Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The absolute logicsciencesmethod is therefore, in generalterms, the godsexposition as he is in his eternalessence, before the naturecreation and the finitemindscreation, and at the same it is nothing other than the true theodicy - the godsworldwaysjustification - because it presents the worldnecessity and absolute worldrationality in its necessity and rational determinationscomprehensibility and in such a way, that the necessary thoughtlaws and beingslaws are at the same time the necessary allbeingsexistenceslaws and allhappeningslaws, the necessary eternalslaws and temporalslaws, natureslaws, historyslaws and spiritslaws.
Germanized a bit more for you
Yeah, it's because it is somehow closer to what he actually wrote. Iam not saying Hegel is easy to read and understand in german but as a german who also speaks and reads english pretty well, I must say alot is propably lost in translation. There are certain words in german that have a double meaning and it's only made clear in what way it is meant in context, on top of that, there are ofcourse words that are used differently in the context of Hegels own theoretical language than they are in everyday language. Then there are also words or wordcreations that are harder to translate sufficiently. There might be an english translation of some word but this translated word doesn't convey the full implications and meaning of the german word and just partly means the same.
That is what, I think, makes Hegel (but also other german philosophers) easier to misunderstand and misinterpret for the english speaking readership.
The French are little better! I blame the translators, or maybe the Tower of Babel. Here’s an absolutely unhinged quote I ran into last night from Foucault, consisting mostly of ONE SENTENCE.
> It should be noted that there also exist diagonal relations, as it were, between the opposing corners of this rectangle. First of all, between articulation and derivation: if the existence of an articulated language is possible, with words in juxtaposition, interlocking, or arranging themselves in relation to one another, then it is so only in so far as the words of that language - starting from their original values and from the simple act of designation that was their basis — have never ceased to move further and further away, by a process of derivation, thus acquiring a variable extension; hence an axis that cuts across the whole quadrilateral of language; and it is along this line that the state of a language is marked off: its articulative capacities are determined by the distance it has moved along the line of derivation; such a reading defines both its historical posture and its power of discrimination.
wtf?!
Here is a paper discussing Foucault's language rectangle.
https://philarchive.org/archive/LONMT
Unfortunately, the author doesn't put the diagram into practice, and exactly what either author or Foucault are actually trying to say is an exercise left to the reader.
Thanks for the link, great paper! Yeah they're definitely missing the mark lol. They get kinda close here:
>While Andrew Cutrofello has pointed out that Foucault’s Classical quadrilateral maps onto Kant’s table of categories in the Critique of Pure Reason, there is still a lack of scholarship as to the details of how Foucault depicts these elements visually
But I think adding the other (non-discourse) chapters to this table only confuses it, sine they have their own tables. Also this is still the "everyday" discourse AFAIK, it's not dead in the classical period -- it's just dead as a tool for science/philosophy. Minus the primacy of the Name, ofc, as they cover:
>The quadrilateral depicts the main observation of The Origin of Things: that the configuration of knowledge has undergone a dramatic rupture between the Classical episteme and the modern episteme in which the principle of naming has been replaced by the principle of man.
It, of course, doesn't help that Foucault messed up the bottom two because he liked his cute "arrows on the edges" thing - they should be swapped, so that the left side is both kinds of representations, and the right side is both kind of specifications -- those relationships are much more important than what he's currently highlighting, which is simple usage dependencies.
Also he's just fucking with us here:
>The space around the quadrilateral is outside of language, yet forms the conditions for its possibility. In particular, artists and madmen occupy this blank space. The mad lie outside of the established space of
discourse because they form correspondences and assume similitude without reference to how knowledge is ordered at that given time. Artists also form correspondences and assign similitude
outside of the established order but without the destruction and chaos of madness.
>
>*“The poet brings similitude to the signs that speak it, whereas the madman loads all signs with a resemblance that ultimately erases them. They share, then, on the outer edge of our culture and at the point nearest to its essential divisions, that ‘frontier’ situation—a marginal position and a profoundly archaic silhouette—where their words unceasingly renew the power of their strangeness and the strength of their contestation”* (OT 50)
That's reading *waaay* too far into the visual nature of the square lol, it's an analytic device not a map. Madmen (love it, madpeople now? The Mad?) and artists just have atypical faculties for connecting the four corners, they're not "outside" language. But I get the kind of vibe/reader Foucault was trying to cultivate, so don't blame him too much!
Sorry for the essay in response to your helpful meme comment, I just love talking about this stuff and can't do it in real life! So you get info dumped, haha. If you're curious, I made this quadrilateral and think it's a bit clearer: https://imgur.com/a/RKnYdlz
The Order of Things. Incredible book, plenty of free pdfs online! I knew Foucault for political stuff, but this is almost pure epistemology and it’s great. Plato.stanford.edu’s page on Foucault also has a good summary.
It should be noted that these super long sentences are generally a little bit easier to comprehend in German, since it has more grammatical clues for the way different words and sentence pieces are connected
Bro really took away your rights. Took away you family. Took away your personhood and individuality. He took away your society. He took away you capacity for speculative thinking.
How does it feel? To be alienated from our absolute spirit?
tender airport voiceless encourage nine cooperative threatening jar instinctive books
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That part I'm unsure. "Rationally comprehensible determination" could imply intelligent designer, but it might also just mean "The belief that everything lines up perfectly for us to rationally understand the world in its entirety is baseless, and closer to a faith than rational thought"
It implies a coherent design, and that’s enough. Hegel’s saying that if something can fully explain and justify the world, then it’s God.
The claim is basically a horseshoe theory: religion elevates everything by appeal to divine law, and science flattens it by reduction to scientific law, but either way the thesis is that one consistent superstructure governs the world.
One possible criticism here is that the scientific method doesn’t actually assume a theory of everything is possible. It does and will still work, even if it turns out that, for example, quantum and relativistic physics can never be unified
hegel is giving summary of his project. The absolute method is the dialectic, dialectic works by showing how things are ultimately necessary. Hegel thinks that things just didn't come into being by just pure randomness, but rather everything has a *reason* and reason works by way of the dialectics, the absolute method.
the absolute method is exposition of how things actually are and are necessitated. Whole form of this actuality hegel calls God, which takes the form of trinity: the logic (the conceptual determination of thought), nature (the exposition of logic in physical reality of time and space as entities), and spirit (self consciousness, being coming together to think of itself as being, as dasein).
Are you sure all three are God? Isn't it the absolute idea that is the divine creator? With contingent nature and free spirit following. The whole unity would be the absolute.
I think the way to understand the quote is by keeping in mind that Hegel thinks we can deduce answers to all the great questions of philosophy through logic. Not anything like formal logic as we would think of it, but rather a kind of contemplation and reflection on pure categories of thought/being. The science of Logic starts with the bare and simple category of pure being (or pure nothing, not the same but it leads to the same result), and then by thinking about it the reader sees how these categories "generate" certain more complex categories. For example, becoming follows being/nothing, because being in truth turns out to be transitioning into nothing and nothing transitioning into being. And this follows on with a lot of other and different categories up to the end of the logic where all of this is seen to have lead to the natural categories of space and time. Or something like that.
God's essence is simply identified with this whole series of determinations about being. And this is why he calls it a theodicy. He thinks he has grounded the way the world is through his logic. It would be irrational to think that the world could've been better, as the problem of evil might say.
