Hegel's Ultimate Beginning

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ninteenth Century Philosophers
  3. » Hegel's Ultimate Beginning

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 08:27 pm
I'm quoting from 'The Philosophy of Hegel' -Modern Library , Ed. Carl J. Friedrich, Random House, 1954.

In his 'Science of Logic' Hegel tackles Kant's first antinomy (although there are more direct references to Kant's first antinomy elsewhere) ... and he postulates that the universe, before it existed, began with the following for a science --in answer to Kant's call for a science of metaphysics:

" ... in any science a beginning is made by presupposing some idea --such idea being next analyzed, so that is is only the result of this analysis which affords the first definite concept of the science. Were we too to observe this procedure we should have no particular object before us, because the beginning, as being the beginning of thought, must be perfectly abstract and general, pure form quite without content, we should have nothing but the idea of a bare beginning as such. It remains to be seen what we possess in this idea .... So far, there is nothing: something is to become. The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed, so that being is already contained in the beginning. The beginning thus contains both, being and nothing; it is the unity of being and nothing, or is not-being which is being, and being which is also not-being ... that which is beginning, as yet is not: it is advancing toward being. The beginning therefore contains being as having this characteristic, that it flies from and transcends not-being, as its opposite .... And further, that which is-beginning, already is, and equally, as yet, is not. The opposites being and not-being are therefore in immediate union in it: in other words, it is the undifferentiated unity of the two." [found on page 211 of the edition noted]. And further on: "What has been said implies this further point, that that with which we must begin, cannot be something concrete, something containing a relation within itself. For such presuposes a mediation and a transition within itself from a first to an other .... That which constitutes the beginning (and that is, the very beginning itself) must therefore be taken, in its simple immediacy without content, as something not admitting analysis, hence as pure vacuity, as Being .... If any form is taken for the beginning in preference to empty being, then the beginning suffers from the flaws mentioned .... Whatever element of intellectual intuition is present at the beginning of the science, it cannot be anything but primary, immediate, and simple determination, or if the object of such intuition is called the eternal or the divine or the absolute, the same applies to whatever of these elements is present in the beginning .... Hence in such a representation a beginning is not made with the concrete, but with the simple immediate whence the movement starts. Further, if a concrete thing is taken as the beginning, there is lacking the proof which is demanded by the complex of determinations contained in the concrete .... The expression of the absolute, the eternal, or God (and God has the most undisputed right that the beginning should be made with Him), or the contemplation or thought of these, may contain more than pure Being: if that is so, such content has yet to manifest itself to thinking (and not to presentational) knowledge; for, however rich this content, the first determination which emerges into knowledge is something simple ...." [213 and 216].

Herein Hegel takes a position in favour of the thesis of Kant's first antinomy: 'The world has, as to time and space, a limit' ... that is, there was a time in the past (perhaps it would be better to state a non-time) in which the world was not. Therefore, it had a beginning.

I cannot find fault with Hegel's reasoning. This is the most clear passage in Hegel's works where mention is made of nothing, and something emerging through some movement towards something else... not-being flying from itself and moving towrds being .... I have no particular problem here with Hegel's thinking; for, if we were to begin with some concrete condition (from which the universe arose), the intuitive question arises: "From where did this concrete condition originate?" One obvious problem I find with the rhetoric here is the inclusion of God in the picture ... for the same question arises: "From where did this God [not yet defined however] originate?" and if the definition is given, does the question apply? We can always question whatever we begin with, including the idea of nothing (despite Hegel stating that such a state admits of no analysis ... I'm not quite sure I understand Hegel fully here). My problem with beginning with nothing is simply this: We have a dictionary definition of nothing ... grounded upon common sense. But Kant throws out what he calls 'the magic wand of so-called common sense' when it comes to metaphysics. He rejects any appeal to this magic wand. So, given Kant's own direction: "Can nothing itself be defined beyond just what we find in a common dictionary definition of nothing?" I think this is what Hegel attempts in the above. He has it that nothing is not actually nothing ... it is not-being moving away from itself towards Being. There have been threads elsewhere speaking of something arising from nothing and quantum physics has evidence of what they call quantum vacuum fluctuations (particles or what have you arising out of vacuums), so things do appear to arise out of nothing ... so doesn't this suggest that nothing is something more than just what Webster's dictionary defines it as?

