New installation in the series -- more about how speculative/dialectical philosophy (at least Hegel's version) deals with subjects and predicates in judgements and propositions. . . and why philosophy requires rereading
I struggle a little about the point about allegations of meaninglessness due to obscurantism. I know of a social psychologist who was attending Heidegger lectures and thought people were spoofing about understanding the content (he thought it was impenentrable) and so he did a study using gobbledegook but claiming it was heidegerrian and found that people represented it as meaningful if they thought it was a citation from heidegger. None of this supports the idea that Heidegger is meaningless or a charlatan, it might be seen as simply an exchange between philistines but....its not as thought obscurantism does not exist, that pretentiousness does not exist...granting that content is meaningful regardless of our grasp is perhaps the duty of the studious but it is very kind to those who would abuse it. Foucault, no lightweight, accused Derrida of 'intellectual terrorisme' for claiming all rebuttals were minsunderstandings and misconstruals. So that this does not look like a whingefest, I think students are somewhat caught because there is nothing other than arguments from authority (and your own intellect/faith) to decide between opaque but profound material and simply..misguided, confused, vaporous material etc...not to mention the fact, that thinkers accuse EACH OTHER of this stuff all the time, didn't Nietszche call Plato a blockhead? But the point I am getting at is, there is a position of insecurity, potentially, for the student who is critical, worldly but not totally ignorant and narcissistic, in deciding for themselves what is going on. Its hard to say what value (if any) taking the quality of content on faith would have (its just received opinion)..perhaps we should just be silent about what we do not understand? There are psychological aspects to consider e.g. the longer you spend with material and the harder you work at it the more likely you are going to value it, identify with it, want to believe it is clear, whether it is or not, and there is a cudgel, of sorts, that can be wielded by those who claim (whether they are or not) to be 'in the know' and I think despite moments of brilliance, this kind of showboating and emperors new clothes stuff is a feature of the circles around people like Lacan, Derrida etc. Now I have gone and done that thing where I prattle on about things that are not directly a component of the unfolding of the argument in the POS. My bad.
Well, I'd say that - although this is tough to do - perhaps the most prudent thing for a student to do is to go to the sources themselves, the thinkers, and see what they have to say, and whether the verdicts rendered on them by others make sense or not.
lol on sec 63 - I feel like I lucked out in a weird way to approach the challenges I had, and still have, with philosophy. Where it definitely felt unintelligible, but I figured that was because I'm just not very smart. A large part was kind of navigating the language used - which sort of sounds alien at first. But truthfully I'm not the best at absorbing things and it takes me a long time. I'm just glad that I'm more curious than lazy. But the part where you talk about how one should be able to apply something when reading - that's really something I wish I could get across to people about why its fulfilling. Its a really good feeling and truly worthwhile when I can sort of take something, or have my perspective changed or broadened.
I find Hegel's speculative thinking to be a very hard ask. I definitely agree with his point that normal subject + predicate propositions entail a closure or a fixing of the subject in a way that doesn't represent reality. I also agree that when you start interrogating that isolated subject it either turns out to be an abstract universal nothingness, or it disintegrates into its predicates. But I think fixed subjects are basically an anthropological need, a necessary error, and without them thought just becomes a homogenous swirling flux without any point from which we can orient ourselves... Have I misunderstood something?
manthropology Well. . . best thing to do then, is keep on with it, and see if things get clearer. Keep in mind that Hegel's not saying we need to abandon subject-predicate. Critique is not the same thing as dismissal
Well, I suppose if you're reading the passages as I have them in the video, you'll be getting the text. . . but yes, it works better if you do read Hegel's text "straight"
62 is way more understandable, i'll guess since an example was provided. But even here, the tendency to get lost in the back & forth of the analysis/observation is hard to fight while trying to apprehend it. Also, possibly with greater dissipation into the idea, but initially with any sub/pred, I don't have the tendency to forget the subject, but only see a larger composite equation that is more defined than the subject would be alone. Maybe to remember the subject after 20 mins have passed would be an effort, but if I can't do that, I don't feel that I have any idea about any part of the composite, so to say anything about it later without this would be a mistake or possibly lead to several mistakes.
