Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: actual difference

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Mary, ... After reading the above, I m more certain than before I have no conception of what you mean by idea . ... The limits you place on philosophy, and
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mary,

      On 1 August 2011 05:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Herman,
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Your disdain for any understanding of causality is disdain for any
      > > understanding.
      >
      > Cause is only one aspect of understanding. Assuming your use of 'cause'
      > involves the empirical, I quote Hegel regarding the insufficiency of using
      > `other' sciences alone for understanding.
      >
      > "The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be stated in
      > the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical facts
      > contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it
      > appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal element in
      > these sciences, their laws and classifications; but besides all this, into
      > the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other
      > categories. The difference looked at in this way is only a change of
      > categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and Metaphysics:
      > it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and objects,�while at
      > the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories."
      >
      > While a mind is typically concerned with its several forms of content,
      > philosophy examines thought itself. Since dialectical reason involves
      > relationships between part and whole, cause is a necessary dynamic. Probably
      > too premature to venture saying this, but philosophy seems the science of
      > the Cause of cause. It is Mind capable of examining mind.
      >
      > Though the causes of Breivik's actions are legion, they comprise no
      > philosophy, and contain nothing resembling an idea. Breivik's own difference
      > from others, however, is tragically interesting�how it thrusts intolerance
      > into the spotlight. Do such actions suffocate the idea of difference or
      > promote development of the idea? His mind seems far beyond the damage of
      > faulty DNA or drugs; he seems to suffer severely from a common malady�the
      > inability to think about thought.
      >
      >
      After reading the above, I'm more certain than before I have no conception
      of what you mean by "idea".



      > I'm perplexed that critics of philosophy participate here, though perhaps
      > shouldn't be. Ignorant of what philosophy is, I've contributed my share of
      > non-philosophical content.
      >

      The limits you place on philosophy, and the methods you will allow, are
      arbitrary as far as I can tell. They are certainly stifling and distorting
      if there needs to be a connection between philosophy and reality. You seem
      to dismiss in one fell swoop the whole body of phenomenology.



      > Hopefully, in distinguishing ourselves from those who actually did/do
      > philosophy, we unintentionally advance it.
      >


      Equating idealism with philosophy is far from philosophical, IMO.



      > That philosophy is out of favor in our educational institutions seems not
      > without motive.
      >
      > Though Nietzsche seemed to have over emphasized the particular at the
      > expense of the whole, I can imagine him spinning madly within his worm-eaten
      > shroud�knowing philosophy has not only been turned against him, but turned
      > out. Then again, he did predict it...nevermind :)
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > P.S. I might be completely amiss with my understanding that Difference is
      > an Idea.
      >
      >

      Difference is phenomenal, it might be the basis for thought, but it is not
      thought. On the other hand, it is the Idea as thing that is thought, but is
      not phenomenal. Starting of with thought is a wild goose chase, IMO.
      Examining a self-referencing system from within is of necessity an abyss of
      infinite regress.

      One comes to understand far more about thought by not thinking. But I know
      of nothing that suggests that Hegel would have have understood that, or been
      able to do it..


      Cheers

      Herman

      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Herman, I see on the horizon Hegel s answers to your questions, but with his philosophy one must study in order to understand his method and system, the same
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Herman,