I think Leibniz's question: "Why is there something as opposed to nothing?" could be turned around to: "Why should there be nothing as opposed to something?" It works both ways around. In philosophy we can question everything, including our common sensed presumptions, including the dictionary definition of nothing. What is lacking is a critical definition of nothing. And this is what Hegel attempts.

Kant's first antinomy itself rests upon the common sensed presumption that 'something cannot arise from nothing.' But when you think nothing, you negate the very thought of nothing. You cannot reduce what you have in your mind to an absolute void. There is always something there, including even the thought of nothing. So, doesn't this suggest the possibility of a critical definition of nothing, such as that which Hegel attempts? Kant did ask his 'critical reader' to lend the first antinomy his 'chief attention.' -according to a footnote in Kant's 'Prolegomena.'

Hegel seems to have tried this in the above.

The question here is: "Is Hegel onto something?" Or, "Is Hegel talking gibberish?" What do you think?
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 11:37 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Hi,

I don't know why he is so wordy and repetitive, but let's see if I can break it down, compare it to Daoism, and express my views:

Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
So far, there is nothing: something is to become.


This would be comparable to the Dao. I personally picture it as something most ethereal. I would call it pure Consciousness.

Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
The beginning thus contains both, being and nothing


This can be compared to Yin and Yang. I would picture this as Consciousness turning into itself and creating a wave. One side of the wave being Yin the other being Yang. So we have opposites created from ethereal Consciousness.

Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
The opposites being and not-being are therefore in immediate union in it: in other words, it is the undifferentiated unity of the two."


This I would say is comparable to the unity as expressed in the Taiji symbol:

http://www.ablealternativehealthcare.com/graphics/taiji.jpg


Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
Hence in such a representation a beginning is not made with the concrete, but with the simple immediate whence the movement starts.


This would be likened to the introduction of Qi. Qi is movement from Intention. So the spiraling of the wave begins. And from the spirals we can observe an infinite number of forms. The DNA helix being just one example:

http://gfish.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dna_helix.jpg


Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
Herein Hegel takes a position in favour of the thesis of Kant's first antinomy: 'The world has, as to time and space, a limit' ... that is, there was a time in the past (perhaps it would be better to state a non-time) in which the world was not. Therefore, it had a beginning.


I would distinguish the forever nature of that which was at the beginning, whether it is called the Dao, Universal Consciousness, or the Beginning, from that which it creates from itself.

Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
I think this is what Hegel attempts in the above. He has it that nothing is not actually nothing ... it is not-being moving away from itself towards Being.


I think the general idea one worth thinking about and very similar to Daoism, however I think it is presented in a muddy way, and when something is not clear, I always suspect that the author is unsure himself.

Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
There have been threads elsewhere speaking of something arising from nothing and quantum physics has evidence of what they call quantum vacuum fluctuations (particles or what have you arising out of vacuums), so things do appear to arise out of nothing ... so doesn't this suggest that nothing is something more than just what Webster's dictionary defines it as?


There is something called virtual particles quantum physics theory which alludes to this question:

Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in a vacuum is the Casimir effect.[6][7] Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in a vacuum can be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: their zero-point energy[8] results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.

Shostakovich;87023 wrote:
The question here is: "Is Hegel onto something?" Or, "Is Hegel talking gibberish?" What do you think?


I personally was only able to follow Hegel's thoughts because of my studies in Daoism. These ideas form the basis of my own metaphysical view of the world, and I have found it very practical in dealing with day to day problems in life.

Rich
 
Shostakovich phil
 
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 12:01 am
@Shostakovich phil,
There is another post that I'm going to visit now ... on this same subject. I have a 'causal argument' myself in which I present a critical definition of nothing. The idea of nothing gives rise to two ideas, or representations, as follows: A) The absolute state of a void, or nothing, existing as an objective, infinite, or boundless, unconditional state outside of B) our finite, conditional, subjective idea of A.
And I call these the A and B representations. In my causal arguement I further define A as the cause of B. There is a pure causal relation wherein the absolute influences, or draws the effect of B, towards it. The objective of the effect is the attainment of the absolute. The complete 'causal argument' I've formulated goes beyond Hegel and offers a critical answer to Kant and follows from pure reason alone. The only possible empirical validation is provided by big bang cosmology. The 'causal argument' also necessitates an expanding universe. I won't go into it here yet, in any great detail, because I don't know what the general level of interest would be. But Hegel at least begins at the most logical beginning, and that is with an absolute void, or vacuity of being. In my argument I call this the 'simplest of all possible states' to which the universe, if taken as far back as possible ... to the ultimate beginning ... would regress. The universe cannot collapse beyond this point to an even more simple point. Conversely, it is from this point that alll things move forward towards more complexity.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 06:43 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
richrf and Shostakovish,

This is very interesing.

