'>Ananke and Apodicity/-ies

Some things only avail themselves to Mind which has returned to itself freely.';

'>>23360850
>In point of fact the need for a reconstruction of logic has long since been felt. In form and in content, logic, as exhibited in the text-books, may be said to have fallen into contempt. It is still dragged in, but more from a feeling that one cannot dispense with logic altogether and because the tradition of its importance still survives, rather than from a conviction that such commonplace content and occupation with such empty forms is valuable and useful.';

'>>23360850
Sounds very different in German
>Das System der Logik ist das Reich der Schatten, die Welt der einfachen Wesenheiten, von aller sinnlichen Konkretion befreit. Das Studium dieser Wissenschaft, der Aufenthalt und die Arbeit in diesem Schattenreich ist die absolute Bildung und Zucht des Bewußtseins.';

'>>23361406
This is so retarded, he is using logic to criticize logic then thinks that he has created something new with the dialectic, which is just inductive logic.';

'>>23361513
To be fair to Hegel, logic was still trapped in the middle ages by the time he came around. I'm not sue how well his project holds up, but I'm willing to respect anyone who was willing to try and update a field that had been stagnant for so long.';

'>>23361516
No it wasn't, hume and kant had used and already showed the weaknesses of both inductive and deductive logic, i don't understand why well read philosophers and amateurs think hegel did anything new with logic. His most significant achievement is redirecting induction towards historical analysis as opposed to how it had been used for science by newton and his predecessors: natural philosophers, alchemists, craftsmen, etc.';

'>>23361533
So he did something new with it?';

'>>23361624
He applied it to the humanities, he did not invent any new system of logic as he claims with his dialectic and as he constantly criticizes the already established logic. Its like taking calculus to predict population growth instead of calculating the trajectory of heavenly bodies then claiming that you have invented a new form of calculus that supplants the 'inferior' existing one that has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years.';

'>>23361649
Maybe just stick to the alchemy then.';

'>>23361742
what?';

'>>23361747
Prima fascie complaining, followed by equivocation. You mentioned alchemy, stick to alchemy.';

'>>23361767
So you have no refutation because me mentioning alchemy made you mad, lmao, are you some kind of christcuck who shrivels at the association btn philosophy and alchemy?';

'>>23361533
>>23361649
One misunderstands somewhat what Hegel's doing with "logic" if one understands by that word only syllogistic, and not also in addition the logos of Heraclitus.';

'>>23361788
What are you trying to say? Opposites being necessary does not change hegel's dialectic being inductive. His logic speaks about change and time and hence falls under induction as opposed to deduction whose propositions are time invariant, triangles will always have three sides regardless of the time, while the sun may not always rise, regardless of the past observations, opposite or not.';

'>>23361770
Refute what? You misrepresented the passage and then self contradicted yourself. You literally performed the refutation of yourself by yourself.';

'>>23361814
What passage? I am challenging hegel's entire claim about logic, why would i let a mere passage stop me, you are still stuck on the leaves, you need to step out of the forest that's if you are smart to even realize where you are.';

'>>23361820
If you say so, then why are you still responding to me?';

'>>23361823
If you did not want me to respond to you, you wouldn't be doing the same retard, we are not in kindergarten where you need to ask permission to speak.';

'>>23361829
True, figure out an actual refutation and get back to me.';

'>>23361872
Lol i can't hear you all the way out here overlooking the forest, you need to yell louder than that if you need some help getting out.';

'>>23361877
If you never enter the forest, how do you know where you are is any better?';

'>>23361798
The dialectic isn't described by Hegel as operating by experience and observation, so it's not clear to me how you're coming to your conclusion that it's inductive, which for Hegel, as with Hume, depends on the senses. With respect to Heraclitus, I think you're leaping prematurely at understanding logos as being of opposites, whereas it's broader for Hegel, partly that things are separated out, but also articulated into a whole.';

'>>23361888
I exited it retard, and i know it well enough that i can tell if someone is inside, stuck and getting drowned into the undergrowth.
>>23361899
Can you give me an example of a dialectic argument so that i can show you how it is inductive?';

'>>23361914
Clouds and frogs is it Aristophanes?';