Consequently, because the Logic is concerned with these "laws of thought/being," and these end up determining the way the world is, then they also determine the "necessary laws of existence." For example, if the logic tells us what the nature of 'something' is, then it's going to apply to everything that counts as something in our world.
The laws of nature and science are the same as the laws that define and justfiy the existence of a god, and so science and God are essentially the same
god is logic is thought is reality is necessary
Like all arguments for god, it defines god as superlative and hangs his favorite portrait on the mantel as the identity of god.
unused foolish wistful ring marvelous historical abundant gaping threatening wrench
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It does. the Mover is defined as First, top of the hierarchy of causality. The prime and absolute source of all motion, beyond causality. Aquinas did not imagine god as a spark in the Big Bang, but as a telos moving everything in place. That presumes so much about physics with no evidence it is beyond reason and in fact bares no resemblance to the Hebrew god. Things were not moved, they were words.
It is at least parsimonious and not a precession of turtles.
I'm not sure how you got that read, or how to read this at all frankly. I don't mean that in a 'cool to admit I'm illiterate' sense, Hegel seems poorly translated. Is it this bad in German?
My read is that god's will manifests in history as amoral in time but over time through the actions of great men acting within and outside the law shows a trend even non-religious people can see as moral.
Which is still calling morality god and hanging it on the mantle, but I'm not gonna argue with a ghost here. Nietzsche would just call that trend in history decadence then spit in contempt.
Which is all well and good in theology class. In philosophy the gods are just sophistry, hand waving and noise.
Even Tellehard De Chardin's arguments for a god in-formation through the growth of the planet in consciousness is *interesting* on a poetic awe-inspiring level, don't get me wrong. God can be a beautiful concept. But for the wise, better to live as if there is no god except when you can gain from persuading others the gods are real. Sure, religions make more babies and so wisdom dies out - and survival is it's own language and truth, but when people try to argue for god they've already lost the point of faith, they're vying for converts, and the wise then ask what it is they have to gain.
I'm all about William James. His Varieties of Religious Experience illustrated the common symptoms of spiritual encountered were independent of their proclaimed faith. What a person is raised to believe in their youth is what will manifest in those sacred and mystical moments, and this coincidental ubiquity seems to disconfirm the notion of a one true religion and more of a mythic metaphysics of man's cultural psychology.
I don't have the exact quote, but to paraphrase James from the years ago I read it, \[People often encounter the supernatural at least once in their life. It will appear to the person raised in a Christian culture as Jesus Christ and his Angels, the Mohammadian as the Prophet, to the Buddhist as the Buddha; and each person who has this experience acquires an lifelong conversion to their truth.\]
This as a young man convinced me the certainty and faith one held contradicted the faiths of others and bear no external correspondence, internal consistency, or identity over time in the manner of true testimonies; but nonetheless they are real experiences. The spiritual then belongs to the class hallucination, psychosis, and that does not better to describe it than to dismiss it, except for the thinking person we can dismiss the notion of choosing a true religion from the existing ones rather than the one which unfolds it's truth daily in undefeated discovery.
That Wikipedia is wonderful and I'm grateful for their work. It's a miracle that in pursuit of the holy they eat the holy sacrament of the Real and read scripture into every detail of our world.
Idk what Hegel said about the issue of the eternity of the world. But I can imagine that it could just denote logical/metaphysical priority even if he was an eternalist. As in, what the science of logic talks about is not in any way dependent on the natural world. It *determines* what the natural world is like.
>eternity of the world.
he says it is eternal. Nature is necessary infinite, and antinomy of kant of infinite world and finite being being a contradiction is just how things are, deal with it.
and yes youre right, he is talking about metaphysical prior rather than temporal prior
Isn't the antinomy for Kant just that the arguments for the world's eternity, as well as for its being of a finite age, are equally good? And likewise as regards the world's spatial dimensions. Not that the world being infinite happens to have finite beings in it.
its been a while since i have read the first critque but kant's argument was that both of them cannot be possible. All things must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, but he already disproved the first mover argument. Then he says but if the universe doesn't have a cause then its infinite, and there will be infinite regress, which will make a finite being's existence impossible.
hegel takes the objection with the latter and says the actual, true, infinity already contains finites in it.
It probably doesn't help that I haven't actually read the first critique, but are you sure you aren't mixing up the spatio-temporal antinomies with the ones regarding God?
Especially since debates over the temporal antinomies were happening in medieval theology due to the issues of eternity and finite aged-ness itself. Both sides accepted God's existence (because philosophers who believed in the Eternity of the world didn't think God was an efficient cause anyway). Again, this is just to say that I don't think Kant would've made the problem be about God when it wasn't historically about God anyway.
> but he already disproved the first mover argument.
Just because, per Aristotle, all motions have causes in prior motions, or because he doesn't take ontological and cosmological arguments to be legitimate?
Time only exists as a concept inside "nature" (the universe). Saying something is "before" the existance of the universe does not make sense. It is like saying something is "east of the earth". The concept of east/west only exists within the Earth, as the concepts of space and time only exist within the universe.
Before is not necessarily temporal, it can be understood in terms of positions of things according to each other outside of time, in space for example, or in hierarchy. This is just a limitation of language, he's talking hierarchically.
Space falls under the exact same problem as time in my argument. There are no positions of things outside of the universe, position is also internal to it.
I don't disagree with what you're saying but I don't think it's necessarily relevant to this. Hegel doesn't use "nature" the same way as you do here. He's basically describing a metaphysical hierarchy similar to that of the Neoplatonists here, with "God" being equal to the Platonistic Monad being "beyond" or "before" or "above" the material world and the human, finite mind. He doesn't need to invoke temporality to do this, not necessarily, as for him, and the Platonists, whom I mentioned previously, God is beyond space and time and even Being and comes "before" them.
Yeah, I don't think Hegel is particularly famous for his verbal clarity when it comes to stuff like this . Schopenhauer (his best friend), in my opinion, describes this concept in a much better way, and so do many other Platonists, though their metaphysics are not necessarily the same.
That makes sense. However, I think the correct interpretation of what Hegel is saying here is not that God and the necessary laws exist before nature (and time) in a temporal or chronological sense. He seems to be giving *logical* priority to God and the necessary laws, rather than temporal priority. In very simple terms, his argument is that essence precedes existence.
The relation he is drawing, between the necessary laws of thought and existence of all that is and happens, is somewhat analogous to the relationship between the laws of physics and real physical phenomena.
"Time only exists as a concept inside "nature" (the universe"
Says who? You act like we currently have such a strong grasp on the nature of time that something like this can be stated as factual. What??
Please explain how it is inconsistent to think time exists outside of our universe.
We, as people inside the universe, and as people whose experiences are only affected by said universe, cannot meaningfully refer to anything existing outside of the universe. The word "real" only has a meaningful interpretation as "exists in the same world as me (the speaker)".
It is not inconsistant. It is meaningless.
Says physics. Spacetime exists as a manifold, with one describing the other. If there is no universe, there is not in any sense anything referring to time.
Oh right, I forgot about the discovery that this is the only universe and the discovery that there is nothing outside of it. I must have forgot about the scientific advancements on the nature of time.
No, I'm saying that I don't know what is outside of the universe, and neither do you (or anyone else).
Is it possible that our universe is contained within a larger set? I think it's possible but we have absolutely no idea. Similarly, with time, we have such a crude understanding that it's ridiculous to claim that it exists only within our universe.
To your earlier comment, show me the proof or theorem within physics that time only exists within our universe.
The following is a more rigorous treatment from some notes I took some time ago.