Here are a few of my ideas on this profound topic.

I think the problem that we are running into is that we are dealing with our investigation in the land of two (duality or the mind) while trying to understand the land of one or Pure Being. Actually in what I have just said I am already stumbling because even one is a comparative notion that dwells within the mind.

On top of this, I believe that we feel that the mind is our only instrument for dealing with this search. But perhaps this isn’t the case, because down through history since the ancient times persons of wisdom have told us repeatedly that there is something going on outside of the mind or rather previously to the mind and perhaps even of a whole other dimension than our slower mind. This instrument being more immediate and all incompassing.

I get the impression that Hegel believed that if we broke this search down into small enough pieces, or details, we could get a handle on it. But if this is something that must be dealt with all at once in order to be witnessed how will breaking it into smaller and smaller pieces help? Perhaps it would only be in giving up on studying this piece meal or even as mental objects that we could even hope to come upon it where it lives.

And again what is no object called nothing or empty without something or full as a backdrop to explain it, or what is beginning in the land of eternal presence? Eternal not requiring time to explain it has no need of beginning or ending to contain it.


I have heard of Pure Being described as “everywhere center and without periphery.” How is the mind able to objectify such as this, or “Suchness?”


So:

Is what Hegel saying gibberish? In IMHO, “No.”

However what he is doing is what the mind always does. He is dancing around Pure Being like a maypole. In doing this he and we do, as others before us, begin to pick up the scent of this Immediate Truth called Eternity or the Eternal Self. Instead of studying it, we “Be It.”

I would be very interested to hear what others think on this.

Subjectivity9
 
richrf
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:00 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;91093 wrote:
In doing this he and we do, as others before us, begin to pick up the scent of this Immediate Truth called Eternity or the Eternal Self. Instead of studying it, we "Be It."

I would be very interested to hear what others think on this.

Subjectivity9


Hi there Subjectivity9,

I agree. Here is my version:

Yes, we can only Be It, because that is what it is. Among other things we do, while we are being (and I do lots of things), is trying to figure out why we are Being It. We experience, enjoy some of it, not enjoy other parts of it, and while experiencing we collect clues about Being. I liken it to a Grand Game composed of many, many smaller games.

So, as for me, I am, as you suggest, just Being It. I am not attempting to find a Truth or a final answer. However, part of the experiencing is trying to figure things out, so I do some of that some of the time, but not all of the time, and not with that as an objective. My idea is to collect clues like a detective and wait and see what happens as I collect the clues. What will happen will happen. It may be enlightenment, it may be nirvana, it may be a Ah-Hah moment, it may be a a great letdown and a bummer, or it may be nothing. I don't know. I just keep playing the role of a detective the best way I know how.

Rich
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:32 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
You're not attempting to find truth/the ultimate truth? Why on earth not? And there was me thinking that you were a spiritual type of guy rich.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:55 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91108 wrote:
You're not attempting to find truth/the ultimate truth? Why on earth not? And there was me thinking that you were a spiritual type of guy rich.


You really should ask me the same thing about The Spaghetti Monster. I am not trying to find him either. And I am not spiritual, but I do like pasta.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:00 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Yeah i love a good home made Lasagne, infact me and Twisted were talking about making one earlier in chat today, mmmm, nice, lav it.
 
Baal
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:06 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Quote:
I think the problem that we are running into is that we are dealing with our investigation in the land of two (duality or the mind) while trying to understand the land of one or Pure Being. Actually in what I have just said I am already stumbling because even one is a comparative notion that dwells within the mind.
While you are partially correct in your assessment, this has nothing to do with duality, or with anything to do with "Duality" vs. a "One" in that sense. The problem essentially is your mode of though in trying to understand Hegels' notion in the first place "in light of.... <this discussion>" .. whereas in truth hegel does not depict a static form of beginning or some kind of state of nothingness. This entire paragraph quoted attempts to ascribe to the notion that you mentioned a kind of mundane property which is not necessarily a conscious part of becoming in itself, but rather one which tries to reach around and grab the right ear with the left hand behind one's back - and of course missing horribly.

