THE ENTIRE SCIENCE OF LOGIC IN 15 MINUTES

This will not make sense to 99% of viewers. For that 1%, I believe you recognize the enormous feat I attempted (and mostly succeeded in).
Don't comment "you skipped x or y" because I know.

[@telosbound]

Admirable

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

I want to know your thoughts on this because I don’t do the reductionist Zizek/materialist reading of SoL

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

i’m actually pissed i forgot to talk about true infinity😴. I mentioned in the end you can learn about it from my video on “Self-Consciousness in PoS”

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

This is a wonderful structure which would help anyone read the Science of Logic. It is remarkably difficult to know how to situate and arrange what is being read, but this provides a strong framework to help with reading and interpretation. Great work!

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

thank you! I certainly do not intend this to count for someone’s own reading of the SoL (I myself have never read it cover to cover) though I hope it’s at least better than those “School of Rock” videos on Hegel😂

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

@@dissatisfiedphilosophy It certainly is! Again, great work.

[@zeebpc]

nice parody proving hegel is gibberish

[@wandersonmartins5597]

Nice explanation my friend

[@noobslayeru]

Being as such simply is nothing for it is a verb as a noun which only has meaning in composition within a proposition. At least for Aristotle.

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

That’s true also. Though Hegel focuses on how the content of pure being is nothing and thereby pure being is nothing in the same sense that a pure lightness is pure darkness. The latter example can be understood through Saint Paul’s mystical experience on the road to Damascus. Paul was blinded by the pure light of God.

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

also, and i’m not saying the following as a dig at your ignorance rather an informative response. If you read SoL, you understand that the indeterminateness of being (Sein) is established retroactively by only that always already determined being as Dasein.

[@noobslayeru]

@@dissatisfiedphilosophy yeah no offence taken. It seems that if you take Aristotle at his word, then “being” without a composition is meaningless, so Hegel would start with something quite empty in meaning.

[@noobslayeru]

But you could also read this as the logic being a sort of exploration as to how meaning occurs.

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

@@noobslayeru That’s precisely the point. To those familiar with Aristotle, I tend to say that Hegel’s notion of “pure being” or being-in-itself in the Logic of Being is like in a way Aristotle’s term of “prime matter” or matter qua matter which as i’m sure you know, he provides arguments against the existence of matter qua matter in the Metaphysics.
Hegel goes further than him (as he does on most things) but there is a dimension of Aristotle’s term that jumps out in my reading.