Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Hegel explains magnets 2016-09-22 12:34:34 Post No. 1726264
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Hegel explains magnets 2016-09-22 12:34:34 Post No. 1726264
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: magnets_c.jpg (17KB, 640x359px) Image search:
[Google]
17KB, 640x359px
>The brittle is the subjective entity existing for itself but it must deploy the difference of the concept. The point becomes the line and posits itself as an opposed extreme to the line; the two are held by their middle term and point of indifference in their antithesis. This syllogism constitutes the principle of shaping in its developed determinacy, and is, in this abstract rigour, magnetism.
>Magnetism is one of the determinations which inevitably became prominent when thought began to recognise itself in determinate nature and grasped the idea of a philosophy of nature. For the magnet exhibits in a simple, naive way the nature of the concept. The poles are not particular things; they do not possess sensory, mechanical reality, but rather an ideal reality; the point of indifference, in which they have their substance, is the unity in which they exist only as determinations of the concept, and the polarity is an opposition of only such moments. The phenomena revealed by magnetism as merely particular are merely and repeatedly the same determinations, and not diverse features which could add data to a description. That the individual magnetic needle points to the north, and thus to the south as well, is a manifestation of general terrestrial magnetism: in two such empirical magnets the poles named similarly repel each other, whereas the poles named differently attract. And precisely this is magnetism, namely, that the same or indifferent will split apart and oppose each other in the extreme, and the dissimilar or different will posit its indifference. The differently named poles have even been called friendly, and the similarly named poles have been called hostile.
>>
File: ba2d75a3abc9c816ca07532432c7e26c[1].jpg (33KB, 564x423px) Image search:
[Google]
![ba2d75a3abc9c816ca07532432c7e26c[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fQLgdwK.jpg "ba2d75a3abc9c816ca07532432c7e26c[1]")
33KB, 564x423px
Who do we REALLY know what the fuck magnets be
I mean we can perceive magnets and see evidence of magnetism and can experience magnetism and conjecture models of magnetism but how do we really KNOW what fucking magnets is
>>
>>1726264
God this is the dumbest word wanking I've ever seen.
>>
>>1726279
Here he is explaining chemicals
>The individuality of the body is the negative unity of the concept, which is not self-positing simply as an immediate entity and an unmoved generality, but only in the mediation of the process. The body is therefore a product, and its shape a presupposition, for which the end that it will ultimately achieve is also presupposed. The particularisation of the body, however, does not stop at either mere inert diversity or the opposition between different attributes and their tension within the body's pure selfhood. Rather, since the particular attributes are only the reality of this simple concept, the body of their soul, of light, the entire corporeality moves into tension and the process which is the development of the individual body, a process of isolation; — the chemical process.
>>
>>1726288
What
>>
>>1726288
You're misunderstanding what Hegel is trying to do here, he's attempting to interpret scienctific discoveries through his lens, he isn't trying to find the empirical in a predictive fashion, but trying to describe the empirical in Hegelian fashion.
This stuff is like completely irrelevant to his philosophy and not very useful, it doesn't make much sense either if you don't know his terminology like >>1726279
Hegel is very clear if you know what all the words mean.
>>
>>1726301
He's essentially is making an analogy, nothing more.
>>
From wikipedia:
>Scientist Ludwig Boltzmann also criticized the obscure complexity of Hegel's works, referring to Hegel's writing as an "unclear thoughtless flow of words." In a similar vein, Robert Pippin wrote that Hegel had "the ugliest prose style in the history of the German language." Russell stated in his Unpopular Essays (1950) and A History of Western Philosophy (1945) that Hegel was "the hardest to understand of all the great philosophers." Karl Popper wrote that "there is so much philosophical writing (especially in the Hegelian school) which may justly be criticized as meaningless verbiage."
>>
>which is not self-positing simply as an immediate entity
He tried to imagine approaching chemistry from the standpoint of simple immediate mind. Hence, to this 'mind', chemistry, atoms, etc., is not immediate, and must be seen through the lens of theory. Because the theory was alien at the time, probably many people were like in disbelief of it, even with lots of proof. It's because they couldn't fathom it.
Unfortunately, philosophers are infamous for having a lot of loose screws, so the result was often bizarre quasi-schizophrenic explanations.
>an unmoved generality
Categories, etc.
Not really that hard, desu. Just dense.
>>
>>1726309
The reason Hegel seems difficult is he uses a very specific technical vocabulary. If you pick up a book on quantum physics, and you don't know the vocab, it will seem like gibberish. The same goes for Hegel. The Scoence of Logic is essentially a giant dictionary defining terms and establishing their use.
>>
>>1726359
The difference is that the book on quantum physics describes demonstrable phenomena, the jargon and definitions serve the purpose of providing a testable idealization of their behaviour, while Hegel's obfuscation leads to nothing in particular and his definitions are just an exercise in stirring up muddy waters to hide how shallow they are.
>>
>>1726382
What's the most infamous definition he came up with? Something that can be told easily in simple words, but he chose not to?
>>
>>1726382
Whenever he delves into mathematics and astronomy it tends to become clear how full of spurious leaps of logic and sloppy reasoning his writings are behind the smokescreen of complex definitions, as he trips even over simple geometry.
>>
>>1726382
Hegel is a philosopher with incredible practical application to even personal life. As I said when he speaks of math and science he is usually analogizing, the heart of his philosophy is asking about how we can be free and it is very applicable and enlightening if you weren't lazy and unwilling to engage him in good faith. What have you read of Hegel?
>>
>>1726309
>An unbiased reader, on opening one of their [Fichte’s, Schelling’s or Hegel’s] books and then asking himself whether this is the tone of a thinker wanting to instruct or that of a charlatan wanting to impress, cannot be five minutes in any doubt. [...] From every page and every line, there speaks an endeavor to beguile and deceive the reader, first by producing an effect to dumbfound him, then by incomprehensible phrases and even sheer nonsense to stun and stupefy him, and again by audacity of assertion to puzzle him, in short, to throw dust in his eyes and mystify him as much as possible.
>>
>>1726490
>Literally cucked by Hegel irl
>Wrote his actual philosophy in a dense style similar to Kant
>Level 1 readers take the words of a level 8 difficulty to criticize a level 10 difficulty as obscurant
Epic
>>
>>1726519
This pretty much sums it up. People who hate on Hegel are just trying to compensate for their lack of discipline.
>>
utter autism
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3