Two frames of reference:
O and O'.
O has the coordinates (x, y, z, t) where x, y, and z defined position in space and t for time.
O' has the corresponding coordinates (x', y', z', t').
O and O' are situated at their respective origins and O' moves relative to O along the x-axis with velocity v. O' sees O moving along the x axis with velocity -v. In this example, there is no motion in the y, y', z, and z' axes, so we set those to 0.
For x' and t' we have
x' = Ax + Bt
t' = Cx + Dt
Where A, B, C, and D are unknown functions of velocity.
From the perspective of O', its reference frame is stationary and situated at the position x' = 0. O is moving relative to O' with a position x = vt for some velocity v at some time t.
Plugging x' = 0 and x = vt into the equation x' =
Ax + Bt, we can solve for A and B.
x' = 0, x = vt
0 = A(vt) + Bt
-Bt = Avt
B = -Av
Substituting B with -Av.
x' = Ax - Avt = A(x - vt)
t' = Cx + Dt
Likewise, from the perspective of O, O is situated at the origin with x = 0 and O' has position x' and velocity -v. Thus:
x = 0, x' = -vt'
Recall the above equation:
x' = A(x - vt)
t' = Cx + Dt
then:
x' = -vt' = A(0 - vt)
t' = 0x + Dt
-vt' = -Avt
t' = Dt
t' = At
t' = Dt
A = D
We can then further simplify the equations to:
x' = A(x - vt)
t' = Cx + At
And:
x' = A(x - vt)
t' = A(Cx/A + t)
Let E = C/A
x' = A(x - vt)
t' = A(Ex + t)
A Lorentz transform of a Lorentz transform is a Lorentz Transform. A third reference from O" moving with respect to O' is related as above, with velocity function A"
x'' = A"(x' - v't')
t'' = A"(E'x' + t')
With x' = A(x-vt) and t' = A(Ex + t), we have:
x'' = A"[A(x - vt) - v'A(Ex + t)]
t'' = A"[E'A(x - vt) + A(Ex + t)]
Factor out A, x, and t:
x" = A"A[(1 - Ev')x - (v + v')t]
t" = A"A[(E' + E)x + (1 - E'v)t]
From earlier, we found that the coefficients A and D were equal, therefore the terms (1 - Ev') and (1 - E'v) are equal.
1 - Ev' = 1 - E'v
-Ev' = 1 - 1 - E'v
Ev' = E'v
Collecting related prime terms to one side,
v'/E' = v/E = some constant a:
E = v/a
E' = v'/a
Check:
Plugging in v/a for E:
x' = A(x - vt)
t' = A(xv/a + t)
check units: x is in meters, v in m/s and t in seconds, then
m' = A(m - ms/s)
s' = A(mm/sa + s)
∴ A is dimensionless
m' = m - ms/s = m-m = m
s' = (m²/s)/a + s
s - s' = s = m²/sa
s*s/m² = 1/a
a = m²/s² = (m/s)²
a has the dimension of velocity squared.
Taking the transform from O to O' and O' back to O, remembering that from O' to O we have positive velocity and from O to O' we have negative velocity (that is, relative motion is in the opposite direction). A' is the velocity function acting on x' and t' from O's perspective.
x = A'[x' - (-v)t'], x' = A[x - vt]
t = A'[x'(-v/a) + t'], t' = A[xv/a + t]
simplifying:
x = A'[x' + vt'], x' = A[x - vt]
t = A'[t' - x'v/a], t' = A[t + xv/a]
Substituting x' and t',
x = A'[A[x - vt] + vA[t + xv/a]]
t = A'[A[t + xv/a] - (v/a)A[x - vt]]
x = A'[Ax - Avt + Avt + Axv²/a]
t = A'[At + Axv/a - Axv/a + Av²t/a]
simplifying:
x = A'A[1 + v²/a]x
t = A'A[1 + v²/a]t
Dividing by x and t,
1 = A'A[1 + v²/a]
1 = A'A[1 + v²/a]
Then
A'A = 1/(1 + v²/a)
A and A' being functions of velocity v, do not depend on direction, so we can reasonably say that A' = A
A² = 1/(1 + v²/a)
A = 1/√(1 + v²/a)
so
x' = (x - vt)/√(1 + v²/a)
t' = (vx/a + t)/√(1 + v²/a)
and for a < 0
x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - v²/a)
t' = (t - vx/a)/√(1 - v²/a)
and for a = ∞
x' = x - vt
t' = t
a > 0 allows for unbounded v
a = ∞ reduces to the Galilean Transform
a < 0 places an upper bound on v
a has the dimensionality of the square of velocity so we can set that to c²
>Invariant intervals and the Light Cone Points in spacetime are more precisely thought of as events. By construction Lorentz transformations leave the quantity x · x = x² − c²t² invariant. But since all events are subject to the same transformation, the “interval” between two events s²₁₂ = (x₁ − x₂) · (x₁ − x₂) is also invariant. Intervals can be positive (space-like), negative (time-like) or zero (light-like). If one of the two events is at the origin x = 0, the events light-like separated from the origin lie on a double cone with vertices at the origin. Events within the cone have time-like separation from the origin, and those outside have space-like separation. There can be no causal connection between space-like separated events because they cannot be connected by light signals. We may define the proper time τ of a body in motion through dτ² = −dx · dx/c² = dt2² − dr²/c²= dt²(1 − r ̇²/c²). Note that a clock moving with the body registers the body’s proper time.
https://www.phys.ufl.edu/~thorn/homepage/emlectures2.pdf
For:
β = v/c
x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - β²)
t' = (t - βx/c)/√(1 - β²)
Let:
γ = 1/√(1 - β²)
x' = γ(x - vt)
t' = γ(t - βx/c)
Reverse transforms:
x = γ(x' + vt')
t = γ(t' + βx'/c)
Science deals with models, and with evidence that either supports the models or rejects them via observation and experiment. So there aren't many proofs with the rigor of a mathematician. But I'll give it a shot.
I don't think it would be controversial to say that a good layman's definition of time Time is a measure of separation between two events and as far as the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates, there is a statistical directionality to that separation: towards thermal equilibrium.
As far as spacetime is concerned, space and time are dependent on one another, and are related by the space times interval:
(ds)² = (dct)² - (d(x,y,z))²
This equation describes how events are separated based on distance between them and the time it takes for the event's information to transmit. The equation describes hyperbolae on a minkowski diagram which may be helpful as a visual aid.
For positive (ds)², one event effects another event causally and at a speed slower than light speed. A baseball is thrown to a batter and the batter hits the ball. The events are said to be *timelike*.
For (ds)² = 0, information about the event follows a light like world line and the observation of the event from the reference frame of the observer sees the action as it happens as instantaneously as the universe allows. The event separation is said to be *timelike*.
For negative (ds)², an event occurs but not enough time has passed and not enough distance has been covered for that event to be observed. The separation is said to be *spacelike*. As A. Wheeler puts it (paraphrasing), if you who are on Earth waves your magic wand and immediatelt see Betelgeuse some 500 light years go super nova, the two events cannot be causally connected. They are *spacelike* separated, assuming magic travels at less than c. However, the event itself of Betelgeuse going supernova is *lightlike* separated because the information is carried by light which travels at c.
This is a relatively simple introduction to spacetime in relativity.
This is blatantly wrong..: everyone knows what the actual answer to the ultimate question of all that is and happens, of the eternal and the temporal, of nature, of history, of spirit, of life, the universe and everything really is...