Yep, this is one of the more difficult works of philosophy. It's not all going to come immediately. I've been reading this text for more than 20 years, and I still struggle with parts of it
the beginning of Beelzebub by Gurdjieff (The Arousing of Thought) I couldn't get much at all, but I did notice that his arrangement of ideas per sentence was both unique and exactly why it was hard to grasp.
With the dialectic as a process and the relation of the subject and predicate we discover "we meant something other than we meant to mean". Might this process of development be likened to one in which we are turned around and discover the opposites existent supporting things in general? Including what is 'false' in what is 'true' and 'true' in what is false? (Now I have put those words together I am not sure if it is what I really meant to say or it just makes a nice symmetry - but I kind of did feel drawn to say something along those lines). Dare I say this is a fairly Indian understanding reminiscent of how they nod and shake their head all at the same time.How can there be false in the true and true in the false in the face of the excluded middle? Well as Hegel points out while the excluded middle is true of logic. It is not necessarily quite so simple in terms of the movements of speculative philosophy. Would you care to comment at this stage?
Yep. Hegel's not doing a variety of Indian philosophy. I'm going to stop addressing these comments that keep on trying to read Hegel through something else, rather than sticking closely to what Hegel himself is saying and doing in his text
Gregory B. Sadler Fair call. You have given them enough air time. I will try and restrain myself till Hegel deals with it explicitly if and when he does.
I don't know if you find this interesting or naive, Dr, Sadler, but as you discuss this subject/predicate - universality dialectic, I find myself integrating a visualization of the Taoist Ying/Yan symbol.
As a teacher, section 63, Amen brother. Amen. Preach it.
Hahaha! Thanks!
New installation in the series -- more about how speculative/dialectical philosophy (at least Hegel's version) deals with subjects and predicates in judgements and propositions. . . and why philosophy requires rereading
thank you
I appreciate the personal challenge here for doing personal development/work to understand the text!
Yes, inescapable in the case of this guy, Hegel
What you said about adapting one's mind to the text was most interesting.
Thanks!
I struggle a little about the point about allegations of meaninglessness due to obscurantism. I know of a social psychologist who was attending Heidegger lectures and thought people were spoofing about understanding the content (he thought it was impenentrable) and so he did a study using gobbledegook but claiming it was heidegerrian and found that people represented it as meaningful if they thought it was a citation from heidegger.
None of this supports the idea that Heidegger is meaningless or a charlatan, it might be seen as simply an exchange between philistines but....its not as thought obscurantism does not exist, that pretentiousness does not exist...granting that content is meaningful regardless of our grasp is perhaps the duty of the studious but it is very kind to those who would abuse it.
Foucault, no lightweight, accused Derrida of 'intellectual terrorisme' for claiming all rebuttals were minsunderstandings and misconstruals.
So that this does not look like a whingefest, I think students are somewhat caught because there is nothing other than arguments from authority (and your own intellect/faith) to decide between opaque but profound material and simply..misguided, confused, vaporous material etc...not to mention the fact, that thinkers accuse EACH OTHER of this stuff all the time, didn't Nietszche call Plato a blockhead? But the point I am getting at is, there is a position of insecurity, potentially, for the student who is critical, worldly but not totally ignorant and narcissistic, in deciding for themselves what is going on.
Its hard to say what value (if any) taking the quality of content on faith would have (its just received opinion)..perhaps we should just be silent about what we do not understand?
There are psychological aspects to consider e.g. the longer you spend with material and the harder you work at it the more likely you are going to value it, identify with it, want to believe it is clear, whether it is or not, and there is a cudgel, of sorts, that can be wielded by those who claim (whether they are or not) to be 'in the know' and I think despite moments of brilliance, this kind of showboating and emperors new clothes stuff is a feature of the circles around people like Lacan, Derrida etc.
Now I have gone and done that thing where I prattle on about things that are not directly a component of the unfolding of the argument in the POS.
My bad.
