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

Re: actual difference

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Aug 2 6:13 PM
    • 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.