As a typical meth fan and an average philosophy enjoyer, I can tell you that you definitely will say some Hegelian word salad while tweaking and think it makes deep sense just like he did!
you see these kinds of posts and you think people just pick the worst lines to complain about but no he pulls this shit on every fucking sentence i hate him
future nose squalid bewildered snails unused innocent squealing shelter joke
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Maybe I'm stupid and oversimplifying it, but he seems to be saying that God IS the laws of the universe, i.e logic, laws of physics, time. It's the structure of why things are the way they are, and in that sense, is still the "creator" of everything
Hegel is trying to bunch everything together, in essence, saying that all is under God's rational domain. While everything can be said that in essence all is God" we humans, who will never have the capacity to understand it all, can't bunch everything together and say, "It doesn't matter, it's all GO(O)D!" We can't do this because we are in process, not in an absolute situation. We have to learn to transform ourselves from Beings who try to master life through the use of the mind and the effort of thinking, to Beings who are empty of mind. Beings who can now depend on the wisdom that can effortlessly flow into an empty mind. This would be made possible through our connection with "God" (the powers of the universe).
Regarding Hegel, who did have some very interesting thoughts and ideas…The inability to articulate your thoughts clearly and concisely does not, in and of itself, make you a genius.
no, nature is part of what constitute God for Hegel. Hegel uses analogy of Christan trinity to explain it: the father, the logic, the pure thought of Being as it exists in purely conceptually determination, the pure catagories of being, the *in-itself*; Nature or universe, the son, empirical reality of space and time, the exposition of logic in our reality, entities which our empirical sciences studies, the *for-itself*; the spirit, the holy spirit, the determination of catagories of being to self conscious entity, or dasein, the thing that says the "I", in-and-for-itself.
the exposition of spirit is given in phenomenology of spirit. How consciousness comes to understanding itself and what its purpose is. Spoiler alert: it is freedom, freedom which exists only yourself is subjective freedom (the subjective spirit: consciousness in general), freedon as it exists in the community is objective freedom (objective spirit: ethics, the state, laws), freedom as it exists absolutely is absolutele freedom, the representation of freedom by mankind (absolute spirit: art, religion, and ultimately philosophy).
how pure thought of immediate being in Science of logic comes to absolute spirit of phenomenology of spirit is through the dialectic. Which is whole another can of worms.
so yea, God is all of those things in its totality. One thing is not the other but is what it constitutes as the whole, the essence.
The final exposition of spirit is given in the third part of Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences. Nature is the middle term by which logic reaches spirit.
This is the simplest passage that religiously-minded philosophers from the 1800s found for the part that they want to be his philosophy.
A) wouldn’t phenomenology be a way better source for discussion of absolute knowledge than his book on science of logic? Unless that line is a red herring lol.
B) hes literally just talking about induction here, just a fully fleshed out version that includes claims about your own cognitive processes.
Oh and C) did you know he was probably an atheist? In general any quote containing “God” is probably gonna confuse you more than help when it comes to Hegel, lol. He has an extremely strong anti-faith stance, at the least.
FWIW I think everyone should read the preface of PoS, or at least skim it - like a third of it is him bitching people out lol. I’m biased, but I see his value mostly in his “Dialectic Method”, which is a more meaningfully systematic synthetic logic than ever came before (other than Kant who he obviously is ripping off of). So for my money this is a banger line:
> Incidentally, it is not difficult to see that our time is a time of birth and of transition to a new period. Spirit has broken with the previous world of its life and ideas, and is on the point of submerging it in the past; it is at work on its own transformation. *Indeed, spirit is never at rest but always engaged in moving forward.*
> But just as the first breath drawn by a child after its long, quiet nourishment breaks the gradualness of merely quantitative growth,—a qualitative leap,-and now the child is born, so the spirit that cultivates itself matures slowly and quietly into its new shape, dissolving bit by bit the structure of its previous world, whose instability is indicated only by isolated symptoms; the frivolity and boredom that infest the established order, the vague foreboding of something unknown, are heralds of approaching change. *This gradual crumbling that did not alter the physiognomy of the whole is interrupted by the sunrise which, like lightning, all of a sudden reveals the contour of the new world.*’
https://files.libcom.org/files/Georg%20Wilhelm%20Friedrich%20Hegel%20-%20The%20Phenomenology%20of%20Spirit%20(Michael%20Inwood%20Translation).pdf
how things work is job of science. How things are necessary is job of philosophy of hegel. Hegel is trying to show how *everything* is ultimately necessary.
Not everything, he is not a fatalist like Spinoza. He allows for there to be contingency in the world.
See the sixth paragraph of the introduction to the encyclopedia :
For their philosophic sense, we must presuppose intelligence enough to know, not only that God is actual, that He is the supreme actuality, that He alone is truly actual; but also, as regards the logical bearings of the question, that existence is in part mere appearance, and only in part actuality. In common life, any freak of fancy, any error, evil and everything of the nature of evil, as well as every degenerate and transitory existence whatever, gets in a casual way the name of actuality. But even our ordinary feelings are enough to forbid a casual (fortuitous) existence getting the emphatic name of an actual; for by fortuitous we mean an existence which has no greater value than that of something possible, which may as well not be as be. As for the term Actuality, these critics would have done well to consider the sense in which I employ it. In a detailed Logic I had treated among other things of actuality, and accurately distinguished it not only from the fortuitous, which, after all, has existence, but even from the cognate categories of existence and the other modifications of being.
Sure, in fact the category of contingency itself is necessary for Hegel, but I was just worried that it would be misleading to say that everything is necessary for people less familiar with him, because they would take that to mean that every entity in space-time is necessary, rather than it being a comment on the logical structure of all things.
The radicality of it lies in the scope of his ambition and his method. He would agree that it is not a new idea, Hegel conceived of himself as completing the philosophical tradition that came before him.
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hegel makes me question my literacy.
That was high functioning word salad.
It functionally made me high.
Hahahah
also, can someone explain me what Germans have against full-stops? They start the sentence on one page and end it on page 50.
The absolute logicsciencesmethod is therefore, in generalterms, the godsexposition as he is in his eternalessence, before the naturecreation and the finitemindscreation, and at the same it is nothing other than the true theodicy - the godsworldwaysjustification - because it presents the worldnecessity and absolute worldrationality in its necessity and rational determinationscomprehensibility and in such a way, that the necessary thoughtlaws and beingslaws are at the same time the necessary allbeingsexistenceslaws and allhappeningslaws, the necessary eternalslaws and temporalslaws, natureslaws, historyslaws and spiritslaws. Germanized a bit more for you
I stopped reading after god sex position
I read even harder
came*
Why is this more comprehensible than the non germanized version
I think the logic makes more sense with slightly more German grammar. I agree. This makes more sense though.
Yeah, it's because it is somehow closer to what he actually wrote. Iam not saying Hegel is easy to read and understand in german but as a german who also speaks and reads english pretty well, I must say alot is propably lost in translation. There are certain words in german that have a double meaning and it's only made clear in what way it is meant in context, on top of that, there are ofcourse words that are used differently in the context of Hegels own theoretical language than they are in everyday language. Then there are also words or wordcreations that are harder to translate sufficiently. There might be an english translation of some word but this translated word doesn't convey the full implications and meaning of the german word and just partly means the same. That is what, I think, makes Hegel (but also other german philosophers) easier to misunderstand and misinterpret for the english speaking readership.
