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
- Aug 21Hello Mary,Certainly triadic thinking seems like such a trivial thing. But when you really think about it, you can see how important it is. It has to do with seeing the so-called "invisible third".Everything is just naturally polarized. Our thinking is always just naturally polarized. We see one side or the other. We are on one side or the other. This whole dyadic manner of thinking is institutionalized in law. The lawyer presents his side of the case as persuasively as possible without regard for the other side. These same lawyers often go into politics and use their training to represent one side to the complete exclusion of the other side. This manner of thinking precludes any possibility of understanding anything. It leads to emotional outbursts and even hysteria.To think triadically requires much training. That is what a true philosophical education is all about: to see the invisible third in everything. If we see both sides, that isn't enough. We need as well to see the third side.When you speak of a "deep dive" into the logic--I suppose that is almost an impossibility. But one can speak of the concept or the syllogism. They are basically the same thing. Everything is a concept; or everything is a syllogism. That is the definition of rationality. The concept has three moments: universal, particular, singular. This is the concept in general. The concept of a living animal is sensibility, irritability, reproduction. The concept of God is Father, Son, Spirit. And everything has its own particular concept. Everything has these three moments.The concept of Hegel's system is logic, nature, spirit. Logic is the universal moment. Nature is the particular moment. And spirit is the individual moment. Perhaps to understand the so-called doppelsatz, one should consider the philosophy of nature. Nature is actual. It is, more or less by definition, rational.So what is the concept of time? This concept will have three moments. The first moment of time will be the universal moment. The second moment of time will be the particular moment. And the third moment of time, then, will be the individual moment. But these are not three separate things. They are the three moments of one thing. We could certainly relate these three moments of time to the system. Logic might be seen as the universal moment of time. Nature could be seen as the particular moment of time. And spirit could be seen as the individual moment of time--this time here and now where we live and breathe. Generally, the universal moment of time has been given the name: "eternity". And the individual moment of time is simply "time". So what is the name of the particular moment of time?As I mentioned in a earlier post, this particular moment of time has been given the name "ableness-to-be". In Greek this is "hyparxis". This middle term of time is where all the philosophical action is. Time is nice. Without it we wouldn't be able to breathe. Eternity is grand. Without it we wouldn't even have words. But ableness-to-be, hyparxis, that is truly remarkable. How is it that we are? So much goes into the simple fact that we are. There are literally an infinite number of presuppositions required for us to be able to be. This whole thing about ableness-to-be is really, for instance, what Nietzsche's eternal return is all about. It is generally the subject of Deleuze's difference and repetition. And it is truly the essence of Hegel's philosophy as a whole. And I think the doppelsatz is simply a statement of this middle, particular moment of time. It is a definition, if you will, of hyparxis.As for theodicy, as you seemed to indicate in an other post, perhaps this is best left to Christ on the cross. Philosophical arguments can, especially in face of any real tragedy, seem quite insipid.John-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Malo reading_for_meaning@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 19, 2019 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: [hegel] 'What is real is rational and what is rational is real.'
Hi John,As usual your grasp of Hegel's system's structure is helpful. Hegel's categories of thought are complex but prerequisite for all that follow. (Coincidentally I just read this organization in the 1827 manuscript of the LPR 3 this morning.) So then in regards to the Doppelsatz this would bring us round to a deep dive into the Logic, followed in order by which other two? Philosophy of Right or Philosophy of History, then Philosophy of Spirit's Revealed Religion? Sorry for the 'homework' which is your forte. There's a wonderful diagram of his triadic system somewhere on line but I fail to locate it, again.Also where and how does Hegel's theodicy likewise fit?Best regards,MaryOn Monday, August 19, 2019, 08:57:36 AM CDT, John Bardis jgbardis@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hello Mary,Those are nice quotes.What does the last quote mean about proceeding conceptually rather than historically? It means, quite simply, that Hegel begins with the concept. The concept is one but with three moments: universal, particular, individual.In other words, Hegel begins with the doctrine of the Trinity. This is seen, generally, as a major innovation on his part. 20th century Protestant theology, starting with Barth, follows Hegel in this in a big way.The history of dogma is, essentially, the history of the first 300 (or, perhaps, 600) years of the Church when this doctrine of the Trinity--not found explicitly in the Bible--was developed. This was a great communal intellectual development, similar, perhaps, to the development of physics in the 19th and into the 20th centuries.Essentially this development was the development of the idea of the concept--of that which while one, has three moments.So Hegel begins his Christian doctrine with the first moment, the universal moment, God the Father. But for Hegel God the Father is not the creator. God the Father is simply God as He is before the creation of the world. God as He is before the creation of the world is the triad: Father, Son, Spirit. So this corresponds completely to the Logic in Hegel's system.Then the second moment, the particular moment, has to do with God the Son. It is here that all the "positive", historical material matter (including even the creation itself) is dealt with. And this corresponds to the philosophy of nature in Hegel's system.The third moment, of course, the individual moment, is, then, God the Spirit. This, of course, corresponds to the philosophy of spirit.So, as with his system as a whole, also in his theology, Hegel begins with the purely conceptual before taking up the historical. And they both end in the same way--with the incorporation of man into spiritual life in all its many dimensions.John-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Malo reading_for_meaning@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups...com>
To: hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 18, 2019 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [hegel] 'What is real is rational and what is rational is real...'
