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

Re: [existlist] Re: actual difference

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.