        I see on the horizon Hegel's answers to your questions, but with his philosophy one must study in order to understand his method and system, the same as with any science. This will undoubtedly take what remains of my years.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Mary,
        >
        > On 1 August 2011 05:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > Herman,
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > Your disdain for any understanding of causality is disdain for any
        > > > understanding.
        > >
        > > Cause is only one aspect of understanding. Assuming your use of 'cause'
        > > involves the empirical, I quote Hegel regarding the insufficiency of using
        > > `other' sciences alone for understanding.
        > >
        > > "The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be stated in
        > > the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical facts
        > > contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it
        > > appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal element in
        > > these sciences, their laws and classifications; but besides all this, into
        > > the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other
        > > categories. The difference looked at in this way is only a change of
        > > categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and Metaphysics:
        > > it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and objects,—while at
        > > the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories."
        > >
        > > While a mind is typically concerned with its several forms of content,
        > > philosophy examines thought itself. Since dialectical reason involves
        > > relationships between part and whole, cause is a necessary dynamic. Probably
        > > too premature to venture saying this, but philosophy seems the science of
        > > the Cause of cause. It is Mind capable of examining mind.
        > >
        > > Though the causes of Breivik's actions are legion, they comprise no
        > > philosophy, and contain nothing resembling an idea. Breivik's own difference
        > > from others, however, is tragically interesting—how it thrusts intolerance
        > > into the spotlight. Do such actions suffocate the idea of difference or
        > > promote development of the idea? His mind seems far beyond the damage of
        > > faulty DNA or drugs; he seems to suffer severely from a common malady—the
        > > inability to think about thought.
        > >
        > >
        > After reading the above, I'm more certain than before I have no conception
        > of what you mean by "idea".
        >
        >
        >
        > > I'm perplexed that critics of philosophy participate here, though perhaps
        > > shouldn't be. Ignorant of what philosophy is, I've contributed my share of
        > > non-philosophical content.
        > >
        >
        > The limits you place on philosophy, and the methods you will allow, are
        > arbitrary as far as I can tell. They are certainly stifling and distorting
        > if there needs to be a connection between philosophy and reality. You seem
        > to dismiss in one fell swoop the whole body of phenomenology.
        >
        >
        >
        > > Hopefully, in distinguishing ourselves from those who actually did/do
        > > philosophy, we unintentionally advance it.
        > >
        >
        >
        > Equating idealism with philosophy is far from philosophical, IMO.
        >
        >
        >
        > > That philosophy is out of favor in our educational institutions seems not
        > > without motive.
        > >
        > > Though Nietzsche seemed to have over emphasized the particular at the
        > > expense of the whole, I can imagine him spinning madly within his worm-eaten
        > > shroud—knowing philosophy has not only been turned against him, but turned
        > > out. Then again, he did predict it...nevermind :)
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > > P.S. I might be completely amiss with my understanding that Difference is
        > > an Idea.
        > >
        > >
        >
        > Difference is phenomenal, it might be the basis for thought, but it is not
        > thought. On the other hand, it is the Idea as thing that is thought, but is
        > not phenomenal. Starting of with thought is a wild goose chase, IMO.
        > Examining a self-referencing system from within is of necessity an abyss of
        > infinite regress.
        >
        > One comes to understand far more about thought by not thinking. But I know
        > of nothing that suggests that Hegel would have have understood that, or been
        > able to do it..
        >
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        > Herman
        >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Herman
        Hi Mary, ... I guess that is your existential choice, to spend your years studying Hegel in order to understand Hegel. Cheers Herman ... [Non-text portions of
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mary,

          On 2 August 2011 11:38, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > Herman,
          >
          > I see on the horizon Hegel's answers to your questions, but with his
          > philosophy one must study in order to understand his method and system, the
          > same as with any science. This will undoubtedly take what remains of my
          > years.
          >
          >
          I guess that is your existential choice, to spend your years studying Hegel
          in order to understand Hegel.