The comparative notion here is part of the dialectical explanation in itself. stalling on that particular comparison is simply refuting the entire paragraph and saying nothing. What is essentially the notion of being, not-being, and being-not need not be contrasted with each other until they are viewed in terms of actual becoming.

Quote:
On top of this, I believe that we feel that the mind is our only instrument for dealing with this search. But perhaps this isn't the case, because down through history since the ancient times persons of wisdom have told us repeatedly that there is something going on outside of the mind or rather previously to the mind and perhaps even of a whole other dimension than our slower mind. This instrument being more immediate and all incompassing.
eh? I don't see how this relates to anything.

Quote:
I get the impression that Hegel believed that if we broke this search down into small enough pieces, or details, we could get a handle on it. But if this is something that must be dealt with all at once in order to be witnessed how will breaking it into smaller and smaller pieces help? Perhaps it would only be in giving up on studying this piece meal or even as mental objects that we could even hope to come upon it where it lives.
No, it is not breaking into smaller pieces that will solve and aid this search, it is the passing and experiencing of these smaller pieces as a composition of the dialectic of becoming. In other words, it is not analytical but not holistic either. Hegel's approach was to combine them both in a form as he did above.

Quote:
And again what is no object called nothing or empty without something or full as a backdrop to explain it, or what is beginning in the land of eternal presence? Eternal not requiring time to explain it has no need of beginning or ending to contain it.
Perhaps this is the real problem of your explanations noted above.

Quote:
I have heard of Pure Being described as "everywhere center and without periphery." How is the mind able to objectify such as this, or "Suchness?"
It does not objectify this until it grasps Spirit. This is part of the point.
Quote:

So:

Is what Hegel saying gibberish? In IMHO, "No."

However what he is doing is what the mind always does. He is dancing around Pure Being like a maypole. In doing this he and we do, as others before us, begin to pick up the scent of this Immediate Truth called Eternity or the Eternal Self. Instead of studying it, we "Be It."

I would be very interested to hear what others think on this.

Subjectivity9
You are partially correct.. the kind of thought on this, qua thought, qua reflection, is what people normally do. Only that unlike hegel most are unaware that this process is happening to them. To objectify this process in itself, to even write it down, takes a fair amount of genius.
It is not dancing around the thought.. it is not a circular motion but a form of spiral with no direction.. or.. rather this cannot be objectified in such a form because according to hegel (and this is what I think as well) dialectic is the essence of human thought, and thus cannot really be described by something else which is merely a product of dialectic without actually damaging the conception and notion of this process in the first place.

I don't know what scent you are speaking about though... Hegel does not have a kind of "Progress" or even evolution of sorts. Spirit is indeed revealed in a dialectic form which is a sort of duality of Spirit itself, as in each stage or movement of the dialectic a bit more of Spirit is revealed, or we seem to think ourselves aware of the attainment of Spirit, whereas in reality we never grasp Spirit altogether unless the dialectic is violently halted or suspended.
 
richrf
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:21 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91108 wrote:
You're not attempting to find truth/the ultimate truth? Why on earth not? And there was me thinking that you were a spiritual type of guy rich.


I don't know if there is one or whether I am going to find it, so why get myself all frustrated trying. I look around, collect clues about life, talk about it a bit and then go play some tennis and maybe some dancing. The process is fun enough for me. I don't want to make it an obsessive hunt that spoils the game. When I play tennis, I don't care if I win or lose (though my opponent usually does), I just enjoy learning how to hit the ball with a racquet.

Rich
 
Caroline
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:32 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
You're not going to find any truths in tennis other than that is fun and that's all, that's it. Just because you don't know if you'll ever find it, shoudn't mean you should give up trying to look for it and it's enjoyable not frustrating, it's only frustrating when you don't get anywhere.
 
richrf
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 08:55 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91134 wrote:
You're not going to find any truths in tennis other than that is fun and that's all, that's it. Just because you don't know if you'll ever find it, shoudn't mean you should give up trying to look for it and it's enjoyable not frustrating, it's only frustrating when you don't get anywhere.


I think there is plenty of stuff to learn all over the place, and the more I learn the more clues I pick up. I love the path that I have chosen.