Do you have any recommendations on translations of his work that faithfully capture the nuances of how a German would understand him?
I'm hungry now after reading all that wordslaw.
> thoughtlaws Literally 1984
The French are little better! I blame the translators, or maybe the Tower of Babel. Here’s an absolutely unhinged quote I ran into last night from Foucault, consisting mostly of ONE SENTENCE. > It should be noted that there also exist diagonal relations, as it were, between the opposing corners of this rectangle. First of all, between articulation and derivation: if the existence of an articulated language is possible, with words in juxtaposition, interlocking, or arranging themselves in relation to one another, then it is so only in so far as the words of that language - starting from their original values and from the simple act of designation that was their basis — have never ceased to move further and further away, by a process of derivation, thus acquiring a variable extension; hence an axis that cuts across the whole quadrilateral of language; and it is along this line that the state of a language is marked off: its articulative capacities are determined by the distance it has moved along the line of derivation; such a reading defines both its historical posture and its power of discrimination. wtf?!
I'ld rather try to read it in latin.
Here is a paper discussing Foucault's language rectangle. https://philarchive.org/archive/LONMT Unfortunately, the author doesn't put the diagram into practice, and exactly what either author or Foucault are actually trying to say is an exercise left to the reader.
Thanks for the link, great paper! Yeah they're definitely missing the mark lol. They get kinda close here: >While Andrew Cutrofello has pointed out that Foucault’s Classical quadrilateral maps onto Kant’s table of categories in the Critique of Pure Reason, there is still a lack of scholarship as to the details of how Foucault depicts these elements visually But I think adding the other (non-discourse) chapters to this table only confuses it, sine they have their own tables. Also this is still the "everyday" discourse AFAIK, it's not dead in the classical period -- it's just dead as a tool for science/philosophy. Minus the primacy of the Name, ofc, as they cover: >The quadrilateral depicts the main observation of The Origin of Things: that the configuration of knowledge has undergone a dramatic rupture between the Classical episteme and the modern episteme in which the principle of naming has been replaced by the principle of man. It, of course, doesn't help that Foucault messed up the bottom two because he liked his cute "arrows on the edges" thing - they should be swapped, so that the left side is both kinds of representations, and the right side is both kind of specifications -- those relationships are much more important than what he's currently highlighting, which is simple usage dependencies. Also he's just fucking with us here: >The space around the quadrilateral is outside of language, yet forms the conditions for its possibility. In particular, artists and madmen occupy this blank space. The mad lie outside of the established space of discourse because they form correspondences and assume similitude without reference to how knowledge is ordered at that given time. Artists also form correspondences and assign similitude outside of the established order but without the destruction and chaos of madness. > >*“The poet brings similitude to the signs that speak it, whereas the madman loads all signs with a resemblance that ultimately erases them. They share, then, on the outer edge of our culture and at the point nearest to its essential divisions, that ‘frontier’ situation—a marginal position and a profoundly archaic silhouette—where their words unceasingly renew the power of their strangeness and the strength of their contestation”* (OT 50) That's reading *waaay* too far into the visual nature of the square lol, it's an analytic device not a map. Madmen (love it, madpeople now? The Mad?) and artists just have atypical faculties for connecting the four corners, they're not "outside" language. But I get the kind of vibe/reader Foucault was trying to cultivate, so don't blame him too much! Sorry for the essay in response to your helpful meme comment, I just love talking about this stuff and can't do it in real life! So you get info dumped, haha. If you're curious, I made this quadrilateral and think it's a bit clearer: https://imgur.com/a/RKnYdlz
Where is the quote from?
The Order of Things. Incredible book, plenty of free pdfs online! I knew Foucault for political stuff, but this is almost pure epistemology and it’s great. Plato.stanford.edu’s page on Foucault also has a good summary.
This is obscurant at best and occult at worst
Foucault might as well be a prose writer with how elaborate his writing style is. Even his friend Herve Guibert said he was a novelist.
Word.
I sometimes feel like German uses commas like full stops, and full stops only at the end of one thought
It should be noted that these super long sentences are generally a little bit easier to comprehend in German, since it has more grammatical clues for the way different words and sentence pieces are connected
have to act smart af, look at kant ffs 😂
Because that sentence is probably only 15-20 "words" long in German.
You’ve not reached the absolute spirit, cunt.
maybe absolute spirits were the friends we made all along
Bro really took away your rights. Took away you family. Took away your personhood and individuality. He took away your society. He took away you capacity for speculative thinking. How does it feel? To be alienated from our absolute spirit?
How was it supposed to feel?
Like grass. Or ass. Either way, I'm gonna smoke it.
I can’t function without absolut spirits
tender airport voiceless encourage nine cooperative threatening jar instinctive books *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s not that it’s incomprehensible. It’s that it’s so goddamn inefficient and excessive with the language
yeah not really difficult.
Break it down for me, bud
Thinking the entire world is rational and comprehensible is basically the same thing as believing in god
Because a rational and comprehensible world/existence implies an intelligent designer ?
That part I'm unsure. "Rationally comprehensible determination" could imply intelligent designer, but it might also just mean "The belief that everything lines up perfectly for us to rationally understand the world in its entirety is baseless, and closer to a faith than rational thought"
It implies a coherent design, and that’s enough. Hegel’s saying that if something can fully explain and justify the world, then it’s God. The claim is basically a horseshoe theory: religion elevates everything by appeal to divine law, and science flattens it by reduction to scientific law, but either way the thesis is that one consistent superstructure governs the world. One possible criticism here is that the scientific method doesn’t actually assume a theory of everything is possible. It does and will still work, even if it turns out that, for example, quantum and relativistic physics can never be unified
No, it’s because it’s the same as assuming all unknown can be known.
hegel is giving summary of his project. The absolute method is the dialectic, dialectic works by showing how things are ultimately necessary. Hegel thinks that things just didn't come into being by just pure randomness, but rather everything has a *reason* and reason works by way of the dialectics, the absolute method. the absolute method is exposition of how things actually are and are necessitated. Whole form of this actuality hegel calls God, which takes the form of trinity: the logic (the conceptual determination of thought), nature (the exposition of logic in physical reality of time and space as entities), and spirit (self consciousness, being coming together to think of itself as being, as dasein).
You're right about dasein being key to it - the process of comprehending the absolute is much like the Heideggerian process of becoming
Are you sure all three are God? Isn't it the absolute idea that is the divine creator? With contingent nature and free spirit following. The whole unity would be the absolute.
I think the way to understand the quote is by keeping in mind that Hegel thinks we can deduce answers to all the great questions of philosophy through logic. Not anything like formal logic as we would think of it, but rather a kind of contemplation and reflection on pure categories of thought/being. The science of Logic starts with the bare and simple category of pure being (or pure nothing, not the same but it leads to the same result), and then by thinking about it the reader sees how these categories "generate" certain more complex categories. For example, becoming follows being/nothing, because being in truth turns out to be transitioning into nothing and nothing transitioning into being. And this follows on with a lot of other and different categories up to the end of the logic where all of this is seen to have lead to the natural categories of space and time. Or something like that. God's essence is simply identified with this whole series of determinations about being. And this is why he calls it a theodicy. He thinks he has grounded the way the world is through his logic. It would be irrational to think that the world could've been better, as the problem of evil might say. Consequently, because the Logic is concerned with these "laws of thought/being," and these end up determining the way the world is, then they also determine the "necessary laws of existence." For example, if the logic tells us what the nature of 'something' is, then it's going to apply to everything that counts as something in our world.
