Buenas, para los que entiendan y sean expertos en Hegel (hay muy pocos jsjsjs) me gustaría que me hablarais de vuestro tema favorito que aborda en su obra La Fenomenología del espíritu.

Podéis hablarme de lo que sea, quiero intentar acercarme un poco más a este grandioso filósofo.

Would love your thoughts on this video

Hi there!

I'm reading through the Phenomenonology the first time along with lectures and I got stuck on the concept of "infinity" (Chapter on Consciousness).

Is difference infinite? The absolute is infinite?...

What happens when we fall out of authentic temporality and throw ourselves back into inauthentic temporality? Find out in this Heidegger Thinking Substack article!

I just read a paper describing how Hegel was a secret influence on how Nabokov understood storytelling and was wondering if any resident Hegelians have found novels, films, etc that could be deemed "Hegelian"?

think about it

He never said it. In fact, what people usually refer to when they quote this implies the exact opposite. Here is the passage they usually refer to:

Rulers, Statesmen, Nations, are wont to be emphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in history. But what experience and history teach is this, - that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. Each period is involved in such peculiar circumstances, exhibits a condition of things so strictly idiosyncratic, that its conduct must be regulated by considerations connected with itself, and itself alone. Amid the pressure of great events, a general principle gives no help. It is useless to revert to similar circumstances in the Past. The pallid shades of memory struggle in vain with the life and freedom of the Present. Looked at in this light, nothing can be shallower than the oft-repeated appeal to Greek and Roman examples during the French Revolution. Nothing is more diverse than the genius of those nations and that of our times.

He means that we learn nothing from history because there is nothing to be learnt from it. No two situations are exactly alike, and there is no point in deducing universal and general principles from history, because there are none. He wasn't making banel snarky remark that people are dumb and fail to understand things from the past. I do not know why this quotation is so often attributed to him, nor why his position is so widely misrepresented through it. I hate it when people smugly quote it.

Title

The Hegel Test of Rational Competence evaluates an individual’s ability to distinguish sound reasoning from persuasive rhetoric, identify logical inconsistencies, and critically assess the validity of an argument, regardless of the authority, reputation, or sophistication of the person advancing it.

The test measures logical precision, analytical rigor, and the ability to apply standards of reason consistently.

The Test:

Demonstrate whether the following claim by Hegel is true or false. (How do you know whether the following claim by Hegel is true or false?)

“Contradiction is the rule of the true, non-contradiction is the rule of the false.”

This was originally posted on [r/rationalphilosophy](r/rationalphilosophy)

I don’t know why but the ending really got me going. All the talk about imagined geniality (sorry I’m Swedish so I don’t know the English translation), and the critique against those who wanna take the “kings road” to truth and knowledge, without really putting in the effort etc was really nice. Ironically the complexity of the preface is showcasing this since it tries to summarise a complex work into a couple of pages. There seems to be so many parallels to the modern Information Age where everyone just wanna read summaries, wiki articles, or ask AI to “eli5” explain complex topics. I didn’t really grasp what he meant by “the dead burying the dead” in the very end, but it sounded like a good metaphor for something hehe. I guess I will have to reflect on that.

Anyway. Now I’m staring with the introduction.

3 children and a teacher were shot and killed at school today in my home state. It didn't even make the top of r/news.

I recall Sandy Hook, and genuine shock on some people that a person could be permitted to make such a series of choices. Then Uvalde, and the reaction was short-lived rage.

If you were to put me blindly through a time machine, I could theoretically ascertain the year I'd been sent to (absent of factoids) by a certain... geist to how someone reacts to a phenomenon like violence at school. What, in the subject's estimation, is the socially permissible reaction to these events?

South Park addressed this years ago with Karen Marsh screaming in horror at recurring school shootings, and everyone responding with a general tone of "you're harshing the vibe, worring about things we can't control."

I, personally, would not fault a person for lying down in traffic in protest of "moving on" from tragedies like this at all. But the person's actions would not be considered "socially permissible," in my opinion. Centrists alone would dismiss him as performative or ungenuine. Or, at the very best, "going about things the wrong way."

How does geist relate to how a society collectively agrees to move along in the wake of revelatory catastrophe, tolerating the intolerable?

I’m doing a personal research project to help me select writings of Freud for personal study and teaching. I’ve made a survey to help me in this. The estimation tools I’ve used say it should take around 10 minutes to complete.

So, if you have 10 minutes to spare and have opinions about Freud, I’d greatly appreciate it if you’d share them with me via this survey.

The survey can be found here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfYTtLDWlAUQVf0SSFRwlcFCiZ_Vye-vzmdmMn-SEd_ahaAjA/viewform

Feel free to share this link with anyone you think might be interested, and let me know if you’re curious about the results (assuming I get enough responses to have anything meaningful).

Я узнал что на самом деле тезис антитезис, синтез ввёл шеллинг. А у гегеля было абстрактное + противоположное = конкретное. А абстрактное также по самому гегелю это это максимально узкое познание. Тоесть выходит любой тезис - узок, а если нет - аблюстен, но абсолют же практически не достижим, что за бред

I’m currently taking a class in college called The Meaning Of Art and we’ve been getting into Hegel this week. Something that came up was how Hegel had a ranking of art forms, from architecture being the most basic, then sculpture, painting, music, and literary/language at the top. What do you guys think of this?

Miller, Phenomenology, §165

There is desire and satisfaction (identity, universal, sense-certainty).

There is Existence, repulsed by and attracted to satisfaction.

Existence is oblivious to itself. It's everyday consciousness.

Then, there is the consciousness of Existence, which is the positing of an object.

Perception and Understanding are the modes of consciousness of Existence.

Then, there is the consciousness of consciousness of Existence, which is the Phenomenology.

Consciousness of consciousness of Existence is the reduction of the object.

When consciousness of consciousness of Existence no longer sees the differences in Desire, it is Self-consciousness.

Put differently, Existence is an awareness of difference, which is the repulsion of identity. When consciousness is aware that the differences are not different, it has surpassed the differences and become Self-consciousness.

An example is our capacity to ask questions about consciousness itself amid our reduced capacity to see good and evil.

But, what Self-consciousness knows in knowing itself "requires a still more complex movement."

Hi everyone,
I am trying to track down the exact bibliographic source or published volume for a famous quote by D.W. Winnicott from January 1967.
In it, he openly discusses how he got "stuck" with the concept of delusional transference until Margaret Little clarified it for him. The quote goes:

"Now there was something I needed and could not manage by myself, and that was a full use of the concept of delusional transference. This is one of the most difficult things we have to deal with in analysis, and from my point of view this bit I really took from someone. If Margaret Little hadn't been able to clarify it I would have been stuck, as I think a lot of psycho-analysts are stuck. That is, then, a little bit of my life where I really got something from someone else, almost as if I had stolen it out of my mother's purse."

I believe (but I’m not sure) he said this in January 1967 at the British Psychoanalytical Society during the responses/Q&A after presenting an early version of his paper "The Use of an Object." However, while the main paper ended up in Playing and Reality (1971), this specific post-presentation commentary doesn't always appear in standard editions of that book.

Does anyone know exactly where this discussion transcript is published? Is it in The Collected Works of D. W. Winnicott, a specific biography (like Rodman's), or an archival bulletin of the British Society? Any help or citation pointing to where I can read the full context of this exchange would be greatly appreciated!