Hegel BTFO?

>>9676787
>anlgo-cucks still feeling uneasy about philosophy decades after they are a global Hegemon

It speaks volumes of the positivists and STEMfag ideology of the anglo trash that even now Cambridge has a school of hegelians that are pushing post-metaphysical reading of Hegel. How salty and concerned can you get.

>>9676801
That isn't something we should be proud of though, most continental philosophy in academia isn't happening in the philosophy department but rather in the cultural studies department.

And Cambridge has always had a school of Hegelians, what the fuck are you talking about.

>>9676826
what is SV

>>9676838
silicon valley

>>9676846
thx

>>9676826
>SV, entrepreneurship, and startup culture have had such a profound effect on the west that it would be hard for authors today to ignore the tropes and heroes of this movement

Holy shit. How delusional can you get?

>>9676826
There really isn't any more room for anything concrete after post-modernism, nearly everything fits into either it or modernism, and Scholasticism/Thomism catches the outliers.

>>9676787
>accident report
What a retard.

>>9676826
>NO DISCERNIBLE MOVEMENT

>>9676949
Not an argument.

>study math and aeronautical engineering for years
>somehow subconsciously learn about ethics

>>9677136
Ethics is nothing more than coming up with lists of arbitrary rules, anyway. Pointless.

PHILOSOPHERS BTFO

http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

le knowledge/interests should all be about the material use they apply

t. Paul CEO (((Graham)))

>>9677140
>arbitrary

This is a copy paste reword of typical vain opinions from someone that's never read philosophy.

>>9677140
Ironically, that's more or less what Hegel thought about ethics as well.

File: autism detector.gif (96KB, 728x426px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 728x426px

>Paul Graham (born 13 November 1964[1]) is an English computer scientist, venture capitalist, and essayist.

>>9677316
>>9677352
He studied philosophy as an undergraduate...

>>9677355
i.e. he took the courses but didn't show up to lectures or do the reading and passed with a C

>>9677355
>as an undergraduate
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>9677355
So does Sam Harris. That speaks for itself...

>>9677364
Paul Graham's IQ is probably pretty high. Besides, it's not as most of what you would learn in an undergrad in philosophy in the US is of mind-bending difficulty, or anything.

>>9676813
>Cambridge has always had a school of Hegelians

Yes, but not post-metaphysical ones. F.H. Bradley & co. were very much pro-metaphysics. Wish I could say the same about the more recent folks.

Also, the "continental philosophy" which is happening in cultural studies departments often looks more like materialist indoctrination to me. Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual. Materialism is incapable of producing or dealing with metaphysics.

>>9677488
Is this dude in MENSA or wut?

>>9677140
Science!

>>9677918
Gosh, I hate relativists. Except Einstein.

>>9676787
>le science man

>>>9676838
>le yuppie men

>>9677488
>le smart man

>>9677951
What's your absolute then?

>>9677960
IQ Testing.

>>9677488
>muh IQ

That's nice and all, but what can he do with it?

>>9677983
Literally anything. Try looking up the definition of IQ sometime.

>>9677990
>literally anything
o rly?

Guess a high IQ doesn't include realizing that "science" used to be called "natural philosophy" because it literally came from philosophy. Empiricism was a philosophy before it became

>muh science

See David Hume, John Locke, Francis Bacon [...] the list goes on. Saying one can understand science without knowing where it came from is like saying that one can understand what a tree is without knowing what roots are.

>>9676862
move here and "participate" in the valley """"""culture"""""" and you'll understand why this idea is so pervasive

>>9676787
>If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.

While being a massive generalization, this is probably close enough to the truth to be useful.

>>9676813
>That isn't something we should be proud of though, most continental philosophy in academia isn't happening in the philosophy department but rather in the cultural studies department.

that's not actual continental philosophy, that's just shitty activism no one will remember in 10 years

>>9678237
Truth isn't necessarily useful to us you STEM autist. God you people are annoying.

>>9677869
>Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual. Materialism is incapable of producing or dealing with metaphysics.
if (you) say so

>>9676826
>postmodernism
>dead
When will this meme end?

