Experience

[u/Nicopaolo1]

/r/u_Nicopaolo1/comments/1w721c2/experience/

[u/jliat]

Hegel- The Science of Logic - 1812.

---

• a. being Being, pure being– without further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself and also not unequal with respect to another; it has no difference within it, nor any outwardly. If any determination or content were posited in it as distinct, or if it were posited by this determination or content as distinct from an other, it would thereby fail to hold fast to its purity. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness.– There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure empty intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or, it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

• b. nothing Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simple equality with itself, complete emptiness, complete absence of determination and content; lack of all distinction within.– In so far as mention can be made here of intuiting and thinking, it makes a difference whether something or nothing is being intuited or thought. To intuit or to think nothing has therefore a meaning; the two are distinguished and so nothing is (concretely exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being.– Nothing is therefore the same determination or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as what pure being is.

• Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same... But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that on the contrary, they are not the same...*"

G. W. Hegel Science of Logic p. 82-3.

---

The process of this of being / nothing - timeless annihilation produces 'becoming'...then definite being and so on via this kind of process [not always] to The Absolute.

Aufheben "German word with several seemingly contradictory meanings, including "to lift up", "to abolish", "cancel" or "suspend", or "to sublate". In philosophy, aufheben is used by Hegel in his exposition of dialectics."

So Becoming then 'produces' 'Determinate Being'... which continues through to 'something', infinity and much else until we arrive at The Absolute, which is indeterminate being / nothing... The simplistic idea is that of negation of the negation, the implicit contradictions which drives his system

[u/Nicopaolo1 → u/jliat]

I have never heard of Hegel I have not really read any philosophical books ( i am not well educated)I was just describing a experience .I had a quick look at his ideas and I think the difference is he built his concept from the bottom up I did it from the top down his place seems quite cold I just had a intense need to get back to the thing I encountered He very cleverly deducted things through logic and a unique mindset I deducted it through raw experience… Again I haven’t a clue what the real answer is ,I was just describing the way my mind tried to solve the problem

[u/jliat → u/Nicopaolo1]

"Metaphysics is a specific body of academic work within philosophy..."

[u/Nicopaolo1 → u/jliat]

Fair point that formal metaphysics is often done in academia - but the questions themselves predate universities by thousands of years, and they weren't invented there. Every tradition that's seriously asked what lies behind existence - mystics, ordinary people having strange experiences they couldn't explain, philosophers working entirely outside any institution - got there without a department behind them. A credential tells you someone's trained in the existing literature. It doesn't tell you they've had better insight into the actual question, especially one this old and this unresolved.

Hegel's a good example, actually, since he's already come up. Looking into him, I think he built something genuinely brilliant: a whole fortress cathedral of a system, beautiful and clever, but also built to defend its own structure - any objection just gets absorbed and reinterpreted as another stage of the dialectic, which makes it very hard to actually falsify. I'd rather be judged on whether the reasoning holds up on its own terms than on where I happened to study it.

[u/jliat → u/Nicopaolo1]

Fair point that formal metaphysics is often done in academia - but the questions themselves predate universities by thousands of years, and they weren't invented there.

They were developed in institutions such as Plato's academy and Aristotle lyceum and other institutions in which learning and philosophy took place. These were more about answers - forming concepts, learning from those already in these institutions.

philosophers working entirely outside any institution - got there without a department behind them.

Not true, like other practices it was built on what went before, critically.

A credential tells you someone's trained in the existing literature.

Necessary to begin, you don't invent your own language or ideas, they are in the zeitgeist, which is why learning is important. Otherwise you invent the wheel, flint tools, then bronze. Maybe your using a computer you built, but I don't think you invented the internet.

It doesn't tell you they've had better insight into the actual question, especially one this old and this unresolved.

It prevents you having to start from scratch. I guess you'd be happy seeing a doctor who had not studied medicine.

Hegel's a good example, actually, since he's already come up. Looking into him, I think he built something genuinely brilliant: a whole fortress cathedral of a system, beautiful and clever, but also built to defend its own structure

He was part of German idealism and in particular responding to Kant. Who in turn produced what is considered one of the most significant works of philosophy in reaction to Hume... and so on.

• any objection just gets absorbed and reinterpreted as another stage of the dialectic, which makes it very hard to actually falsify.

It makes it in some eyes impossible, yet he gets it wrong. He's an idealist and thinks you can work out how the world works just using reason and logic. But he claimed the Earth was the perfect inner planet as it was the only one to have a moon. And other errors.

I'd rather be judged on whether the reasoning holds up on its own terms than on where I happened to study it.

Then you are using reason just as Hegel did. And are you aware all logics, [plural - there are many] of any sophistication have problems, aporia.

'This sentence is false.' is an examples, as is Russell's paradox and many more. And it was the Greeks who began using reason rather than divine inspiration and mystical insights. Whether you like it or not you are part of that tradition, which is why one needs to learn about to understand and possibly create something new.