          Cheers


          Herman




          > Mary
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi Mary,
          >
          > >
          > > On 1 August 2011 05:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > > **
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Herman,
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > > Your disdain for any understanding of causality is disdain for any
          > > > > understanding.
          > > >
          > > > Cause is only one aspect of understanding. Assuming your use of 'cause'
          > > > involves the empirical, I quote Hegel regarding the insufficiency of
          > using
          > > > `other' sciences alone for understanding.
          > > >
          > > > "The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be
          > stated in
          > > > the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical
          > facts
          > > > contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it
          > > > appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal element
          > in
          > > > these sciences, their laws and classifications; but besides all this,
          > into
          > > > the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other
          > > > categories. The difference looked at in this way is only a change of
          > > > categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and
          > Metaphysics:
          > > > it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and
          > objects,�while at
          > > > the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories."
          > > >
          > > > While a mind is typically concerned with its several forms of content,
          > > > philosophy examines thought itself. Since dialectical reason involves
          > > > relationships between part and whole, cause is a necessary dynamic.
          > Probably
          > > > too premature to venture saying this, but philosophy seems the science
          > of
          > > > the Cause of cause. It is Mind capable of examining mind.
          > > >
          > > > Though the causes of Breivik's actions are legion, they comprise no
          > > > philosophy, and contain nothing resembling an idea. Breivik's own
          > difference
          > > > from others, however, is tragically interesting�how it thrusts
          > intolerance
          > > > into the spotlight. Do such actions suffocate the idea of difference or
          > > > promote development of the idea? His mind seems far beyond the damage
          > of
          > > > faulty DNA or drugs; he seems to suffer severely from a common
          > malady�the
          > > > inability to think about thought.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > After reading the above, I'm more certain than before I have no
          > conception
          > > of what you mean by "idea".
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > I'm perplexed that critics of philosophy participate here, though
          > perhaps
          > > > shouldn't be. Ignorant of what philosophy is, I've contributed my share
          > of
          > > > non-philosophical content.
          > > >
          > >
          > > The limits you place on philosophy, and the methods you will allow, are
          > > arbitrary as far as I can tell. They are certainly stifling and
          > distorting
          > > if there needs to be a connection between philosophy and reality. You
          > seem
          > > to dismiss in one fell swoop the whole body of phenomenology.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > Hopefully, in distinguishing ourselves from those who actually did/do
          > > > philosophy, we unintentionally advance it.
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Equating idealism with philosophy is far from philosophical, IMO.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > That philosophy is out of favor in our educational institutions seems
          > not
          > > > without motive.
          > > >
          > > > Though Nietzsche seemed to have over emphasized the particular at the
          > > > expense of the whole, I can imagine him spinning madly within his
          > worm-eaten
          > > > shroud�knowing philosophy has not only been turned against him, but
          > turned
          > > > out. Then again, he did predict it...nevermind :)
          > > >
          > > > Mary
          > > >
          > > > P.S. I might be completely amiss with my understanding that Difference
          > is
          > > > an Idea.
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > Difference is phenomenal, it might be the basis for thought, but it is
          > not
          > > thought. On the other hand, it is the Idea as thing that is thought, but
          > is
          > > not phenomenal. Starting of with thought is a wild goose chase, IMO.
          > > Examining a self-referencing system from within is of necessity an abyss
          > of
          > > infinite regress.
          > >
          > > One comes to understand far more about thought by not thinking. But I
          > know
          > > of nothing that suggests that Hegel would have have understood that, or
          > been
          > > able to do it..
          > >
          > >
          > > Cheers
          > >
          > > Herman
          > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Sorry, Herman. I was suppose to answer what Hegel means by idea (other Hegelians can be heard laughing in the background). It s late, and I am not fully up
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry, Herman. I was suppose to answer what Hegel means by "idea" (other Hegelians can be heard laughing in the background). It's late, and I am not fully up to the task (a few beers), but here goes, at least for now. On the one hand, he uses the word in its basic everyday senses, not so much as Locke would have it, but very much in the same way that one's girlfriend/wife retorts after one, after being chastised, washes the dishes and expects applause, "You just have no idea!" The word thus means not only the specific 'now' of things, but that wherein such matters make their real sense. It is what is there but missed, like a democracy with slaves, but which makes the inessential that subsists alongside it something soon to be canceled out as false and of a 'piece' with non-existence.

            Wallace uses the term "notion" to describe 'das Idee' when it is that which inheres in something, not as it actually is, but insofar as its truth is gleanable in essence. The Notion is the Idea in its implicit and futural potentiality which nevertheless is also actual as the way life expresses it now.

            Wil




            -----Original Message-----
            From: Herman <hhofmeister@...>
            To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 8:50 pm
            Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: actual difference


            Hi Mary,



            On 2 August 2011 11:38, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:



            > **

            >

            >

            > Herman,

            >

            > I see on the horizon Hegel's answers to your questions, but with his

            > philosophy one must study in order to understand his method and system, the

            > same as with any science. This will undoubtedly take what remains of my

            > years.

            >

            >

            I guess that is your existential choice, to spend your years studying Hegel

            in order to understand Hegel.





            Cheers





            Herman









            > Mary

            >

            >

            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

            > >

            > > Hi Mary,

            >

            > >

            > > On 1 August 2011 05:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

            > >

            > > > **

            > > >

            > > >

            > > > Herman,

            > > >

            > > >

            > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:

            > > >

            > > > > Your disdain for any understanding of causality is disdain for any

            > > > > understanding.

            > > >

            > > > Cause is only one aspect of understanding. Assuming your use of 'cause'

            > > > involves the empirical, I quote Hegel regarding the insufficiency of

            > using

            > > > `other' sciences alone for understanding.