>>9676787
It's a tough pill to swallow but the big three German idealists and any philosopher who associates with them are part of a meme circle who didn't study Kant in depth and are to be disposed of.

Sorry but not sorry.

>Some retarded STEMfag weighs in on shit he either isn't interested in, or literally can't understand because he's not smart enough

This really is a trend these days. You see the same shit with the New Atheists. They literally can't stop themselves shitting on philosophy, and they even think they appear smart while doing it.

>>9676787
>If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.
What? Is he talking about presocratics?

> Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much
To whomst?

What kind of interview is this

>>9678749
t. Schopenhauer

>>9677869
>Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual.
Fuck off pseud.

>>9678014
No, Graham understands that perfectly well. Try reading his article next time instead of making baseless arguments.

>>9678755
>Dude you just don't understand it. Damn those gosh darned STEMfags!

Okay but what are your arguments?

>>9678820
Saying Hegel is 'vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand' isn't an argument either.

>>9678820
I literally just stated my arguments.

Maybe people who aren't interested in a specific topic, or are too dumb to understand it should stop weighing in on said topic at all.

>>9678831
Refute his points.

>>9678837
He never cared to get into the specifics of what he disagreed on Hegel's philosophy, why should we give him the time of our day?

>>9678837
>Refute his points.

What points? Whining about "vague abstractions" isn't an argument.

Why do people get so mad when someone studies philosophy? It almost seems like there's something hidden in the works of the philosophers that they don't want you to know about...

>>9678861
It seems like one, if you don't know what philosophy is and think that it's just a form of refining the efficiency of fields that aren't philosophy.

>>9678877
There's certainly seems like there's a pathological element here, but I I don't think it's that.

>>9678897
I'm not qualified to psychoanalyze people.

>>9678877
>there's something hidden in the works of the philosophers that they don't want you to know about...
Except there's not, otherwise people would have found it by now.

>>9678903
Dude we live life by psychoanalyzing people, grow some balls

>>9678903
Neither do I, but this constant smear of philosophy without any kind of solid argument or specific points to argue against seems like some deep fear.

>>9678907
It's easier to just read the latest pop science-y clickbait article about evo-psychology. Plus, people know about the limits of natural philosophy since the damn Greeks.

>>9678907
People find it all the time.
>>9678909
We also live life by eating, doing arithmetic, talking...I mean really, dude? Come on. I'd rather be right than wrong about this sort of thing.
>>9678910
IMO it's a political thing, in the past seventy years or so there's been a major fear of philosophy as a pathway to Marxism or fascism. There's fear involved, but it's an institutional fear--fear of those in power of the loss of power, fear of those without power of the need to make decisions in a world where they are thrust into power, fear of being proven wrong (which is the same as fear of the truth), etc.

>>9678877
It's pretty simple. Most people don't know what philosophy actually is and aren't able to understand it - even people who study philosophy and even people who graduated in philosophy. They have a certain understanding of the history of philosophy - that's it.
I don't know if it's like Plato said (paraphrased: "You can't become a philospher, you're a philosopher or you are not a philosopher") or if people just aren't taught well or read the wrong "philosophers" in the wrong order.
Moreover a lot of modern "philosophers" (especially the more prominent ones) did philosophy a disservice and kind of ruined it's reputation by using it to promote their political points of view - they were sophists instead of philosophers. Therefore, laymen actually think this kind of sophistry is philosophy - no wonder it has a bad reputation.
A third problem is the general decrease of philosophical education among scientists. A lot of young physicists don't even recognize they are running into a lot of philosophical problems, they're just ignoring them and are subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you look at guys like Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, they knew what they were doing and had a philosophical understanding of it - now take a look at all these nowadays metaphysicians who actually think they are physicians because they don't have the ability to question their own work anymore.

>>9678989
>now take a look at all these nowadays metaphysicians who actually think they are physicians because they don't have the ability to question their own work anymore.
Of whom do you speak?

>>9678877
It's true, most people don't want you to be capable of thinking logically, which is why the average STEM nerd hates Aristotle so much and the worst kind of Continental faggot who doesn't actually read and just hangs out in European cafes smoking cigarettes while getting drunk off their ass resents analytic philosophy.

>>9676787
>Only the questions that are answerable are meaningful.