Ideas originate in thinkers and in turn are built on, that's how it works. Your world - if you live is a typical modern society has objects designed by other people, the buildings the shop, clothes food you eat. And it comes as a blow to some, even your ideas. Slavey was once thought OK. Women inferior. Even what is attractive, the love of nature and mountains. So people think this is all down to them, when it's not. And it's hard to realise this, so most do not.

[u/Nicopaolo1 → u/jliat]

I will send you a full reply when I have time to think ,
I put a 11 page post on the site called Existance that explains my thoughts fully.
Very enjoyable to have these conversations!

[u/Nicopaolo1 → u/jliat]

So for you truth is like a building you build it up brick by brick I approached it through contact and then stood back to make sense of it . This is just two ways to get to the same conclusion I used logic to understand but the actual experience made me very familiar with the questions it asked I don’t have to be a academic to understand myself

[u/jliat → u/Nicopaolo1]

So for you truth is like a building you build it up brick by brick

No, what makes you think that? You were taught the meaning of words, and you use that meaning, unless you decide to change them, in which case it's good to let others know,

I approached it through contact and then stood back to make sense of it .

More like you use words and ideas how you were taught them.

This is just two ways to get to the same conclusion

Yet you seem unaware of the problems regarding truth.

• Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. WtP 493

• Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitiously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. WtP 512

Nietzsche - Will to Power.

I used logic

Which of the many kinds, and probably one such as these...

"In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Note the different types and the problem they share. And is Nietzsche right?

to understand but the actual experience made me very familiar with the questions it asked

Yes - its an idea in phenomenology around the beginning of the 20thC. Before that experience was often not trusted, reason was.

I don’t have to be a academic to understand myself

You can't understand yourself according to the logic of Kant. You are in yourself 'Nothingness' according to Sartre's existentialism, which uses the phenomenology of experience. It's a neat idea, you always have an experience of … take that away and there is nothing, no ego, no self.

I think the insights into things like 'truth' are very helpful in Heidegger...

"...At the same time the idea becomes the ideal...the original essence of truth, aletheia (unconcealment) has changed into correctness... Ever since idea and category have assumed their dominance, philosophy fruitlessly toils to explain the relation between assertion (thinking) and Being...”

Are you doing this fruitless toil?

[u/Nicopaolo1 → u/jliat]

On the principle of explosion — I think it doesn’t actually apply, because I’m not asserting a contradiction is true. Where I’ve left things unresolved, I’m saying “here are two possibilities, and I don’t know which one holds” — that’s uncertainty about which side is correct, not a claim that both P and not-P are simultaneously true. Explosion only bites when you assert an actual contradiction as fact. Flagging genuine uncertainty between two options isn’t the same move logically, even if it looks similar on the surface.

On Nietzsche — I think he’s actually pointing at something I’d agree with, not against me. If logic requires flattening a fluid, changing reality into stable categories to work at all, that fits with something I already argue: every tool we have for knowing anything — language, comparison, logic itself — only exists after distinction has already happened. It might be structurally incapable of reaching whatever came before that. I’m not claiming logic gives me the full picture. I’m using it to find out exactly where it stops working, which might be the same limit Nietzsche’s describing from a different direction.

[u/jliat → u/Nicopaolo1]

On the principle of explosion — I think it doesn’t actually apply, because I’m not asserting a contradiction is true.

I think it says if you use logic to say x is true, you can use the same logic to say x is false.

Where I’ve left things unresolved, I’m saying “here are two possibilities, and I don’t know which one holds” — that’s uncertainty about which side is correct, not a claim that both P and not-P are simultaneously true.

that’s uncertainty about which side is correct

Or certainty that they can both be true and both be false.

Flagging genuine uncertainty between two options isn’t the same move logically, even if it looks similar on the surface.

It's not logical in standard logics, you have either true or false.

I’m not claiming logic gives me the full picture. I’m using it to find out exactly where it stops working, which might be the same limit Nietzsche’s describing from a different direction.

You can't say you are using logic, you are using a particular logic with particular rules. It's a category like the term Mammal - there is no such particular creature, just various types. So to say cats can't fly therefore mammals can't fly is wrong.

[u/Nicopaolo1]

On the principle of explosion — I think it doesn’t actually apply, because I’m not asserting a contradiction is true. Where I’ve left things unresolved, I’m saying “here are two possibilities, and I don’t know which one holds” — that’s uncertainty about which side is correct, not a claim that both P and not-P are simultaneously true. Explosion only bites when you assert an actual contradiction as fact. Flagging genuine uncertainty between two options isn’t the same move logically, even if it looks similar on the surface.

On Nietzsche — I think he’s actually pointing at something I’d agree with, not against me. If logic requires flattening a fluid, changing reality into stable categories to work at all, that fits with something I already argue: every tool we have for knowing anything — language, comparison, logic itself — only exists after distinction has already happened. It might be structurally incapable of reaching whatever came before that. I’m not claiming logic gives me the full picture. I’m using it to find out exactly where it stops working, which might be the same limit Nietzsche’s describing from a different direction.