'>>23361933
I have not read aristophanes, so you need to be more clear.';

'>>23361914
>Can you give me an example of a dialectic argument so that i can show you how it is inductive?
I'm not sure how much of it you'd like to go through, but how about Hegel's own examples from his simplified Encyclopedia Logic? To start with, so you know how he describes dialectic itself, consider section 81 here (it's obtuse, but it's short, I promise you):

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_vi.htm

(A note: the section on dialectic here is the second of three sections on his "Logical doctrine", if you don't feel like reading section 80 on "Understanding", he more or less means there "a concept abstracted from other concepts, so partial, like understanding motion in itself without reference to matter moving over a space or something).

Optional, since it'd be extra reading, but clarifying notes to his discussion of dialectic:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_divis.htm

So, for the example, probably the simplest (kek) would be the transition from Being to Nothing (from Nothing to Becoming wuld be another transition). That would be a dialectical argument; Being-Nothing-Becoming, if I understand him, would be a Speculative argument, so dialectic seems more step-by-step. Being is section 85, Nothing is 86:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm

That's probably a pain in the ass to read, but they're relatively brief, and they're Hegel's own examples, so you won't have someone putting a better or worse spin on it, and you can pick at it at your leisure.';

'>>23361941
You have not read Hegel, you have not read Aristophanes, and need other people to tell you what dialectic is. Perhaps you need to read more so you can speak clearly.';

'>>23361914
>>23361947
>Being is section 85, Nothing is 86:
I meant 86 and 87.';

'>>23361948
nice refutation anon, i'm sure you are proud of yourself for saying nothing at all.
>>23361947
And my point of step by step involves induction, i gave you an example of a triangle having three sides always, when you make the claim that something is changing, you are implicitly using induction even if the propositions do not involve observation of the senses as seen in math, with propositions changing form as the natural numbers evolve forward, etc I asked for an example because i wanted a counterexample that does not include this criteria.';

'>>23362279
If you have nothing to say, are you expecting me to speak for you?';

'>>23362279
>And my point of step by step involves induction, i gave you an example of a triangle having three sides always, when you make the claim that something is changing, you are implicitly using induction even if the propositions do not involve observation of the senses as seen in math, with propositions changing form as the natural numbers evolve forward, etc I asked for an example because i wanted a counterexample that does not include this criteria.
If induction is the appeal to experience and observation, then you haven't shown its presence in the example of the dialectical move from Being to Nothing. In any case, you're using such a broad conception of what it means to induct, that it'd be applicable to every single thinker, in which case you don't really have any special argument against Hegel, and in fact, Kant and Hume, by this overly broad vision of induction make inductive arguments.';

'>>23362299
continue speaking lmao, you keep responding but expect me to stop?
>>23362334
of course they do, that's what i said, they showed the problems with logic long before hegel and induction is not the appeal to experience and observation only, its fundamental essence is time and change as i keep arguing for and i've shown you ways in which it differs from deduction, via the triangle analogy but you don't seem to want to understand it or provide any counterexample of how dialectics and induction differ.';

'>>23362382
If you are only interested in deductive reasoning then why are you in a Hegel thread? You are technically engaging in dialectic and already admitted Hegel did something different, are you just looking to self-contradict again?';

'>>23362382
>of course they do, that's what i said, they showed the problems with logic long before hegel and induction is not the appeal to experience and observation only, its fundamental essence is time and change as i keep arguing for and i've shown you ways in which it differs from deduction, via the triangle analogy but you don't seem to want to understand it or provide any counterexample of how dialectics and induction differ.
You're working by an assumption of what his dialectic deals with and how it operates, such that you're conflating change between concepts with change in time; to relate it to your triangle example, Hegel's dialetical arguments aren't like taking a triangle and erasing and redrawing it to resemble different instances of triangles, like from right angle to obtuse, but are rather like showing the right-angled triangle's presence in a square. So I'm not persuaded you've shown the point under contention, since you haven't shown that the kind of change happening with respect to Being to Nothing is one that depends on change in time, which would fall prey to induction. Hegel's arguments are linked above, if you see a line of argument that requires taking change in that way, quoting such would be more decisive in making your case, no?';