Rich
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 08:58 am
@Shostakovich phil,
Thanks Baal,

For your comprehensive answer.

Let me start off by heartily agreeing with you that Hegel is indeed a genius. I love the guy. :-}

It is not your ordinary fellow who can deal with the mind’s landscape in such a thorough fashion and with such clarity. I do however not agree that the Ultimate Truth that he is aiming for is within this structure, but rather that we can use his structure as a diving board from which to transcend structure altogether. That IMO is his real genius or his profound gift to man.

To me, seeing the mind (Psyche) with such clarity is exactly what gives us the power to transcend her. Or knowing the dimensions of the wall that imprisons us, and narrows our vision, gives us the power to climb up on that very wall, and see further than was ever possible before. Mind in this way becomes a tool and not in fact who we are.

That being said:

The dialectic is all about duality IMO. (1 equaling Thesis, 2 equaling Antithesis.) (A little like yin/yang.) There is your duality. Further what you have is a Synthesis equaling Unity, or simply bringing these two parts back together into one whole. There is actually no flight in this reconstruction, or said differently no raising above itself.

Granted there is some utility in seeing both of these parts together and what they are capable of, much like two legs allowing us to walk rather than to simply hop. But this may be only better use of what we already have.

Some might say that this combination creates a spiral, or something larger than the sum of its parts. But I don’t see the spiral as a necessary outcome. It is my impression rather that what we have here, if carried out in a rigorous form of logic, is something more like the heads and tails of a coin being equal to that one coin. Show me if you will that there is movement to a higher truth within this process if you will.

It is my impression that in looking at Hegel’s work, rather like a Mandala, that we pick up on something entirely more transcendent.

B: Hegel does not depict a static form of beginning or some kind of state of nothingness.

S9: When speaking about the mind, it is not possible to point out some static point, not any static point. The mind is a constantly moving thing, is constantly becoming and never arriving. So no, Hegel being quite astute wouldn’t make such an error. Let us remember that beginning and end are concepts within the mind. We have no concrete proof that either of these really exists elsewhere.

B: Stalling on that particular comparison is simply refuting the entire paragraph and saying nothing.

S9: If comparing is simply “stalling,” why do you think Hegel made comparison of the Thesis and the Antithesis 2 thirds of his work? Do you believe that the Synthesis (the last third) is the only thing worth regarding, or worthy of our attention? Please bear with me if I am just not getting it. I confess straight-out that “I am no kind of a genus, no how.”


B: What is essentially the notion of being, not-being, and being-not need not be contrasted with each other until they are viewed in terms of actual becoming.

S9: Are you suggesting that being, not being and being not are static, perhaps in some Platonic fashion, until we begin to compare them or create with them a becoming and/or motion? Are these three not similar to up and down, with there being no possible up without a down or a up/down, especially on a ladder up/down being this one instrument?

RE: Quote: On top of this, I believe that we feel that the mind is our only instrument for dealing with this search. But perhaps this isn’t the case, because down through history since the ancient times persons of wisdom have told us repeatedly that there is something going on outside of the mind or rather previously to the mind and perhaps even of a whole other dimension than our slower mind. (This instrument being more immediate and all incompassing.)

B: eh? I don't see how this relates to anything.

S9: Perhaps not. I just keep alluding to this mysterious other thing that is taking place obviously unnoticed by many. This other thing is transcendent of the mind and what our poor little mind is actually looking for within all of these mental gymnastics. I believe that Hegel saw this and was pointing at it. (Very Zen) I further see his work as being one magnificent finger pointing.

And:

He might well have said to us, “Don’t look at my finger. Look where I am pointing.”

I feel if poor little me can see this, he probably could to.

RE: S9: Quote: I have heard of Pure Being described as “everywhere center and without periphery.” How is the mind able to objectify such as this, or “Suchness?”

B: It does not objectify this until it grasps Spirit. This is part of the point.

S9: I would say rather that in passing beyond, or is it in dropping the error of objectification that we begin to notice the ever-present Spirit. We also begin to give up on grasping of our own Spirit. This is because in both of these objectifying and grasping we see Spirit as outside of us. When in truth we are Spirit. Spirit is paradoxically both the transcendent and eminent Self that Hegel’s work/finger is pointing at.

Or as Lin Chi said, “Look, look!”