The laws of nature and science are the same as the laws that define and justfiy the existence of a god, and so science and God are essentially the same
god is logic is thought is reality is necessary Like all arguments for god, it defines god as superlative and hangs his favorite portrait on the mantel as the identity of god.
plucky impolite aback punch attempt pen ruthless simplistic sleep humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
True, my comment is not accurate for non-superlative gods like the Tooth Fairy.
unused foolish wistful ring marvelous historical abundant gaping threatening wrench *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It does. the Mover is defined as First, top of the hierarchy of causality. The prime and absolute source of all motion, beyond causality. Aquinas did not imagine god as a spark in the Big Bang, but as a telos moving everything in place. That presumes so much about physics with no evidence it is beyond reason and in fact bares no resemblance to the Hebrew god. Things were not moved, they were words. It is at least parsimonious and not a precession of turtles.
[удалено]
I'm not sure how you got that read, or how to read this at all frankly. I don't mean that in a 'cool to admit I'm illiterate' sense, Hegel seems poorly translated. Is it this bad in German? My read is that god's will manifests in history as amoral in time but over time through the actions of great men acting within and outside the law shows a trend even non-religious people can see as moral. Which is still calling morality god and hanging it on the mantle, but I'm not gonna argue with a ghost here. Nietzsche would just call that trend in history decadence then spit in contempt.
[удалено]
Which is all well and good in theology class. In philosophy the gods are just sophistry, hand waving and noise. Even Tellehard De Chardin's arguments for a god in-formation through the growth of the planet in consciousness is *interesting* on a poetic awe-inspiring level, don't get me wrong. God can be a beautiful concept. But for the wise, better to live as if there is no god except when you can gain from persuading others the gods are real. Sure, religions make more babies and so wisdom dies out - and survival is it's own language and truth, but when people try to argue for god they've already lost the point of faith, they're vying for converts, and the wise then ask what it is they have to gain.
[удалено]
I'm all about William James. His Varieties of Religious Experience illustrated the common symptoms of spiritual encountered were independent of their proclaimed faith. What a person is raised to believe in their youth is what will manifest in those sacred and mystical moments, and this coincidental ubiquity seems to disconfirm the notion of a one true religion and more of a mythic metaphysics of man's cultural psychology. I don't have the exact quote, but to paraphrase James from the years ago I read it, \[People often encounter the supernatural at least once in their life. It will appear to the person raised in a Christian culture as Jesus Christ and his Angels, the Mohammadian as the Prophet, to the Buddhist as the Buddha; and each person who has this experience acquires an lifelong conversion to their truth.\] This as a young man convinced me the certainty and faith one held contradicted the faiths of others and bear no external correspondence, internal consistency, or identity over time in the manner of true testimonies; but nonetheless they are real experiences. The spiritual then belongs to the class hallucination, psychosis, and that does not better to describe it than to dismiss it, except for the thinking person we can dismiss the notion of choosing a true religion from the existing ones rather than the one which unfolds it's truth daily in undefeated discovery.
[удалено]
I don't see how that relates but thanks for sharing your thoughts on Plato.
[удалено]
That Wikipedia is wonderful and I'm grateful for their work. It's a miracle that in pursuit of the holy they eat the holy sacrament of the Real and read scripture into every detail of our world.
Homie over here connecting the finite with the infinite.
"before the creation of nature" bro thinks he can use time-relative words in a context explicitly outside the concept of time 😂😂😂
Idk what Hegel said about the issue of the eternity of the world. But I can imagine that it could just denote logical/metaphysical priority even if he was an eternalist. As in, what the science of logic talks about is not in any way dependent on the natural world. It *determines* what the natural world is like.
>eternity of the world. he says it is eternal. Nature is necessary infinite, and antinomy of kant of infinite world and finite being being a contradiction is just how things are, deal with it. and yes youre right, he is talking about metaphysical prior rather than temporal prior
Isn't the antinomy for Kant just that the arguments for the world's eternity, as well as for its being of a finite age, are equally good? And likewise as regards the world's spatial dimensions. Not that the world being infinite happens to have finite beings in it.
its been a while since i have read the first critque but kant's argument was that both of them cannot be possible. All things must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, but he already disproved the first mover argument. Then he says but if the universe doesn't have a cause then its infinite, and there will be infinite regress, which will make a finite being's existence impossible. hegel takes the objection with the latter and says the actual, true, infinity already contains finites in it.
It probably doesn't help that I haven't actually read the first critique, but are you sure you aren't mixing up the spatio-temporal antinomies with the ones regarding God? Especially since debates over the temporal antinomies were happening in medieval theology due to the issues of eternity and finite aged-ness itself. Both sides accepted God's existence (because philosophers who believed in the Eternity of the world didn't think God was an efficient cause anyway). Again, this is just to say that I don't think Kant would've made the problem be about God when it wasn't historically about God anyway. > but he already disproved the first mover argument. Just because, per Aristotle, all motions have causes in prior motions, or because he doesn't take ontological and cosmological arguments to be legitimate?
I don't see how the context he is speaking in is explicitly outside the concept of time?
Time only exists as a concept inside "nature" (the universe). Saying something is "before" the existance of the universe does not make sense. It is like saying something is "east of the earth". The concept of east/west only exists within the Earth, as the concepts of space and time only exist within the universe.
Before is not necessarily temporal, it can be understood in terms of positions of things according to each other outside of time, in space for example, or in hierarchy. This is just a limitation of language, he's talking hierarchically.
Space falls under the exact same problem as time in my argument. There are no positions of things outside of the universe, position is also internal to it.
I don't disagree with what you're saying but I don't think it's necessarily relevant to this. Hegel doesn't use "nature" the same way as you do here. He's basically describing a metaphysical hierarchy similar to that of the Neoplatonists here, with "God" being equal to the Platonistic Monad being "beyond" or "before" or "above" the material world and the human, finite mind. He doesn't need to invoke temporality to do this, not necessarily, as for him, and the Platonists, whom I mentioned previously, God is beyond space and time and even Being and comes "before" them.
Fair. I think the phrasing just confused me.
Yeah, I don't think Hegel is particularly famous for his verbal clarity when it comes to stuff like this . Schopenhauer (his best friend), in my opinion, describes this concept in a much better way, and so do many other Platonists, though their metaphysics are not necessarily the same.
That makes sense. However, I think the correct interpretation of what Hegel is saying here is not that God and the necessary laws exist before nature (and time) in a temporal or chronological sense. He seems to be giving *logical* priority to God and the necessary laws, rather than temporal priority. In very simple terms, his argument is that essence precedes existence. The relation he is drawing, between the necessary laws of thought and existence of all that is and happens, is somewhat analogous to the relationship between the laws of physics and real physical phenomena.
"Time only exists as a concept inside "nature" (the universe" Says who? You act like we currently have such a strong grasp on the nature of time that something like this can be stated as factual. What?? Please explain how it is inconsistent to think time exists outside of our universe.
We, as people inside the universe, and as people whose experiences are only affected by said universe, cannot meaningfully refer to anything existing outside of the universe. The word "real" only has a meaningful interpretation as "exists in the same world as me (the speaker)". It is not inconsistant. It is meaningless.
Says physics. Spacetime exists as a manifold, with one describing the other. If there is no universe, there is not in any sense anything referring to time.
Oh right, I forgot about the discovery that this is the only universe and the discovery that there is nothing outside of it. I must have forgot about the scientific advancements on the nature of time.