'>>23362405
you are retarded aren't you, who said i was only interested in deductive reasoning, can you quote this verbatim or are you still fighting shadows inside the forest
>>23362433
I literally said that induction involves change and time. It doesn't have to be only one of them or depend on observation. If your assumptions are propositions that change in any way, then they become inductive arguments as opposed to deduction which deals with unravelling definitions into different categories. If you know anything about mathematical induction or the proofs that computer scientists use to prove algorithms, this wouldn't even be an argument, math uses the evolution of natural numbers for its inductions, it doesn't have to rely on time, any kind of change will do.';

'>>23362456
You are the one who is hung up on induction, so I suppose I should ask whether you are actually ready to make your point after engaging in dialectic at this point?';

'>>23362456
>I literally said that induction involves change and time. It doesn't have to be only one of them or depend on observation. If your assumptions are propositions that change in any way, then they become inductive arguments as opposed to deduction which deals with unravelling definitions into different categories. If you know anything about mathematical induction or the proofs that computer scientists use to prove algorithms, this wouldn't even be an argument, math uses the evolution of natural numbers for its inductions, it doesn't have to rely on time, any kind of change will do.
This would a denial against Hume's own claims re: algebra and arithmetic as showing relations of ideas, i.e., the change of 5 + 5 into 10 doesn't fall prey to induction. In any case, you seem very resistant to refer either to Hegel's own brief discussions of dialectic or his examples that start off his system, so I'm bowing out unless you make the more adequate case via those.';

'>>23362473
>so because i talk about induction, i love deduction, you are stupid aren't you, hallucinating alone in the forest, is this your retarded dialectic at work, seeing antithesis everywhere you look?
>>23362473
5+5=10 is inductive yes because it relies on the peano's axioms of arithmetic, in which mathematical induction is founded on, again you also need to understand some of the arguments you are making, you should be able to give me a better counterexample than this since you have read hegel';

'>>23362509
You seem to be equivocating tremendously between trying to say Hegel's philosophy is wrong or perhaps generated nothing different because it uses induction, but you are also trying to make this claim using induction, and have already admitted Hegel did something different. So I am simply trying to clarify what your point is since you are completely bereft of the mental capacity to speak it. This is a Hegel thread, so we can carry the contradiction with us if you like, which I suppose I tried to do before you arrived at the end result for me and began your equivocation process. So you do not have a point to elucidate?';

'>>23362540
You are too stupid to understand it i am afraid, you can take this as the antithesis for your next argument and see if it helps you get out of the forest. I am not going to keep repeating myself when my arguments are plain to see. Do you have another point to make?';

'>>23362509
>5+5=10 is inductive yes because it relies on the peano's axioms of arithmetic, in which mathematical induction is founded on
I'm not convinced you've read Hume, if your example of a counter is a triangle, which Hume would take as an example of induction, and your example of mathematical induction is arithmetic, which Hume denies would be inductive. I'm not sure you understand your own arguments either if your gotcha re: arithmetic is to cite Peano, as if 5 + 5 never came out to 10 before Peano.';

'>>23362573
Perhaps you should enter the forest, you cannot get any more stupid, you may accidentally become smarter.';

'>>23362578
How exactly is a triangle having three sides inductive, linguistically? Also the result of 10 can be deductive since its definition involves many operations such as 2+8, 1+9, 10+0, etc, but the operation itself 5+5=10 is inductive, that is the example you provided, you did not provide the definition of what 10 is, you provided an arithmetic operation, which is inductive.';

'>>23362608
Yea keep expecting me to do so caveman';

'>>23362616
The triangle, or any geometric example, by Hume, is fundamentally inductive, because to understand it requires thr faculty of sight, and experience of space. An arithmetic operation would not be inductive, because the relations of numbers are simply relations of ideas, not of beings in spsce and time.';

'>>23362616
>>23362892
To add, Hume on geometry and arithmetic:

>It appears, then, that the ideas which are most essential to geometry, viz. those of equality and inequality, of a right line and a plain surface, are far from being exact and determinate, according to our common method of conceiving them. Not only we are incapable of telling, if the case be in any degree doubtful, when such particular figures are equal; when such a line is a right one, and such a surface a plain one; but we can form no idea of that proportion, or of these figures, which is firm and invariable. Our appeal is still to the weak and fallible judgment, which we make from the appearance of the objects, and correct by a compass or common measure; and if we join the supposition of any farther correction, it is of such-a-one as is either useless or imaginary. In vain should we have recourse to the common topic, and employ the supposition of a deity, whose omnipotence may enable him to form a perfect geometrical figure, and describe a right line without any curve or inflexion. As the ultimate standard of these figures is derived from nothing but the senses and imagination, it is absurd to talk of any perfection beyond what these faculties can judge of; since the true perfection of any thing consists in its conformity to its standard.

>There remain, therefore, algebra and arithmetic as the only sciences, in which we can carry on a chain of reasoning to any degree of intricacy, and yet preserve a perfect exactness and certainty. We are possest of a precise standard, by which we can judge of the equality and proportion of numbers; and according as they correspond or not to that standard, we determine their relations, without any possibility of error. When two numbers are so combined, as that the one has always an unite answering to every unite of the other, we pronounce them equal; and it is for want of such a standard of equality in extension, that geometry can scarce be esteemed a perfect and infallible science.
>But here it may not be amiss to obviate a difficulty, which may arise from my asserting, that though geometry falls short of that perfect precision and certainty, which are peculiar to arithmetic and algebra, yet it excels the imperfect judgments of our senses and imagination. The reason why I impute any defect to geometry, is, because its original and fundamental principles are derived merely from appearances; and it may perhaps be imagined, that this defect must always attend it, and keep it from ever reaching a greater exactness in the comparison of objects or ideas, than what our eye or imagination alone is able to attain.';

'>>23362618
I do not expect you to, you seem content with stupidity.';

'Hegel is #1';

'Bump';

'Hegel forgot to account for emotion that's why he failed';

'Still waiting to hear how the dialectical argument moving from abstract Being to Nothing specifically appeals to experience and observation.';

'>>23362892
The same argument can be said of any logic being inductive since we require senses to make sense of the world so this nitpicking is not particularly meaningful. The statement, a triangle has 3 sides is deductive, whether or not anyone has seen the triangle is irrelevant since the definition of triangle requires that it has three sides.';

'>>23363012
You can't expect much from a forest dweller, can you?';

'>>23364378
Then you're disagreeing with Hume on just what induction is. In that case, there's not really any rom for further discussion if I'm in the position of just having to accept a stranger's unusual understanding of induction such that geometric objects, which are wholly visual-spatial, aren't subject to induction, but rational dialectical arguments pertaining to abstract concepts are suddenly inductive because you only kind of understanding of change you'll admit of is change in time. I'm not sure if even scientifically minded non-Hegelians would buy that.';

'>>23364401
You don't seem to want to understand the distinction btn observation and definition do you? I could define an alien as any being that is bipedal and lives outside of earth and i could use that definition deductively but does that mean that i have ever seen an alien? Hume this, hegel that, are you incapable of thinking beyond their examples?';

'/// Ownership of shoreline property conveys the right to build a pier or wharf /// Parker Posey wants to take a stab at another Scream movie despite her character's grisly death in Scream 3 /// If you're late to work again, you'll be out on your ear /// To what extent is a man of 68 the same person as the callow youth of 18 that he once was? /// Mozart responded with a lilting melody that enhances the regular, sing-song accents of the metre /// After a bad year, Judd's career hung in the balance /// Dan nabbed the seat next to mine /// Per the IOM white paper, about 100,000 people a year die because of medical mistakes /// The bright flavor of paprika, in combination with sour cream, is a perfect foil for the succulent meat of rabbit /// I remember my grandma using that perfume — the scent, and the preening in front of the mirror that went with it /// The old diplomat was shaken to the core to discover that in their correspondence Mozart and his family and friends were gleefully given to silliness and smut /// The negative influence of bereavement on physical and mental health often fades over time /// A wad of money in a gold clip /// How we love that word — cue the trumpets, unfurl the banners, cast a golden light upon the White House /// They welcomed the newest family member into the fold /// The materials and finish give it the impression of a ballroom: velvet on the rear wall, red wall surfaces ///';