Paul,I'm not a mystic, at least not in the irrational sense of the word. Hegel, who thankfully never denigrates the feelings of the faithful, emphasizes the rational aspect of Christianity. My reference to Romans pointed to the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. From Hegel's LPR3:[begin quote]This aspect is also necessary in the case of the revelatory religion. Since historical, externally appearing elements are found in it, there is also present a positive and contingent feature, which can just as well take one form as another...this positive feature is always present...we must distinguish between the positive as such, the abstract positive and the positive in the form of rational law. The law of freedom is not valid simply because it is there, but rather because it is the determination of our rationality itself. When it is known in this way, then it is not something that is merely positive or externally valid. Religion also appears as positive in the entire content of its doctrines. But it should not remain in this form; it should not be a matter of mere representation or of bare remembrance.(p. 253-4)The highest need of the human spirit, however, is so to think that the witness of spirit is present for it not merely in that first resonating mode of sympathy, nor in the second way of providing firm foundations upon which views may be established and firm pre-suppositions from which conclusions can be drawn and deductions made. The witness of spirit in its highest form is that of philosophy according to which the concept develops the truth purely as such from itself with presuppositions. As it develops, it cognizes―in and through its development it has insight into―the necessity of the truth.(p. 256)In our present consideration of this religion, we shall not set to work in merely historical fashion, which would entail starting with external matters, but rather we shall proceed conceptually. The form of activity that begins with externals appears to be capable of comprehension only on one side, while on the other it is independent. Our attitude here essentially takes the form of an activity such that thinking is conscious of itself, of the process involved in the categories of thought―a thinking that has tested and recognized itself, that knows how it thinks and which are the finite and which the true categories of thought. The fact that we began from the other side, from the positive side, from the individual development of the subject, from education in faith―this has to be put aside insofar as we proceed scientifically. (p. 262) [end quote]Best regards,MaryOn Sunday, August 18, 2019, 09:10:08 PM CDT, Paul Trejo petrejo@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:In response to the Sat17Aug2019 post by Mary Malo:Speaking of Hegel's reference of the "Rose" in the Cross of Christ, you write:> For me that rose is reason as negative> dialectical energy.I want to drink this in. In my reading of Hegel, God is Geist is Spirit is Mind is Pure Reason. Insofar as the Rose on the Cross is Reason, then the Rose on the Cross is Geist, which is God, which is also, for Hegel, Christ. This is also how I read Hegel's LPR 3. You also write:> The cross of the present is the failure of> the positivity of ethics, religion and even> some types of philosophy to prevent atrocity.I want to drink this in as well. In my reading, you portray Christ broken and bleeding on the Cross as the "failure of the positivity of ethics, religion...philosophy" when we give them the task to clean up World History, so that millions of people can avoid atrocities before they die.To that end, Elizabeth Anscombe and Philippa Foot marched in protest when Oxford University conferred an honorary doctorate on US President Harry Truman. "Outrage!" they cried. "Truman had dropped H-bombs on civilians! Women and children were tortured and killed! Where were the Ethics?"Where indeed were the Ethics -- the Religion -- the Philosophy? Thus, Anscombe and Foot abandoned the traditional, Oxford school of Utilitarianism.. It was defunct, as far as they were concerned. It would be better to return 2,400 years to Aristotle! Then you write:> Only the negative dialectical energy of the> Idea can expose the whys in these failures.You now turn your face toward Hegel and Hegel's Absolute Idea. In the opening pages of his LPR 3 he states plainly, "God is the Absolute Idea." Hegel's God came under fire in the 20th century, even by stellar members of the Hegel Society of America. Did they truly grasp Hegel's God?> Their abstract positivity as something given> to us must be improved through reason,> otherwise repeated ad infinitum.I tend to agree, Mary, insofar as for Hegel, Reason is Divine because God is Triadic Reason. Marxist/Nietzschean binary and anti-Hegelian philosophies have given us a Communist/Nazi history of 20th century human-made atrocities.> Look at St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, i.e.> if the Law could have saved the Jews, etc.> That which was internal and implicit about the> Law was sublated when the actual fulfillment> of the Law, Christ, appeared and died..Right, I remember that.> The Law as concept became actual because> its universality and particularity, as well as its> essence and appearance, all agreed.>> Best wishes,> MaryHere, Mary, you have expressed in Hegelian language, the Christian Ideal. "The Law as Concept," you say. The Word of God as the very Reason of God. This is how I read you.The Hegelian "Concept became Actual," you say. God expressed something. As Hegel said, with Spinoza's God, everything goes in, but nothing comes out." With Hegel's God, a world comes out, and spirits come out, so to speak. And Christ comes out.You explain your Hegelian observation, Mary, by saying that the "Concept became Actual because its Universality...Particularity...Essence...Appearance, all agreed."By using the model of the New Testament Jesus Christ, you have illustrated Hegel's philosophy of the Concept becoming Actual, by the agreement of Universal/Particular and Essence/Appearance.I truly admire this line of thinking, Mary, because I see its fealty to Hegel's LPR 3, and thus to his whole system. Your articulation of Hegel's Philosophy along with Hegel's Christianity is innovative. It's new and I encourage you to say more.All best,--Paul. - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>