            > > >

            > > > "The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be

            > stated in

            > > > the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical

            > facts

            > > > contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it

            > > > appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal element

            > in

            > > > these sciences, their laws and classifications; but besides all this,

            > into

            > > > the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other

            > > > categories. The difference looked at in this way is only a change of

            > > > categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and

            > Metaphysics:

            > > > it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and

            > objects,�while at

            > > > the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories."

            > > >

            > > > While a mind is typically concerned with its several forms of content,

            > > > philosophy examines thought itself. Since dialectical reason involves

            > > > relationships between part and whole, cause is a necessary dynamic.

            > Probably

            > > > too premature to venture saying this, but philosophy seems the science

            > of

            > > > the Cause of cause. It is Mind capable of examining mind.

            > > >

            > > > Though the causes of Breivik's actions are legion, they comprise no

            > > > philosophy, and contain nothing resembling an idea. Breivik's own

            > difference

            > > > from others, however, is tragically interesting�how it thrusts

            > intolerance

            > > > into the spotlight. Do such actions suffocate the idea of difference or

            > > > promote development of the idea? His mind seems far beyond the damage

            > of

            > > > faulty DNA or drugs; he seems to suffer severely from a common

            > malady�the

            > > > inability to think about thought.

            > > >

            > > >

            > > After reading the above, I'm more certain than before I have no

            > conception

            > > of what you mean by "idea".

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > > > I'm perplexed that critics of philosophy participate here, though

            > perhaps

            > > > shouldn't be. Ignorant of what philosophy is, I've contributed my share

            > of

            > > > non-philosophical content.

            > > >

            > >

            > > The limits you place on philosophy, and the methods you will allow, are

            > > arbitrary as far as I can tell. They are certainly stifling and

            > distorting

            > > if there needs to be a connection between philosophy and reality. You

            > seem

            > > to dismiss in one fell swoop the whole body of phenomenology.

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > > > Hopefully, in distinguishing ourselves from those who actually did/do

            > > > philosophy, we unintentionally advance it.

            > > >

            > >

            > >

            > > Equating idealism with philosophy is far from philosophical, IMO.

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > > > That philosophy is out of favor in our educational institutions seems

            > not

            > > > without motive.

            > > >

            > > > Though Nietzsche seemed to have over emphasized the particular at the

            > > > expense of the whole, I can imagine him spinning madly within his

            > worm-eaten

            > > > shroud�knowing philosophy has not only been turned against him, but

            > turned

            > > > out. Then again, he did predict it...nevermind :)

            > > >

            > > > Mary

            > > >

            > > > P.S. I might be completely amiss with my understanding that Difference

            > is

            > > > an Idea.

            > > >

            > > >

            > >

            > > Difference is phenomenal, it might be the basis for thought, but it is

            > not

            > > thought. On the other hand, it is the Idea as thing that is thought, but

            > is

            > > not phenomenal. Starting of with thought is a wild goose chase, IMO.

            > > Examining a self-referencing system from within is of necessity an abyss

            > of

            > > infinite regress.

            > >

            > > One comes to understand far more about thought by not thinking. But I

            > know

            > > of nothing that suggests that Hegel would have have understood that, or

            > been

            > > able to do it..

            > >

            > >

            > > Cheers

            > >

            > > Herman

            > >

            > > >

            > > >

            > >

            > >

            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            > >

            >

            >

            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







            ------------------------------------



            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!



            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/



            Individual Email | Traditional



            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/join

            (Yahoo! ID required)



            existlist-digest@yahoogroups.com

            existlist-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com



            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Herman
            Thank you, Wil. I get the Idea of Hegelians mocking my questions :-) Cheers Herman ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you, Wil.