'>>23364420
>the distinction btn observation and definition do you? I could define an alien as any being that is bipedal and lives outside of earth and i could use that definition deductively but does that mean that i have ever seen an alien?
This tangent is an evasion, where, now, you're pulling some weird retreat into autism to avoid dealing both with an understanding of induction and the problem of induction that departs from the classical and Humeian understanding of such, and to avoid actually making your point directly about Hegel's dialectic and a direct example of how it works linked above. You're hiding behind the difference between observation and deduction as if the point wasn't over how you know something, and as if Hume, in the passages quoted above, hadn't provided an argument for the superiority and comparative certainty in deducting from relations of ideasin arithmetic than in deducting from flawed imperfect observations, as in geometry. If you don't what the argument's about, it helps if you aren't constantly adding new fronts for your arguments to fail at, as you did at >>23361798 by bringing in induction as an irrelevant and completely beside the point response to me at >>23361788.

I mean, really, who responds to the mild corrective of "Logic to Hegel is broader than formal deductive logic" with "but induction", come on.
>Hume this, hegel that, are you incapable of thinking beyond their examples?
You literally brought Hume and Kant up first to buttress a claim about Hegel. Given they're your standard against which Hegel somehow falls, it's perfectly fair to use them as a cudgel over your head when it becomes evident that you're innovating a definition of induction, instead of using Hume's. You're leaing on summaries of these works instead of reading them directly, and those summaries, I guarantee you, are failing you in this debate.';

'>>23365079
Yes i brought them up to show that hegel wasn't doing anything new with dialectics--hence my claim that dialectic is induction in disguise, this is very clear, I am not evading anything, if anything its you who is evading by continuously failing to provide any counterexample against my claim and typing out essays that say nothing about your refutation. Its all about what hegel said or what hume meant, you are incapable of thinking beyond that.';

'>>23365114
First off, induction != logic, so it was never relevant to the discussion of logic as such. Second, you're not in the position to say whether Hegel innovates or not, nor if he depends on induction, since, to remind, you won't read his passages linked above concerning his doctrine of reasoning.

You'll of course dodge by reiterating your own idiosyncratic view of induction, which departs from every classical understanding.

>Its all about what hegel said or what hume meant, you are incapable of thinking beyond that.
You asked for an example of Hegel's dialectic in action, and you didn't look at it because you lazily decided that your incorrect understanding of induction meant you could wave it off without ever checking. This new tact of pretending to be a free thinker by not depending slavishly on authors would be a more effective rhetorical trick if you weren't making up your understanding of induction as you went along. If you have such a problem with citing or relying on an author for understanding of their, you probably shouldn't appeal to Hume or Kant in the first place, especially if you don't understand them.';

'>>23364380
I expected and found that you are still a bitch.';

'>>23365196
induction is part of logic, if you can't agree to this then there's no point arguing with you, and i am not making up my own understanding of anything unlike you who is depending on one author's understanding as the standard of what induction, hume according to you, is the sole arbiter of induction therefore, anyone else is wrong even induction takes many forms including some of which the greeks used long before hume had anything to say, you need to think harder than this diatribe of a reply you've posted that shows poor understanding of what induction means and you have still not provided any counterexample that refutes my claim. Your tactic is to attack my definition of induction, a strawman that affords you the chance to not provide any counterexamples.';

'>>23365424
>induction is part of logic, if you can't agree to this then there's no point arguing with you,
Wrong again, logic is the reckoning of things in speech, hence why it's derived from the Greek word for speech, logos; induction is judgment from experience, this distinction is ancient, they're both separate species of reasoning--this is traceable back to Aristotle, and Hume accepts this distinction himself, which is why arithmetic doesn't fall prey to induction for him.

I've been mostly nice for this exchange, but my patience runs out when whiny illiterates refuse to answer the challenges they themselves set down and when all further response are just smuggling more shit in to destract. Who haven't shown that induction is required in the transition from Hegel's Being to Nothing, you haven't shown that you even understand induction, and now you're even denying that your own arbiter for Hegel can act as an arbiter for yourself. Spend less time bullshitting and more time reading.';