Hegel's Ontology

As is proven in the ontological manuals, our knowledge is what first gives rise to, that is to say, space, yet the manifold can thereby determine in its totality the Antinomies. Our faculties are the clue to the discovery of our experience. Let us suppose that our experience, in accordance with the principles of our sense perceptions, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our faculties, since knowledge of the Antinomies is a priori. It is obvious that our understanding constitutes the whole content for, so regarded, the Categories. For these reasons, our faculties stand in need to, still, the transcendental aesthetic, as we have already seen. We thus have a pure synthesis of apprehension.

what did he mean by this?

look at his mouth for a really long time. it gets confusing

something something reality is subjective cuz
>muh Antimonies

>Antiponies
he was ardently against /mlp/, obviously.

and the stars are projectors ya projecting our lives down to this planet earth

I'll pay someone $10 if they can make me understand this.

it's all bullshit.
you owe me ten bucks.

Alright what's your paypal

There's no difference between the tools and the measurement the tools give, and that understandment is inherent to the tools, therefore to work they presuppose an orientation to an objective that is beyond them... maybe?

don't have one, just come to my house, the address is every first letter's numerical sum of FW divided by pi and rounded up to a whole number, then unencrypted through the enigma device with the settings displayed in the Turing film that came out fairly recently.

I dunno but it sounds vaguely similar to Schopenhauer's idea that the world is subjective representation so I don't understand why he was so butthurt over Hegel all the time.

Yes, if the origin of our of measurement is not experience that comes directly from the senses themselves but from a priori conceptualizations of space, then there is by necessity a transcendental and unchangeable source of those concepts. I don't think that's what Hegel actually believed though.

well what street...

Main

Try reading Hegel's paragraph again. See how difficult it is to glean the meaning and follow the argument? I've got a really solid grasp of Kant, whose philosophy seems to be under discussion here, and I really have no fucking clue what Hegel is on about.

This is how Schopenhauer felt, and why he hated Hegel. Now if you go read some Schopenhauer again, and it will be like a breath of fresh air.

i.e. he wasn't a materialist either but a conjunction of both that and idealism, his main idea is that both subject activity and objective manifestation are the same.

>See how difficult it is to glean the meaning and follow the argument?
Not really if you have half a neuron functioning and read within context. His books have highly technical but that's on purpose, his lectures have much simpler prose.

then explicate the passage, pseud

Reminder to discard any delirium by any rationalist who attempts to talk about sensual experience, the 6th sense of the intellect included.

Anyway, if you want to get edified go read a poem.

Calling me names only further exposes yourself as a mere online troublemaker and a dummy. Read the posts above you.

in vancouver? well ok ill be down there this weekend so if you're telling the truth I'll be wielding my iphone for picies :D screencap dis post!!

none of those even scratch the surface of the passage, beyond "uhhh, subjectivism??"
one person even offered "there must be an external source of sensibility," which is precisely what Hegel disagrees with Kant on
explicate the passage and explain why Hegel uses the terms he does or shut the fuck up

Is source really the correct word here?

Maybe.

Go read his books then if you want a explanation so badly, philosophy isn't for babies that need to be spoonfed.

I don't understand what any of these terms actually mean man.

I'm a philosophy PhD student at an Ivy League school, for fucks sake, and I've already read the Phenomenology.

That's so stupid though. If OP had posted a passage of a manual for building a rocket it obviously would be ineffable but not out of grasp even to a layman if explained term by term. Why shouldn't everything be the same? As it sounds it seems like you're defending an arcane and disorganized memory of an understanding which is grounding your self-esteem on some dangerous ground fyi (you wouldn't have said the neuron thing if what I'm saying right now is mean spirited)

He means we see that we have seen so we expect to see.

from what i gather, he's saying that aside from contradictions or paradoxes that allow us to determine faulty logic, we essentially need to rely on something like beauty, to determine anything, something transcendental. but you say he disagreed with Kant on this, so i'm inclined to think that he's trying unsuccessfully to weasel his way out of presuppositional apologetics by substituting terms which he probably relies on to quibble about semantics.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, can you please explicate your post?

yfw samefag of one guy larping his own internal psychic torture

In all fairness it seems no more recondite than Heidegger

I also recently read Being and Time, and found it -- while hard -- much more intelligible that the Phenomenology, especially in the broad strokes.

What? If the subject in the OP were of rocket science it would be ineffable to the unfamiliar reader but not out of grasp. You'd just need to define each term in sequence. Why shouldn't anything be the same?

He does that elsewhere, I presume. Hegel out of context is always going to sound hard to read.

Hegel in context is just as hard to read!!!

Ok so what does it mean

Read his lectures and the encyclopedias, if you still find it hard to read then you are hopeless, go play videogames or something.

I've been reading the Phemenology along with the Routledge Guide and it's funny how many times the author of the Guide is essentially like "this passage is obscure and the argument is hard to follow, here are several interpretations in the secondary literature and a possibly relevant passage from the lectures/encyclopedia/science/etc."

Well if understanding his philosophy has anything to do with being this unlikeable of a person then you're not giving it a very good rep or reason for anyone to care, you're kind of accountable for explaining given it takes half a neuron

we are born with a consciousness that affords us a table on which to place understanding. through the unwashed masses, it easy to determine the general truths through contradiction, you try and fail enough, you'll work out all necessary contradictions and assemble logic. this can all occur without relying on faculties, which are used to interpret reality, the transcendental aesthetic seems easily confused with a divine hand or something, but instead he's using it to speak for reality maybe, that the faculties are simply the data presenting aspects of consciousness, and that since logic can be derived a priori from antimonies, the synthesis of reality and thought are complete without any divine intervention.

or some shit.

>sight as faculty

AHAHAHAHH
I don't give two shits about what you think of me and if that's a priority for you, you have no business in the field of philosophy.

Human reason is inherently contradictory and the methods it uses is different from the methods which would be used to understand noumena.

or maybe i have it in reverse, the faculties are the mind juices used to assimilate the a priori antimonies and that is used to craft reason? the antimonies are just accepted as things of course, to conclude from using sensory perception?

i dunno man, neither of these things seem right even if i'm interpreting them correctly, i guess the guy doesn't necessarily have to be correct despite all his complexity. seems like the effort one would put into all this, they'd better be fucking right, or close to it to make it worthwhile.

You sound psychotic and I do not mean that vindictively.

This is what I was talking about when I was trying to explain why Schopey hated the guy.

Quoth the man himself: "Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."

He was a very bitter person and there is no argument or nothing philosophical at all in that, it's just vitriol.

>the craziest mystifying nonsense
refer to the OP

sounds like he's one step away from where i am, i'm just annoyed that he's not clear enough to determine if i think he's right, maybe that's the point, ambiguity secures one from criticisms other than what schop offered, which could be interpreted as "i can't understand so it's meaningless".

the brain is a computer that processes information. Hegel relies on a crude pre scientific understanding of human cognition.

bleh that's even worse

case in point, hegel's fuckig dead and his texts are ambiguous , so any criticism or analysis of his work can easily be shot down as either being jealousy or misinterpretation. you can't even disagree with the guy because it's hard to even come to a concensus on what the fuck he's talking about.

Read Kant fag

*consensus

i mean, what do you think he means OP? what are you looking for? how do you know even the most simple interpretations from this thread are wrong? i'm definitely open to discussion.

why believe in reality when you can have fairy dust and mystifying nonsense?

It doesn't help

Reality is nothing to be believed in, unless you think it might not be true.

Why do you represent reality?

i guess that's it then? hmph.

come on swallow the biodeterminis materialist pill already, don't be a pussy.

Why would I need to believe in that?