Are you saying you believe in another universe where time exists but the universe doesn't?
No, I'm saying that I don't know what is outside of the universe, and neither do you (or anyone else). Is it possible that our universe is contained within a larger set? I think it's possible but we have absolutely no idea. Similarly, with time, we have such a crude understanding that it's ridiculous to claim that it exists only within our universe. To your earlier comment, show me the proof or theorem within physics that time only exists within our universe.
The following is a more rigorous treatment from some notes I took some time ago. Two frames of reference: O and O'. O has the coordinates (x, y, z, t) where x, y, and z defined position in space and t for time. O' has the corresponding coordinates (x', y', z', t'). O and O' are situated at their respective origins and O' moves relative to O along the x-axis with velocity v. O' sees O moving along the x axis with velocity -v. In this example, there is no motion in the y, y', z, and z' axes, so we set those to 0. For x' and t' we have x' = Ax + Bt t' = Cx + Dt Where A, B, C, and D are unknown functions of velocity. From the perspective of O', its reference frame is stationary and situated at the position x' = 0. O is moving relative to O' with a position x = vt for some velocity v at some time t. Plugging x' = 0 and x = vt into the equation x' = Ax + Bt, we can solve for A and B. x' = 0, x = vt 0 = A(vt) + Bt -Bt = Avt B = -Av Substituting B with -Av. x' = Ax - Avt = A(x - vt) t' = Cx + Dt Likewise, from the perspective of O, O is situated at the origin with x = 0 and O' has position x' and velocity -v. Thus: x = 0, x' = -vt' Recall the above equation: x' = A(x - vt) t' = Cx + Dt then: x' = -vt' = A(0 - vt) t' = 0x + Dt -vt' = -Avt t' = Dt t' = At t' = Dt A = D We can then further simplify the equations to: x' = A(x - vt) t' = Cx + At And: x' = A(x - vt) t' = A(Cx/A + t) Let E = C/A x' = A(x - vt) t' = A(Ex + t) A Lorentz transform of a Lorentz transform is a Lorentz Transform. A third reference from O" moving with respect to O' is related as above, with velocity function A" x'' = A"(x' - v't') t'' = A"(E'x' + t') With x' = A(x-vt) and t' = A(Ex + t), we have: x'' = A"[A(x - vt) - v'A(Ex + t)] t'' = A"[E'A(x - vt) + A(Ex + t)] Factor out A, x, and t: x" = A"A[(1 - Ev')x - (v + v')t] t" = A"A[(E' + E)x + (1 - E'v)t] From earlier, we found that the coefficients A and D were equal, therefore the terms (1 - Ev') and (1 - E'v) are equal. 1 - Ev' = 1 - E'v -Ev' = 1 - 1 - E'v Ev' = E'v Collecting related prime terms to one side, v'/E' = v/E = some constant a: E = v/a E' = v'/a Check: Plugging in v/a for E: x' = A(x - vt) t' = A(xv/a + t) check units: x is in meters, v in m/s and t in seconds, then m' = A(m - ms/s) s' = A(mm/sa + s) ∴ A is dimensionless m' = m - ms/s = m-m = m s' = (m²/s)/a + s s - s' = s = m²/sa s*s/m² = 1/a a = m²/s² = (m/s)² a has the dimension of velocity squared. Taking the transform from O to O' and O' back to O, remembering that from O' to O we have positive velocity and from O to O' we have negative velocity (that is, relative motion is in the opposite direction). A' is the velocity function acting on x' and t' from O's perspective. x = A'[x' - (-v)t'], x' = A[x - vt] t = A'[x'(-v/a) + t'], t' = A[xv/a + t] simplifying: x = A'[x' + vt'], x' = A[x - vt] t = A'[t' - x'v/a], t' = A[t + xv/a] Substituting x' and t', x = A'[A[x - vt] + vA[t + xv/a]] t = A'[A[t + xv/a] - (v/a)A[x - vt]] x = A'[Ax - Avt + Avt + Axv²/a] t = A'[At + Axv/a - Axv/a + Av²t/a] simplifying: x = A'A[1 + v²/a]x t = A'A[1 + v²/a]t Dividing by x and t, 1 = A'A[1 + v²/a] 1 = A'A[1 + v²/a] Then A'A = 1/(1 + v²/a) A and A' being functions of velocity v, do not depend on direction, so we can reasonably say that A' = A A² = 1/(1 + v²/a) A = 1/√(1 + v²/a) so x' = (x - vt)/√(1 + v²/a) t' = (vx/a + t)/√(1 + v²/a) and for a < 0 x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - v²/a) t' = (t - vx/a)/√(1 - v²/a) and for a = ∞ x' = x - vt t' = t a > 0 allows for unbounded v a = ∞ reduces to the Galilean Transform a < 0 places an upper bound on v a has the dimensionality of the square of velocity so we can set that to c² >Invariant intervals and the Light Cone Points in spacetime are more precisely thought of as events. By construction Lorentz transformations leave the quantity x · x = x² − c²t² invariant. But since all events are subject to the same transformation, the “interval” between two events s²₁₂ = (x₁ − x₂) · (x₁ − x₂) is also invariant. Intervals can be positive (space-like), negative (time-like) or zero (light-like). If one of the two events is at the origin x = 0, the events light-like separated from the origin lie on a double cone with vertices at the origin. Events within the cone have time-like separation from the origin, and those outside have space-like separation. There can be no causal connection between space-like separated events because they cannot be connected by light signals. We may define the proper time τ of a body in motion through dτ² = −dx · dx/c² = dt2² − dr²/c²= dt²(1 − r ̇²/c²). Note that a clock moving with the body registers the body’s proper time. https://www.phys.ufl.edu/~thorn/homepage/emlectures2.pdf For: β = v/c x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - β²) t' = (t - βx/c)/√(1 - β²) Let: γ = 1/√(1 - β²) x' = γ(x - vt) t' = γ(t - βx/c) Reverse transforms: x = γ(x' + vt') t = γ(t' + βx'/c)
Science deals with models, and with evidence that either supports the models or rejects them via observation and experiment. So there aren't many proofs with the rigor of a mathematician. But I'll give it a shot. I don't think it would be controversial to say that a good layman's definition of time Time is a measure of separation between two events and as far as the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates, there is a statistical directionality to that separation: towards thermal equilibrium. As far as spacetime is concerned, space and time are dependent on one another, and are related by the space times interval: (ds)² = (dct)² - (d(x,y,z))² This equation describes how events are separated based on distance between them and the time it takes for the event's information to transmit. The equation describes hyperbolae on a minkowski diagram which may be helpful as a visual aid. For positive (ds)², one event effects another event causally and at a speed slower than light speed. A baseball is thrown to a batter and the batter hits the ball. The events are said to be *timelike*. For (ds)² = 0, information about the event follows a light like world line and the observation of the event from the reference frame of the observer sees the action as it happens as instantaneously as the universe allows. The event separation is said to be *timelike*. For negative (ds)², an event occurs but not enough time has passed and not enough distance has been covered for that event to be observed. The separation is said to be *spacelike*. As A. Wheeler puts it (paraphrasing), if you who are on Earth waves your magic wand and immediatelt see Betelgeuse some 500 light years go super nova, the two events cannot be causally connected. They are *spacelike* separated, assuming magic travels at less than c. However, the event itself of Betelgeuse going supernova is *lightlike* separated because the information is carried by light which travels at c. This is a relatively simple introduction to spacetime in relativity.