B: I don't know what scent you are speaking about though.

S9: Yes it is very subtle. But when you finally know where to look, where Hegel is pointing, it becomes screamingly obvious. Some have described it as an elephant sitting on our table which most of us over look constantly.”


B: Hegel does not have a kind of "Progress" or even evolution of sorts. Spirit is indeed revealed in a dialectic form, which is a sort of duality of Spirit itself.

S9: I would rather say that Spirit is alluded to. Spirit is no duality of any sort. “Neti Neti” (Not this, not this) is one method of dropping such notions as this. What “Neti Neti” is dropping is concepts that are simply not true, concept like Spirit as within concept.

How I do go on. :-}


B: As in each stage or movement of the dialectic a bit more of Spirit is revealed, or we seem to think ourselves aware of the attainment of Spirit, whereas in reality we never grasp Spirit altogether unless the dialectic is violently halted or suspended.

S9: Exactly!

Subjectivity9
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 11:10 am
@richrf,
Ha! Baal, I never expected you to be so analytical about hegel's non-analyticalness.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 12:21 pm
@richrf,
richrf;91140 wrote:
I think there is plenty of stuff to learn all over the place, and the more I learn the more clues I pick up. I love the path that I have chosen.

Rich

You also have to be open rich, open to change to be able to move forward and progress and grow. And to learn.Wink
Thanks.
 
richrf
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 01:10 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91335 wrote:
You also have to be open rich, open to change to be able to move forward and progress and grow. And to learn.Wink
Thanks.


Don't we all?

Rich
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 01:23 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Yes thanks.....................
 
Baal
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 02:27 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Quote:
The dialectic is all about duality IMO. (1 equaling Thesis, 2 equaling Antithesis.) (A little like yin/yang.) There is your duality. Further what you have is a Synthesis equaling Unity, or simply bringing these two parts back together into one whole. There is actually no flight in this reconstruction, or said differently no raising above itself.


Here is your first mistake, and from which, I assume, all your errors will follow. Dialectic is not dualistic - and aside from the fact that "Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis is a gross oversimplification of the process, and also a distortion.

Your first mistake is actually assuming that there is a "Thesis" altogether in Dialectic, as if something is formally posited, as if something is indeed being asserted and formulated. Dialectic, true dialectic, begins with a pure notion, a movement of sorts towards a direction; a certain sense if you will. A sense is inherently simple and inherently solitary and monolithic. Nothing else accompanies a sense as it is a primitive of human nature.

Eventually this sense itself evolves into a thesis - but this thesis is only secondary to the perception which brought it in the first place. In fact, this thesis itself begets a different sense which completely negates the previous sense - and this is the dialectic. There is no triadic state as commonly mis-stated. Surely there is another "Sense" which follows which will be inherently a reconcilliation with its previous two notions, but that is not a "synthesis" in its common sense, but inherently a movevment with both prior notions pushing against it.

The above is Dialectic. Dualism on the other hand, relies on the fact that there are two primitive entities which somehow share or compete for the same area, and that this situation is prolonged and eternal.

Thus either you have misunderstood the meaning of Dualism, or the meaning of Dialectic.

Quote:
Granted there is some utility in seeing both of these parts together and what they are capable of, much like two legs allowing us to walk rather than to simply hop. But this may be only better use of what we already have.

This is not dualism either.

Quote:
Some might say that this combination creates a spiral, or something larger than the sum of its parts. But I don't see the spiral as a necessary outcome. It is my impression rather that what we have here, if carried out in a rigorous form of logic, is something more like the heads and tails of a coin being equal to that one coin. Show me if you will that there is movement to a higher truth within this process if you will.

If you will use the "Coin" in this sense, the coin is not the goal of truth in the dialectic, and furthermore we do not really hold the "Coin" to be a "Simple" object. We don't know the coin; we must forumulate the coin by experiencing its head, its tail, its permeter, its engravings etc. and then it is realized that what we have here is not merely a piece of copper but soemthing else etc, a notion of currency, a notion of plurality etc etc ad infinitum

....

Quote:
S9: When speaking about the mind, it is not possible to point out some static point, not any static point. The mind is a constantly moving thing, is constantly becoming and never arriving. So no, Hegel being quite astute wouldn't make such an error. Let us remember that beginning and end are concepts within the mind. We have no concrete proof that either of these really exists elsewhere.