He's thinking things that are obvious to him are correct. A nice blissful ignorance there. People that are more philosophical aren't going to assume like that but would rather think about it instead.

>>9679000
Nice trips.

There's an interesting quote by Heisenberg. He was researching the so-called "shower of particles" (Teilchenschauer) which occurs if particles collide at high speeds in his later days, and he was confronted with quark theory at the same time. He said something like: quarks don't solve problems, they only postpone them. (He didn't know you could prove the existence of quarks indirctly. Therefore, he thought, they were just a metaphysical concept - nevertheless, I think this quote is quite noteworthy.)

There's a trend among theoretical physicists to use mathematics as the very device to solve problems - but mathematics aren't physics - they are a kind of metaphysics. If you solve a problem mathematically but are unable to prove the presumed hypothetical entities physically you didn't solve the problem physically. If you solve a problem mathematically but know you will never be able to prove the presumed entities physically (because they fall below or exceed the possible knowledge horizon - being too small, existing in imperceptible dimensions, etc.) you have a nice metaphysical theory, but it's not and will never be a physical theory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it, it can be quite beautiful - the only thing I don't like about it is the lable "physics": it's dishonest.

>>9676787
>useful
Make yourself useful, goy!

Heidegger already blew this fuck out

>>9678808
Naw, I don't really want to read his article. It's probably just a bunch of vague abstractions. Maybe I'd read it sometime, but more as an accident report than anything.

>>9678921
IMO it's a political thing, in the past seventy years or so there's been a major fear of philosophy as a pathway to Marxism or fascism.

This is an interesting argument, but I'm not too convinced about it, since there seems to be a decent amount of evidence that wittgenstein and the leading logical positivists were involved in spying for the communists.

Plus, Logical Positivism and Scientism both support Materialism, which is fully compatible with Marxism, which is also materialism.

IMO, we should be more worried about scientistic materialism if we're going to avoid communism. Fascism is like its little monster baby. It springs up only in reaction to communism.

>>9679077
He didn't say that, though...

I thought you philosophers were capable of providing coherent arguments instead of resorting to strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

>>9679637
>Le epic science man!

>>9679077
>Le wise philosophy man!

>>9676787

Lisp sucks.

>>9679732
>le 2kewl4school dude

File: dawkins the philosopher.png (45KB, 626x307px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 626x307px

Why is contempt and proud ignorance of philosophy so common nowadays? I see similar statements from Dawkins, Steven Hawking, et al. They're not exactly deep thinkers, but they must reflect some popular mood. I can't imagine Carl Sagan or Arthur C. Clarke saying the same thing.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (35KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1280x720px

>>9680294
dawkins can into trolling

he peaked in new atheism. bitches on his dick where my money at went to his head and he talked some reckless shit

he had a sense of humor tho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

>>9680309
I'm sure John Green has a sense of humor as well

>>9680294
Because when it stopped being science it started being outlet for idiots which degraded.

File: 61c.jpg (26KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 308x308px

>>9680356

>>9677869
>if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual
I genuinely want to know what you think you mean by this

File: pfons.jpg (27KB, 348x499px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 348x499px

>>9680534
Not the guy you're replying to, but read pic related.

>>9680534
blaah blaah ideas dont come brain it comes from outside world blah blah

>>9682274
I'd love to know where these thoughts and ideas magically come from, if not from the brain.

Philosophers are worse than religitards.

>>9682479
The hair-splitting happens that they don't come just from your consciousness. Or do you adhere to the notion that nothing but your consciousness is real (or it's doubt ala descartes)

>>9677160
In that text he actually proposes that philosophy should concern itself only with phil of science and presents this as some kind of novel, revolutionary idea. He is really just like your average phil student. Too dumb for the subject and therefore gets stuck on one of the captivating figures from history of phil and thus decides hes done with phil forever. The only thing he took away from studying phil is a set of excuses for why he wont concern himself with it again.

Every page of Hegel is so fucking thick and skullfucking I literally have to read it three times to understand it and once more the next day. This book is fucking killing my usually super-fast reading pace!