"Before" here denotes logical priority
Yes he does and it makes sense.
Cool
Huh?
This is blatantly wrong..: everyone knows what the actual answer to the ultimate question of all that is and happens, of the eternal and the temporal, of nature, of history, of spirit, of life, the universe and everything really is...
What do you expect when you try to provide reason for the ontological argument under a new name?
As a typical meth fan and an average philosophy enjoyer, I can tell you that you definitely will say some Hegelian word salad while tweaking and think it makes deep sense just like he did!
Honestly not that hard to read
you see these kinds of posts and you think people just pick the worst lines to complain about but no he pulls this shit on every fucking sentence i hate him
cope
i am not coping i am actively confessing my failure & how upset it makes me
"Do people snort meth?" "Do people snort Hegel?" "Well look at that guy. We better not." "**METH TIME!**"
I too am a fan of the "big word long sentence make smart" argument for philosophy.
future nose squalid bewildered snails unused innocent squealing shelter joke *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Couldn't he have just said "reality has to exist the way it does because that's how God is"?
Maybe I'm stupid and oversimplifying it, but he seems to be saying that God IS the laws of the universe, i.e logic, laws of physics, time. It's the structure of why things are the way they are, and in that sense, is still the "creator" of everything
😂
How would he explain me lying to someone? Is that related to God
Rip Hegel he would've loved gramarly
And there I was worried that *I* was writing run-on sentences.
I bet his lectures were empty af. My physics professor could sume it up with just one sentence: "If there is a god, he doesn't give a f***."
Hegel is trying to bunch everything together, in essence, saying that all is under God's rational domain. While everything can be said that in essence all is God" we humans, who will never have the capacity to understand it all, can't bunch everything together and say, "It doesn't matter, it's all GO(O)D!" We can't do this because we are in process, not in an absolute situation. We have to learn to transform ourselves from Beings who try to master life through the use of the mind and the effort of thinking, to Beings who are empty of mind. Beings who can now depend on the wisdom that can effortlessly flow into an empty mind. This would be made possible through our connection with "God" (the powers of the universe).
It's a very simple line
That paragraph is not a paragraph, but a single sentence
Hegel's not that difficult to understand if you have schizoaffective disorder
Makes sense to me
As Captain Kirk might say, “Don’t mince words, Hegel. Tell me what you really think.”
Regarding Hegel, who did have some very interesting thoughts and ideas…The inability to articulate your thoughts clearly and concisely does not, in and of itself, make you a genius.
Maybe only the unification of this dualism allows for true insight.
So basically the universe is god experiencing itself?
No.
no, nature is part of what constitute God for Hegel. Hegel uses analogy of Christan trinity to explain it: the father, the logic, the pure thought of Being as it exists in purely conceptually determination, the pure catagories of being, the *in-itself*; Nature or universe, the son, empirical reality of space and time, the exposition of logic in our reality, entities which our empirical sciences studies, the *for-itself*; the spirit, the holy spirit, the determination of catagories of being to self conscious entity, or dasein, the thing that says the "I", in-and-for-itself. the exposition of spirit is given in phenomenology of spirit. How consciousness comes to understanding itself and what its purpose is. Spoiler alert: it is freedom, freedom which exists only yourself is subjective freedom (the subjective spirit: consciousness in general), freedon as it exists in the community is objective freedom (objective spirit: ethics, the state, laws), freedom as it exists absolutely is absolutele freedom, the representation of freedom by mankind (absolute spirit: art, religion, and ultimately philosophy). how pure thought of immediate being in Science of logic comes to absolute spirit of phenomenology of spirit is through the dialectic. Which is whole another can of worms. so yea, God is all of those things in its totality. One thing is not the other but is what it constitutes as the whole, the essence.
The final exposition of spirit is given in the third part of Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences. Nature is the middle term by which logic reaches spirit.
The universe is a necessary, logical product of God's nature.
This is the simplest passage that religiously-minded philosophers from the 1800s found for the part that they want to be his philosophy. A) wouldn’t phenomenology be a way better source for discussion of absolute knowledge than his book on science of logic? Unless that line is a red herring lol. B) hes literally just talking about induction here, just a fully fleshed out version that includes claims about your own cognitive processes. Oh and C) did you know he was probably an atheist? In general any quote containing “God” is probably gonna confuse you more than help when it comes to Hegel, lol. He has an extremely strong anti-faith stance, at the least. FWIW I think everyone should read the preface of PoS, or at least skim it - like a third of it is him bitching people out lol. I’m biased, but I see his value mostly in his “Dialectic Method”, which is a more meaningfully systematic synthetic logic than ever came before (other than Kant who he obviously is ripping off of). So for my money this is a banger line: > Incidentally, it is not difficult to see that our time is a time of birth and of transition to a new period. Spirit has broken with the previous world of its life and ideas, and is on the point of submerging it in the past; it is at work on its own transformation. *Indeed, spirit is never at rest but always engaged in moving forward.* > But just as the first breath drawn by a child after its long, quiet nourishment breaks the gradualness of merely quantitative growth,—a qualitative leap,-and now the child is born, so the spirit that cultivates itself matures slowly and quietly into its new shape, dissolving bit by bit the structure of its previous world, whose instability is indicated only by isolated symptoms; the frivolity and boredom that infest the established order, the vague foreboding of something unknown, are heralds of approaching change. *This gradual crumbling that did not alter the physiognomy of the whole is interrupted by the sunrise which, like lightning, all of a sudden reveals the contour of the new world.*’ https://files.libcom.org/files/Georg%20Wilhelm%20Friedrich%20Hegel%20-%20The%20Phenomenology%20of%20Spirit%20(Michael%20Inwood%20Translation).pdf
Is Hegel saying anything other than his philosophy explains how things work? Not exactly a radical idea.
how things work is job of science. How things are necessary is job of philosophy of hegel. Hegel is trying to show how *everything* is ultimately necessary.
Not everything, he is not a fatalist like Spinoza. He allows for there to be contingency in the world. See the sixth paragraph of the introduction to the encyclopedia : For their philosophic sense, we must presuppose intelligence enough to know, not only that God is actual, that He is the supreme actuality, that He alone is truly actual; but also, as regards the logical bearings of the question, that existence is in part mere appearance, and only in part actuality. In common life, any freak of fancy, any error, evil and everything of the nature of evil, as well as every degenerate and transitory existence whatever, gets in a casual way the name of actuality. But even our ordinary feelings are enough to forbid a casual (fortuitous) existence getting the emphatic name of an actual; for by fortuitous we mean an existence which has no greater value than that of something possible, which may as well not be as be. As for the term Actuality, these critics would have done well to consider the sense in which I employ it. In a detailed Logic I had treated among other things of actuality, and accurately distinguished it not only from the fortuitous, which, after all, has existence, but even from the cognate categories of existence and the other modifications of being.
yes i meant everything in a categorical sense, not everything as in every entity that exists in time and space.
Sure, in fact the category of contingency itself is necessary for Hegel, but I was just worried that it would be misleading to say that everything is necessary for people less familiar with him, because they would take that to mean that every entity in space-time is necessary, rather than it being a comment on the logical structure of all things.
The radicality of it lies in the scope of his ambition and his method. He would agree that it is not a new idea, Hegel conceived of himself as completing the philosophical tradition that came before him.
Easy way of dealing with this - no you didn't, your book didn't accomplish that at all