              I get the Idea of Hegelians mocking my questions :-)

              Cheers

              Herman

              On 2 August 2011 12:06, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              >
              > Sorry, Herman. I was suppose to answer what Hegel means by "idea" (other
              > Hegelians can be heard laughing in the background). It's late, and I am not
              > fully up to the task (a few beers), but here goes, at least for now. On the
              > one hand, he uses the word in its basic everyday senses, not so much as
              > Locke would have it, but very much in the same way that one's
              > girlfriend/wife retorts after one, after being chastised, washes the dishes
              > and expects applause, "You just have no idea!" The word thus means not only
              > the specific 'now' of things, but that wherein such matters make their real
              > sense. It is what is there but missed, like a democracy with slaves, but
              > which makes the inessential that subsists alongside it something soon to be
              > canceled out as false and of a 'piece' with non-existence.
              >
              > Wallace uses the term "notion" to describe 'das Idee' when it is that which
              > inheres in something, not as it actually is, but insofar as its truth is
              > gleanable in essence. The Notion is the Idea in its implicit and futural
              > potentiality which nevertheless is also actual as the way life expresses it
              > now.
              >
              > Wil
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Herman <hhofmeister@...>
              > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 8:50 pm
              > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: actual difference
              >
              > Hi Mary,
              >
              > On 2 August 2011 11:38, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              >
              > > **
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Herman,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > I see on the horizon Hegel's answers to your questions, but with his
              >
              > > philosophy one must study in order to understand his method and system,
              > the
              >
              > > same as with any science. This will undoubtedly take what remains of my
              >
              > > years.
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > I guess that is your existential choice, to spend your years studying Hegel
              >
              > in order to understand Hegel.
              >
              > Cheers
              >
              > Herman
              >
              > > Mary
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > Hi Mary,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > On 1 August 2011 05:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > > **
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > Herman,
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > > Your disdain for any understanding of causality is disdain for any
              >
              > > > > > understanding.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > Cause is only one aspect of understanding. Assuming your use of
              > 'cause'
              >
              > > > > involves the empirical, I quote Hegel regarding the insufficiency of
              >
              > > using
              >
              > > > > `other' sciences alone for understanding.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > "The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be
              >
              > > stated in
              >
              > > > > the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical
              >
              > > facts
              >
              > > > > contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it
              >
              > > > > appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal
              > element
              >
              > > in
              >
              > > > > these sciences, their laws and classifications; but besides all this,
              >
              > > into
              >
              > > > > the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other
              >
              > > > > categories. The difference looked at in this way is only a change of
              >
              > > > > categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and
              >
              > > Metaphysics:
              >
              > > > > it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and
              >
              > > objects,�while at
              >
              > > > > the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories."
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > While a mind is typically concerned with its several forms of
              > content,
              >
              > > > > philosophy examines thought itself. Since dialectical reason involves
              >
              > > > > relationships between part and whole, cause is a necessary dynamic.
              >
              > > Probably
              >
              > > > > too premature to venture saying this, but philosophy seems the
              > science
              >
              > > of
              >
              > > > > the Cause of cause. It is Mind capable of examining mind.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > Though the causes of Breivik's actions are legion, they comprise no
              >
              > > > > philosophy, and contain nothing resembling an idea. Breivik's own
              >
              > > difference
              >
              > > > > from others, however, is tragically interesting�how it thrusts
              >
              > > intolerance
              >
              > > > > into the spotlight. Do such actions suffocate the idea of difference
              > or
              >
              > > > > promote development of the idea? His mind seems far beyond the damage
              >
              > > of
              >
              > > > > faulty DNA or drugs; he seems to suffer severely from a common
              >
              > > malady�the
              >
              > > > > inability to think about thought.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > After reading the above, I'm more certain than before I have no
              >
              > > conception
              >
              > > > of what you mean by "idea".
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > > I'm perplexed that critics of philosophy participate here, though
              >
              > > perhaps
              >
              > > > > shouldn't be. Ignorant of what philosophy is, I've contributed my
              > share
              >
              > > of
              >
              > > > > non-philosophical content.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > The limits you place on philosophy, and the methods you will allow, are
              >
              > > > arbitrary as far as I can tell. They are certainly stifling and
              >
              > > distorting
              >
              > > > if there needs to be a connection between philosophy and reality. You
              >
              > > seem
              >
              > > > to dismiss in one fell swoop the whole body of phenomenology.
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > > Hopefully, in distinguishing ourselves from those who actually did/do
              >
              > > > > philosophy, we unintentionally advance it.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > Equating idealism with philosophy is far from philosophical, IMO.
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > > That philosophy is out of favor in our educational institutions seems
              >
              > > not
              >
              > > > > without motive.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > Though Nietzsche seemed to have over emphasized the particular at the
              >
              > > > > expense of the whole, I can imagine him spinning madly within his
              >
              > > worm-eaten
              >
              > > > > shroud�knowing philosophy has not only been turned against him, but
              >
              > > turned
              >
              > > > > out. Then again, he did predict it...nevermind :)
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > Mary
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > > P.S. I might be completely amiss with my understanding that
              > Difference
              >
              > > is
              >
              > > > > an Idea.
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > Difference is phenomenal, it might be the basis for thought, but it is
              >
              > > not
              >
              > > > thought. On the other hand, it is the Idea as thing that is thought,
              > but
              >
              > > is
              >
              > > > not phenomenal. Starting of with thought is a wild goose chase, IMO.
              >
              > > > Examining a self-referencing system from within is of necessity an
              > abyss
              >
              > > of
              >
              > > > infinite regress.
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > One comes to understand far more about thought by not thinking. But I
              >
              > > know
              >
              > > > of nothing that suggests that Hegel would have have understood that, or
              >
              > > been
              >
              > > > able to do it..
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > Cheers
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > Herman
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > >
              >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
              >
              > Individual Email | Traditional
              >
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/join
              >
              > (Yahoo! ID required)
              >
              > existlist-digest@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > existlist-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mary
              Herman, It s not so much they d laugh at your question but at your expecting a simple answer. Wil s response was easy to digest, because he s studied the
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Herman,