Analytic philosophy is part of the neoliberal superstructure, the heights of their political theory and ethics all presuppose a western liberal worldview. Intellectual activity itself achieves a division of labour under this ideology - there is no more such a thing as "philosophy" per se, but a bunch of isolated fields whose main job is to reproduce themselves and create somewhat acceptable models of reality. The founders of analytic philosophy were quite transparent that its goals were to mimic some kind of scientific methodology by solving specific "puzzles". Clearly, there is no ambition here, no willingness to consider paradigms which don't fit in the academic canon, because the paradigm is already set in its roots, and any acceptable analytic work must be designed to facilitate it reproduction.

Of course they don't want you to read Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and anything else in the "continental" tradition, and call it pseudo-philosophy, because reading them might actually imbue you with a historical perspective and a vision beyond neoliberal centrism.

>>9682658
>Every page of Hegel is so fucking thick and skullfucking

Dude, I follow you. I have no idea what lead him to write like that. As fundamentally rich and difficult to grapple with as his ideas are, his writing doesn't even seem to be that way for any particularly good reason; he doesn't have Nietzsche's ability to employ imagery to distinctly clarify what he is saying, so much of it legitimately comes off as pretension or his lack of means to put it in a better way. I'd love for some Hegel master to clarify his shit here and explain why he rambles on like the does.

>>9682658
>>9682795
There's a reason the only parts of Hegel that people still talk about is the chapter on Master-slave dialectic.

File: 1445879560707.jpg (117KB, 867x816px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 867x816px

>>9682795
He explains it in the preface, iirc. Hegel is completely against any kind imagery being used in philosophy.

>>9678907
>he hasn't mastered hegelian ethics and trains to be Das Man

>>9679465
>since there seems to be a decent amount of evidence that wittgenstein and the leading logical positivists were involved in spying for the communists.
First I've heard of it. I'm referring to Popper and his intellectual descendents, mostly.
>IMO, we should be more worried about scientistic materialism if we're going to avoid communism. Fascism is like its little monster baby. It springs up only in reaction to communism.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, though--why is it that some scientific discourse ought to worry us like this at all?

>>9676826
Silicon Valley culture
>a multitude of people that have no idea what they're doing, who view their company as a kind of accessory, and who will ultimately fail while a few outliers pay the bill.

Silicon Valley culture is nothing special and the party is mostly over until AI and automation run the show.

I'm in the 1% of the 1% in terms of how many hours I've spent listening to SV founders talk.

>>9677983
He became a billionaire with massive influence

>>9677355
So did I, trust me, it doesn't mean anything. It probably did both of us more harm than good.

>>9678712
nice.

>>9685130
>I'm in the 1% of the 1% in terms of how many hours I've spent listening to SV founders talk.

How have you not killed yourself already

>>9677869
>Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual
lol, this won't age well.

>>9682481
>The hair-splitting happens that they don't come just from your consciousness
>adhere to the notion that nothing but your consciousness is real
what? how does this make any sense? lots of conflation with meaning, knowledge, representation, etc.. going on here.

>>9685626
>We'll discover the consciousness gene soon, just you wait...

>>9676826
yikes
can't wait until TED talks are their own art form

>>9685685
The idea that you have to reduce physicality to something as silly as that tells me all I need to know.

>>9685963
Well then what is it? Neuroscience has existed for decades and we still barely understand consciousness.

>>9685973
>Well then what is it?

How am I supposed to know? How is anyone? That you assume there is an 'it', a single physical concept that consciousness all really boils down to that some scientist can point to and say, "ah, this is what it really is", is a hopelessly naive reduction of physicalism. I'm not even claiming something like the idea that consciousness is merely an after-effect of matter, but if there is no fundamental tie between them, then either P-zombies and all the paradoxes they imply are possible, or thought must take place 'outside' of physical structure in some sense. I'd be happy to hear a defense of either of those propositions.

>>9682479
>I'd love to know where these thoughts and ideas magically come from, if not from the brain.
only materialists take the brain seriously

>>9683182
>tfw achieves Das Man
das it man

The crux of most of Hegelian thought relies on the assumption that you're a Christian believer. If you're not, then Hegel's arguments tend to fall apart.

