Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
- Nov 24, 2018You mean, Will, that I also believe in intelligent design? Not really. The Bible says:And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.And:And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.So there isn't much intelligent design here. The idea is, mainly, that the earth is in itself very fertile. It simply needed the word of God to bring forth all kinds of things.This, actually, is similar to Winfield's account following Hegel. The first two parts of Hegel's philosophy of nature are Mechanics and Physical Process. As Winfield explains very well, this is in opposition to the mechanical view of the world, where there are particles bouncing around in the void as the basis of all explanation.So Aristotle's philosophy was THE philosophy of nature until Newton. Newton's mechanics was the first of the modern sciences to be fully developed. This led to the quite obnoxious mechanical understanding of nature.The mechanical understanding of nature began to come unraveled at the end of the 18th century. At this time there took place the beginnings of modern chemistry and the beginnings of our knowledge of electricity. Also at this time Kant reformulated the mechanical view of nature in terms of opposed forces rather than in terms of particles in a void.So, then, after the Mechanics first part, the second part of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature deals with physical processes of the earth. This all begins, first, with light! then with the four elements in their transformations, then magnetism, then electricity, and finally chemistry. So Hegel, and Winfield following him, has developed an idea of the earth as a fertile place where the "emergence" of life is possible.But this "emergence" for Winfield is like an immaculate conception. The fertile earth brings forth life without being first impregnated with the word. It is like a chicken without the help of a rooster, laying eggs.John-----Original Message-----
From: eupraxis@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2018 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: [hegel] perception
Ta-dum! As I said.Will
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bardis jgbardis@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 21, 2018 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [hegel] perception
Hello Alan,In regard to my criticism of Winfield, I said nothing about either Geist or intelligent design.My complaint was that he used the words "evolution" and "emergence" as magic words. How did life come to be on earth? It emerged! How did life develop into more complex forms, eventually arriving at man? It was Evolution!So this isn't lazy thinking. This is just no thinking at all. Or even worse, it is just reciting the dogmas that all "right-thinking" people must subscribe to--or they will be mindlessly attacked by the thought-police.And, further, neither evolution nor emergence, to any great extent, has anything to do with Aristotle, Kant or Hegel. There is a certain evolution in both Aristotle and Hegel. But one would have to develop their thoughts on the matter. One can't just simply substitute modern dogmas for actual thought.You mention "a long and arduous time". The fossil record rejects this dogma that you recite. Species more often suddenly "emerge". But why? How? Perhaps Aristotle and Hegel could suggest answers to those questions.And certainly in neither case would the answers have anything to do with intelligent design. Although Geist or the unmoved mover might come into it.But we are not allowed to think about these things. We are not allowed to seriously read Aristotle or Hegel. If we even consider doing so, we will be attacked by ignorant, thoughtless people.John-----Original Message-----
From: 'Alan Ponikvar' ponikvaraj@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 19, 2018 8:40 pm
Subject: RE: [hegel] perception
I hesitate to jump in here, but Geist does not portend intelligent design..I am unaware of any Hegel scholar who thinks so.There is a very simple argument against intelligent design otherwise known as god of the gaps.All reference to supernatural causation is equivalent to saying “I don’t know”.How did life come to be on earth?God made it so which is equivalent to saying we currently do not know.The problem with intelligent design is that it encourages lazy thinking.Rather than the long arduous and time consuming effort of finding a natural explanation for why something seemingly inexplicable happened, a divine cause is posited and we are all free from the effort of figuring out the natural explanation.- Alan
From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 1:01 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] perceptionHello John,Even though you're prone to hyperbole and overstatement, I always enjoy your wide-ranging reports on your reading material.You've got excellent taste in reading material.Richard Winfield's, Conceiving Nature after Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel (2017) is a fun ride. WInfield is no Hegel, but he does clarify his concepts well. From the presuppositions of ancient, modern and modern concepts of Nature, to our modern options: Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, he lays it out plainly.Because you recommended it, I got a copy of his new book, Universal Biology after Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel (2018). I also am surprised to find any serious reflection on Hegel's Nature.By the way -- those 20th century writers who took it upon themselves to decide what was worth keeping in Hegel's philosophy , had nothing worth keeping of their own. They were mainly Marxists, and after Deng Xiaoping's opening of China to the West in 1978, and after the fall of the USSR in 1990, Marxism is dead.I also cannot recall any major commentary on Hegel's Nature. Let us see, however, if Richard Winfield has really earned the status of marking "a new epoch in Hegel scholarship."His