                It's not so much they'd laugh at your question but at your expecting a simple answer. Wil's response was easy to digest, because he's studied the system, something of which I only grasp the gist, drift, or hazy outline. He pre-digests for nestlings like me.

                BTW, after the scant early morning hours I devote to Hegel, far more remain for living.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                >
                > Thank you, Wil.
                >
                > I get the Idea of Hegelians mocking my questions :-)
                >
                > Cheers
                >
                > Herman
                >
                > On 2 August 2011 12:06, <eupraxis@...> wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Sorry, Herman. I was suppose to answer what Hegel means by "idea" (other
                > > Hegelians can be heard laughing in the background). It's late, and I am not
                > > fully up to the task (a few beers), but here goes, at least for now. On the
                > > one hand, he uses the word in its basic everyday senses, not so much as
                > > Locke would have it, but very much in the same way that one's
                > > girlfriend/wife retorts after one, after being chastised, washes the dishes
                > > and expects applause, "You just have no idea!" The word thus means not only
                > > the specific 'now' of things, but that wherein such matters make their real
                > > sense. It is what is there but missed, like a democracy with slaves, but
                > > which makes the inessential that subsists alongside it something soon to be
                > > canceled out as false and of a 'piece' with non-existence.
                > >
                > > Wallace uses the term "notion" to describe 'das Idee' when it is that which
                > > inheres in something, not as it actually is, but insofar as its truth is
                > > gleanable in essence. The Notion is the Idea in its implicit and futural
                > > potentiality which nevertheless is also actual as the way life expresses it
                > > now.
                > >
                > > Wil
                > >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: Herman <hhofmeister@...>
                > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 8:50 pm
                > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: actual difference
                > >
                > > Hi Mary,
                > >
                > > On 2 August 2011 11:38, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > > **
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > Herman,
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > I see on the horizon Hegel's answers to your questions, but with his
                > >
                > > > philosophy one must study in order to understand his method and system,
                > > the
                > >
                > > > same as with any science. This will undoubtedly take what remains of my
                > >
                > > > years.
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > I guess that is your existential choice, to spend your years studying Hegel
                > >
                > > in order to understand Hegel.
                > >
                > > Cheers
                > >
                > > Herman
                > >
                > > > Mary
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > Hi Mary,
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > On 1 August 2011 05:49, Mary <josephson45r@> wrote:
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > **
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > Herman,
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > > Your disdain for any understanding of causality is disdain for any
                > >
                > > > > > > understanding.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > Cause is only one aspect of understanding. Assuming your use of
                > > 'cause'
                > >
                > > > > > involves the empirical, I quote Hegel regarding the insufficiency of
                > >
                > > > using
                > >
                > > > > > `other' sciences alone for understanding.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > "The relation of speculative science to the other sciences may be
                > >
                > > > stated in
                > >
                > > > > > the following terms. It does not in the least neglect the empirical
                > >
                > > > facts
                > >
                > > > > > contained in the several sciences, but recognises and adopts them: it
                > >
                > > > > > appreciates and applies towards its own structure the universal
                > > element
                > >
                > > > in
                > >
                > > > > > these sciences, their laws and classifications; but besides all this,
                > >
                > > > into
                > >
                > > > > > the categories of science it introduces, and gives currency to, other
                > >
                > > > > > categories. The difference looked at in this way is only a change of
                > >
                > > > > > categories. Speculative Logic contains all previous Logic and
                > >
                > > > Metaphysics:
                > >
                > > > > > it preserves the same forms of thought, the same laws and
                > >
                > > > objects,�while at
                > >
                > > > > > the same time remodelling and expanding them with wider categories."
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > While a mind is typically concerned with its several forms of
                > > content,
                > >
