can build a bomb or land on the moon, and this more than just opinion. Physics wins wars. Of course so does rhetoric, but rhetoric alone won't cut it. Not anymore.
Psychiatry is in many ways soft.
It's diseases are poems. And some say its poems are diseases.
It's the same with foolosophy. Some view metaphysics as trash. How do you convince them otherwise, assuming you are foolish enough to bother? Rhetoric.
Hell, you might say that the cutting edge of mathematics is soft, as folks can disagree on new math concepts.
For instance, Cantor was driven mad partially by Kronecker. There are debates about the nature of number. Until math becomes a computer or a space shuttle, the layman can only shrug. Negative numbers were long viewed with suspicion. Nowadays, huge prime numbers are used to encrypt valuable information. Imaginary numbers are old old news. What is truth in a social sense? Consensus. Say the wrong thing in front of the wrong people and you are a fool, a sinner, or a madman. This is the power/truth dynamic. When I made that engineer quip, I forgot to mention another path of worldly significant more akin to philosophy, and that is politics. If you're rhetoric is slick, you can outdo the engineer perhaps, for politicians decide whether tax money is spent on fusion bombs or solar panels, etc.
Hex Hammer, quite reading New York Times bestsellers and read some real philosophy.
Scratch that: read some rational philosophy.
To stay on topic, I think NAND and NOR and the constructable equivalence to NEGATION reveals that the change of symbolism from something unitary to something with a certain dynamism is what is essentially presented with the whole REAL=RATIONAL postulate.
That is, whereas the REAL is what we might say is objective or something like that (true independent of opinion), the RATIONAL (that which can be put into a ratio) allows for a multiplicity-- the connection of man with the knowable.
Hex Hammer, quite reading New York Times bestsellers and read some real philosophy.
Scratch that: read some rational philosophy.
To stay on topic, I think NAND and NOR and the constructable equivalence to NEGATION reveals that the change of symbolism from something unitary to something with a certain dynamism is what is essentially presented with the whole REAL=RATIONAL postulate.
That is, whereas the REAL is what we might say is objective or something like that (true independent of opinion), the RATIONAL (that which can be put into a ratio) allows for a multiplicity-- the connection of man with the knowable.
