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

AW: Re: [hegel] "Idealism"

Expand Messages
  • greuterb@bluewin.ch
    ... Von: kchen28@yahoo.com Datum: 03.06.2011 22:58 An: Betreff: Re: [hegel] Idealism Beat: In your message to Bob you draw a
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 4, 2011
      ----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht----
      Von: kchen28@...
      Datum: 03.06.2011 22:58
      An: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
      Betreff: Re:
      [hegel] "Idealism"


      In your message to Bob you draw a distinction between consciousness, substance, and thought,
      specifically: "the immanence of thought is at the same time the transcendency of consiousness and substance." But
      isn't thought, conceptual thought, itself a mode or shape of consciousness? Doesn't Hegel make (or suggest) a
      distinction between the natural consciousness and (what I will call) the speculative consciousness?



      You are right. Transcendeny may not be taken as an own realm beyond consciousness. The Concept expresses the
      mediating world relation of consciousness (and more general of what is) or, as you say, 'a mode of consciousness' and
      is not an abstraction of the understanding. So, Hegel indeed makes a distinction between natural and appearing
      consciousness. The latter appears as shapes which are unfolded speculatively in their necessary sequence - reason or
      the Concept in its other. But in the Logic he shows this mediation as such. This I think is a transcendental
      perspective: 'God before the creation of the world'. However, one certainly cannot take this metaphor as a
      chronological sequence. So, what is it? I think it is pure thought showing its inherent principles and levels of
      mediation in their universality thereby the logical content (level) and form (principles) taken as related to each
      other. A separating hyposatization of the content or of a moment of the content would lead to a misinterpretation of
      Hegel's Logic. Perhaps we could call it the immanent transcendency.


      > Bob,
      > You are right.
      However, the problem is that the sublation in the Logic
      > of Being - and here 'true infinity' is thematic - is always
      accompanied by the loss of the Other. So, 'true infinity'
      > falls back into the One. It is this aporia in the Logic of
      Being we also find in Plato's Socrates' dialogues. So, the
      > Logic of Being has to be abandoned. This already
      Aristotles tried in his metaphysics. But since he did not really
      > abandoned the immediate truth of Being in thought
      his procedure is uncritical. Only with Kant Being get only
      > appearance. But with this he abandons also the
      ontological question, that is, he leaves behind the aporia as a
      > philosophically unappealing contradiction. Now,
      Hegel shows in his Logic of the Essence that the relations of
      > reflection dialectically observed (and not left behind
      as an unsolvable contradiction) leads to the absolute necessity
      > of the substance without any freedom. Only the jump
      into the unity of Being and Essence as the Concept in its own
      > IMMANENT movement brings back the freedom of thought.
      But this immanence is not the immanence of consciousness and not
      > the immanence of substance but the immanence of
      thought. So, the immanence of thought is at the same time the
      > transcendency of consiousness and substance. But with
      this it is also said that true infinity as true freedom is no
      > longer a mere objective in-itself (God) but the
      movement of the concept in its own objectification. So, as you write:
      > 'transcendence doesn't need to be a spurious
      infinity". However, taken as 'true infinity' from the Logic of Being it
      > is.
      > Regards,
      > Beat
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.