Well, I'd say that - although this is tough to do - perhaps the most prudent thing for a student to do is to go to the sources themselves, the thinkers, and see what they have to say, and whether the verdicts rendered on them by others make sense or not.
lol on sec 63 - I feel like I lucked out in a weird way to approach the challenges I had, and still have, with philosophy. Where it definitely felt unintelligible, but I figured that was because I'm just not very smart. A large part was kind of navigating the language used - which sort of sounds alien at first. But truthfully I'm not the best at absorbing things and it takes me a long time. I'm just glad that I'm more curious than lazy.
But the part where you talk about how one should be able to apply something when reading - that's really something I wish I could get across to people about why its fulfilling. Its a really good feeling and truly worthwhile when I can sort of take something, or have my perspective changed or broadened.
I find Hegel's speculative thinking to be a very hard ask. I definitely agree with his point that normal subject + predicate propositions entail a closure or a fixing of the subject in a way that doesn't represent reality. I also agree that when you start interrogating that isolated subject it either turns out to be an abstract universal nothingness, or it disintegrates into its predicates.
But I think fixed subjects are basically an anthropological need, a necessary error, and without them thought just becomes a homogenous swirling flux without any point from which we can orient ourselves... Have I misunderstood something?
I suspect that I'm being too sceptical/subjectivist, but I don't yet understand why or how
manthropology Well. . . best thing to do then, is keep on with it, and see if things get clearer.
Keep in mind that Hegel's not saying we need to abandon subject-predicate. Critique is not the same thing as dismissal
I know it's not the way you think we should engage the material but I'm planing to watch all the lectures before I read the text.
Well, I suppose if you're reading the passages as I have them in the video, you'll be getting the text. . . but yes, it works better if you do read Hegel's text "straight"
62 is way more understandable, i'll guess since an example was provided. But even here, the tendency to get lost in the back & forth of the analysis/observation is hard to fight while trying to apprehend it. Also, possibly with greater dissipation into the idea, but initially with any sub/pred, I don't have the tendency to forget the subject, but only see a larger composite equation that is more defined than the subject would be alone. Maybe to remember the subject after 20 mins have passed would be an effort, but if I can't do that, I don't feel that I have any idea about any part of the composite, so to say anything about it later without this would be a mistake or possibly lead to several mistakes.
Yep, this is one of the more difficult works of philosophy. It's not all going to come immediately. I've been reading this text for more than 20 years, and I still struggle with parts of it
the beginning of Beelzebub by Gurdjieff (The Arousing of Thought) I couldn't get much at all, but I did notice that his arrangement of ideas per sentence was both unique and exactly why it was hard to grasp.
This paragraph (section 63) is abt Peterson
With the dialectic as a process and the relation of the subject and predicate we discover "we meant something other than we meant to mean". Might this process of development be likened to one in which we are turned around and discover the opposites existent supporting things in general? Including what is 'false' in what is 'true' and 'true' in what is false? (Now I have put those words together I am not sure if it is what I really meant to say or it just makes a nice symmetry - but I kind of did feel drawn to say something along those lines). Dare I say this is a fairly Indian understanding reminiscent of how they nod and shake their head all at the same time.How can there be false in the true and true in the false in the face of the excluded middle? Well as Hegel points out while the excluded middle is true of logic. It is not necessarily quite so simple in terms of the movements of speculative philosophy.
Would you care to comment at this stage?
Yep. Hegel's not doing a variety of Indian philosophy. I'm going to stop addressing these comments that keep on trying to read Hegel through something else, rather than sticking closely to what Hegel himself is saying and doing in his text
Gregory B. Sadler Fair call. You have given them enough air time. I will try and restrain myself till Hegel deals with it explicitly if and when he does.
Tie-ontology!
Chris Sham You gotta use what you've got
I don't know if you find this interesting or naive, Dr, Sadler, but as you discuss this subject/predicate - universality dialectic, I find myself integrating a visualization of the Taoist Ying/Yan symbol.
I just wouldn't associate the subject/predicate (which is not the totality of grammar) with the Yin/Yang philosophy
zašto me mrziš što volim hegela?