Plus Hegels speculations about history have turned out to be mostly false in light of archaelogical evidence so theres that too. I like the narative of Hegel, but he rarely says much of genuine value.

>>9682678
Hegel was a centrist and a fan of Adam Smith, so he would probably support neoliberal centrism.

>>9689000
>The crux of most of Hegelian thought relies on the assumption that you're a Christian believer.
Clearly never had read Hegel, you are an idiot.

>>9689116
That's rich, coming from someone denying that Christianity is central to Hegel's thought.
>>9689102
Hegel was also a monarchist and a fan of the Prussian monarchy, so he would probably support Russian revanchism.

File: 1445879560707.jpg (244KB, 867x816px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 867x816px

>>9689137
For Hegel any kind of pictorial thinking such as religious myths and rituals (even though some religions might be more adequate to the Notion than others) is not the proper way to express concepts and to do philosophy, because they are meshed with what is contingent and is not taken as the activity of though itself. All religious images must be taken as they are: particular and mundane representations of Spirit, and not the truth by itself.
Hegel might have started on Christianity but he finished his philosophy on a very different place.

Pic related.

>>9689187

modernist revisionism

>>9689187
>Hegel regards religion as a legitimate (and necessary) expression of Spirit
Hmm. I wonder what this implies.

>>9689208
An expression of Spirit is not the Spirit itself, which can't be studied and exposed through religion.
>>9689187
If you hadn't read him, sure. It's all there.

>>9689213
>An expression of Spirit is not the Spirit itself,
I hate to burst your bubble but you're wrong about this.

he's right about hegel. clearly ignorant about state of philosophy tho.

>>9689224
Is a drawing of a pencil a pencil itself? No, because it's a representation, it might be a closer one or not but it's still an image of the thing. Religion is a crude representation of the Notion, to say "Hegelian thought relies on the assumption that you're a Christian believer" is madness. At this point I can only assume you're one of those trolls that keeps creating anti-Hegel threads to discredit him.

>>9689235

you do know what he means when he refers to spirit right? hes not talking about some quaint secular notion of society.

>>9689235
I know, and my point being is that although religion is of course an element of it and that he talks about at length, he assumes an external point of view of a philosopher, and not of a theologian or a priest.

>>9689247
refers to: >>9689238

>>9689247

I think you've been taught by marxists who have tried to reduce hegel down to "the dialectic method guy"

>>9689270
I'm not trying to deny Hegel's philosophy the element of transcendence but of religious pictorial representation, two very different things. You're the one who never read even his Wikipedia file if you don't know about how anti-theistic his philosophy is (death of God, Christianity as representation of the Divine as a human collective, the essence of things must appear &c).

>>9689287
Anyway, I don't even know I'm here talking to a damn wall, so long.

>>9689287
Your mistake is to treat 'religion' as the same as 'picture-thinking.' While religion contains an element of picture-thinking, you're reducing religion to nothing but picture-thinking. The purpose of religion is the salvation of the soul, the bringing of oneself into a closer relationship with God, etc. It isn't to create an image of God in the mind or a perfect description of God.

>>9689426
That's picture thinking in Hegelian terms. Only the Notion for him is the real

>>9689455
Yes, and the Notion is the Absolute, or are you too retarded to comprehend why people translate "Geist" as "Spirit?" For fuck's sake, read his thoughts on Islam and you'll see why you're so wrong.

>>9689469
This conversation is over, go bait somewhere else.

>>9689474
>Anyone who thinks that Hegelianism is a form of theism is trolling
Kill yourself already, you're an embarrassment.

>>9689480

like i said earlier, he's bought into marxist revisionism.

>>9689480
I already mentioned why this can't be so ITT, no one who actually has read the PoS can think he's just a another theist, it's ridiculous.

>>9689492
Which isn't to say he is a materialist, his philosophy has the objective of undoing the schism between subject and object, any simplistic reduction of him as 'theistic' or 'materialistic' is unfounded.

>>9689492
You must have done a bad job of explaining it because you're wrong.

>>9689503
Bye.

File: 1418865983160.png (95KB, 724x611px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 724x611px

>>9689499
>his philosophy has the objective of undoing the schism between subject and object
So theism, then.