second chapter has an intriguing title: "Nature as Biosphere.." That is a term from geologist Ed Suess (1875).His third chapter includes a claim, "Why No Organism can be the Product of Intelligent Design." REALLY? He follows this with: "Why DNA is Not a Blueprint of the Organism." REALLY? It seems hasty to suggest this so early in the narrative.His fourth chapter is more intriguing -- it is about Evolution itself, starting with Aristotle, and drawing from Hans Jonas. Winfield offers to explain, "The Order of Evolution and the Inevitability of Increasing Biological Complexity." That sounds promising.His fifth chapter is his first deep dive into Hegel -- with a discourse on Hegel's suggestion that Plant Life is the first developed form of Life.His sixth and final chapter is about Animal Life, and here he will again focus on Hegel's account of animal life. So, I really want to read this book.. It sounds very promising.Getting back to your reading of the first part, however. We agree that Hegel starts with Space and follows this by Time, and this cannot be a Temporal development.However, when the Dialectic regards the transition from Chemistry to Life -- "suddenly the development becomes explicitly temporal." I agree with you here. This is indeed EVOLUTION. Winfield's word is "emergence," you said. Fine. Yet you jumped to the conclusion that this is equal to Pure Chance.If you're right about Winfield, then he is misunderstanding Hegel, or simply disagrees with Hegel.Hegel -- the great Dialectical Theologian -- sees an Intelligent Designer -- Geist -- behind the gigantic Evolution of the Cosmos.Winfield ain't Hegel. That much is clear. Winfield seems to want modern approval -- and Dialectical Theology gets none today. But that doesn't mean Winfield is correct. I suspect Winfield will eventually be forgotten, as Hegel's role in Philosophy will continue to grow in the 21st century.Aristotle, by the way, truly belongs to the evolution of thought that culminates in Hegel. Hegel says so, and it is obvious, to me.Anyway, John, I like your way of thinking -- for the most part. I think you've got a hasty conclusion here, since Winfield's modern treatment -- although welcome -- can in no wise be the final word.My view will trump Winfield's in the long run -- Evolution is clearly the proper approach to Hegel's section on Consciousness in his PhG (1807). It should be obvious to the impartial reader.All best,--Paul---------------------------------------------------------------------------On Monday, November 19, 2018, 10:09:39 AM CST, John Bardis jgbardis@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hello Paul,In regard to what you say about evolution, I have to say that I have just finished reading Winfield's _Conceiving Nature after Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel_ (2017).. This is, basically, a commentary on the first two parts of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature: Mechanics and Physical Process.I've just begun his _Universal Biology after Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel_ (2018)... This is, basically, a commentary on the third part of the Philosophy of Nature: Life.As far as I know this is the first major commentary in any language on the Philosophy of Nature. How is that even possible!? Of course Hegel's philosophy has been quite neglected for most of the past two hundred years. And when it has been dealt with, the question has been: what is worth saving in Hegel's philosophy? or something of that sort. And always the Philosophy of Nature is seen as not worth saving.So Winfield's two books mark a new epoch, really, in Hegel scholarship.Winfield has a remarkable ability to express himself in a clear, understandable and interesting way. So I found the book to be surprisingly readable. Where there were difficulties, the fault more often was with Hegel, Kant and Aristotle than with Winfield--or the fault was just simply in the intractability of the material, of inorganic nature. Many things Winfield made clear to me that I hadn't quite understood.So I hate to say bad things about such an important, path-breaking book. But just for you I will!As you might know, the Philosophy of Nature begins with space, which is then followed by time. So here Winfield remarks that obviously this is not a temporal development. A transition from space to time obviously can't be temporal.. Winfield makes this obvious point twice.He makes no further remark about the non-temporal nature of the development through most of the rest of the book. One will just assume that the development is not a temporal one.But when he gets to the transition from chemistry to life--suddenly the development becomes explicitly temporal. With the advent of life, without doubt for Winfield, the account is fully temporal. And with the development from life to reason, again, the development is fully temporal. It's evolution, man! Need I say more?The development from chemistry to life is, according to Winfield, pure chance! I suppose I should go home and get the book and quote it exactly. At any rate, the magic word is "emergence!" It emerges! Need I say more! Its evolution, baby!But that dependence on pure chance, that use of the magic words of "emergence" and "evolution", that ain't Hegel.And the worst part is that he completely rejects Aristotle. Why did he have to bring Aristotle into the matter to begin with, if he was just going to show how Aristotle doesn't jive with the magic words?I assume it is just an implicit atheism to which Hegel's Philosophy of Nature is required to serve. But why bother? Certainly we can all happily be atheists without the trouble of working through Hegel's Philosophy of Nature.But Winfield does work through it in a fairly honest way--until he gets to life... And the book is highly recommended.But that you want to bring evolution into the Consciousness section of the Phenomenology is simply incorrect. It isn't even worth talking about.John - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>