Hegel isn't making this error. You are

Quote:
B: Stalling on that particular comparison is simply refuting the entire paragraph and saying nothing.

S9: If comparing is simply "stalling," why do you think Hegel made comparison of the Thesis and the Antithesis 2 thirds of his work? Do you believe that the Synthesis (the last third) is the only thing worth regarding, or worthy of our attention? Please bear with me if I am just not getting it. I confess straight-out that "I am no kind of a genus, no how."

No. Hegel does not concentrate on the "Thesis" and "Antithesis". These are simply movements toward the Spirit. I am speaking about the entire thread here being posted on this simplified version of an in-passing comparison made by Hegel in terms of not-being, being-not etc.
The truth, however is, that everything mentioned by Hegel is in passing.


Quote:
B: What is essentially the notion of being, not-being, and being-not need not be contrasted with each other until they are viewed in terms of actual becoming.

S9: Are you suggesting that being, not being and being not are static, perhaps in some Platonic fashion, until we begin to compare them or create with them a becoming and/or motion? Are these three not similar to up and down, with there being no possible up without a down or a up/down, especially on a ladder up/down being this one instrument?

Nothing is static in dialectic. This is really the problem that exists with the entire thread. You all need to take this in perspective of movements, notions, developments.

.....
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 02:45 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Baal I cannot follow your posts, how can I moderate. Please may I make a suggestion that you check Justin's video out in the video section of this forum. Because I have know idea what you are talking about as it's too difficult to read and I cannot moderate properly. It would help me alot.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 03:46 PM ----------

And i would appreciate it. Thanks.
 
Baal
 
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 04:28 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;91470 wrote:
Baal I cannot follow your posts, how can I moderate. Please may I make a suggestion that you check Justin's video out in the video section of this forum. Because I have know idea what you are talking about as it's too difficult to read and I cannot moderate properly. It would help me alot.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 03:46 PM ----------

And i would appreciate it. Thanks.



I really don't see there is a need to moderate this, as thus far it has been a peaceful discussion. Certainly I may be harsh in my criticism, but this criticism is based on the view and understanding of Hegel and dialectics specifically.

Precisely because dialectics is a very difficult topic to follow (and discussions about it are equally difficult) for those who do not deal with it, it is why I am speaking out against all posts in this thread, not necessarily Subjectivity9. I am only using his posts as fodder because in my view they highlight the problem most clearly, but consider my posts to be an attack on views and understandings of Hegel in this forum in particular, as well as in some schools of philosophy in general.

Also since Subjectivity9 attempts to mimic the use of Plato's Socratic Dialogues, in which condemnation and criticism in such were frequent, I feel myself more at liberty to use that as the target, as it seems his posts are more inviting and more of a place for such types of speech.

However, I would also like to make the basic point here, from which all my posts in this thread essentially follow:

Dialectic is a movement, it is a motion as the mind perceives motion. When we say "Running" or "Moving" in the colloquial sense, we can break apart these concepts into more simplistic ones and apparrently reconstruct them to get the same effect. e.g. "It used to be at point A, it is now at point C, it had traversed B etc. etc. and had such and such properties throughout the duration of its traversal and also changed in such and such a way.

This however is not dialectic. Really to explain dialectic in words defies dialectic in itself, since for its proponents, dialectic is the core of human thought and therefore is always a beginning and never a middle. In other words, dialectic must be recognized implicitly and silently. When you read a text and think the text. When the text is being read, word for word, it progresses, it moves. One does not take a sentence, decompose its words, then reconstruct it again (well, there are people who do this, but that is a different story.. and yes this is also done at a certain level, but again, this is for a different discussion.. yes I am speaking about Deconstruction etc.)

However, getting back to the example (or rather instance) of reading a text: when one reads a text for the first time, and reads it quickly, one is immersed in the plot - this is especially true for novels and stories. The reader is immersed in the plot, the reader experiences the plot and the story, but yet at the same time is detached from it - since the reader is not truly experiencing it - but on the other hand is using this "experiential" faculty.

Dialectic behaves in a similar sense.

I do not expect this to be understood in its entirety, but I hope that you can see now what I am trying to say, and at least what I am trying to negate.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ninteenth Century Philosophers
  3. » Hegel's Ultimate Beginning
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2019 at 11:47:36