                > > > > > philosophy examines thought itself. Since dialectical reason involves
                > >
                > > > > > relationships between part and whole, cause is a necessary dynamic.
                > >
                > > > Probably
                > >
                > > > > > too premature to venture saying this, but philosophy seems the
                > > science
                > >
                > > > of
                > >
                > > > > > the Cause of cause. It is Mind capable of examining mind.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > Though the causes of Breivik's actions are legion, they comprise no
                > >
                > > > > > philosophy, and contain nothing resembling an idea. Breivik's own
                > >
                > > > difference
                > >
                > > > > > from others, however, is tragically interesting�how it thrusts
                > >
                > > > intolerance
                > >
                > > > > > into the spotlight. Do such actions suffocate the idea of difference
                > > or
                > >
                > > > > > promote development of the idea? His mind seems far beyond the damage
                > >
                > > > of
                > >
                > > > > > faulty DNA or drugs; he seems to suffer severely from a common
                > >
                > > > malady�the
                > >
                > > > > > inability to think about thought.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > After reading the above, I'm more certain than before I have no
                > >
                > > > conception
                > >
                > > > > of what you mean by "idea".
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > I'm perplexed that critics of philosophy participate here, though
                > >
                > > > perhaps
                > >
                > > > > > shouldn't be. Ignorant of what philosophy is, I've contributed my
                > > share
                > >
                > > > of
                > >
                > > > > > non-philosophical content.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > The limits you place on philosophy, and the methods you will allow, are
                > >
                > > > > arbitrary as far as I can tell. They are certainly stifling and
                > >
                > > > distorting
                > >
                > > > > if there needs to be a connection between philosophy and reality. You
                > >
                > > > seem
                > >
                > > > > to dismiss in one fell swoop the whole body of phenomenology.
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > Hopefully, in distinguishing ourselves from those who actually did/do
                > >
                > > > > > philosophy, we unintentionally advance it.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > Equating idealism with philosophy is far from philosophical, IMO.
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > That philosophy is out of favor in our educational institutions seems
                > >
                > > > not
                > >
                > > > > > without motive.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > Though Nietzsche seemed to have over emphasized the particular at the
                > >
                > > > > > expense of the whole, I can imagine him spinning madly within his
                > >
                > > > worm-eaten
                > >
                > > > > > shroud�knowing philosophy has not only been turned against him, but
                > >
                > > > turned
                > >
                > > > > > out. Then again, he did predict it...nevermind :)
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > Mary
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > > P.S. I might be completely amiss with my understanding that
                > > Difference
                > >
                > > > is
                > >
                > > > > > an Idea.
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > Difference is phenomenal, it might be the basis for thought, but it is
                > >
                > > > not
                > >
                > > > > thought. On the other hand, it is the Idea as thing that is thought,
                > > but
                > >
                > > > is
                > >
                > > > > not phenomenal. Starting of with thought is a wild goose chase, IMO.
                > >
                > > > > Examining a self-referencing system from within is of necessity an
                > > abyss
                > >
                > > > of
                > >
                > > > > infinite regress.
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > One comes to understand far more about thought by not thinking. But I
                > >
                > > > know
                > >
                > > > > of nothing that suggests that Hegel would have have understood that, or
                > >
                > > > been
                > >
                > > > > able to do it..
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > Cheers
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > Herman
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------
                > >
                > >
                > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                > >
                > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                > >
                > > Individual Email | Traditional
                > >
                > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/join
                > >
                > > (Yahoo! ID required)
                > >
                > > existlist-digest@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > > existlist-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.