设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 论  坛 博  客 视  频 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
     
  慕容青草的博客
  哲学与信仰
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言 返回首页>> 帮助 退出
我的名片
慕容青草
来自: ny
注册日期: 2007-08-15
访问总量: 836,477 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
我的公告栏
黑格尔论学习的过程
黑格尔论逻辑
自勉
哲学名言
欢迎交流
最新发布
· 有关中药抗病毒的逻辑
· 目前的油价下跌恰是延缓通货紧缩
· 国家基金救股市与QE之不同
· 价格战与通货紧缩
· 国家基金救股市?
· 陨石雨
· 黑格尔认为的逻辑的特殊性是什么
友好链接
· 马甲:马甲的博客
分类目录
【神学】
 · 平行世界理论引发的神学思考
【笑一笑】
 · 24届世界哲学大会的专哲发言的趣味
 · 笑一笑
 · 金发女郎的笑话
【信仰】
 · 自由主义和基督教关于人性看法的基
 · 关于天使的哲学思考
 · 科学唯物论者的信仰
 · Why do we need faith?
 · Why are there so many dark thing
 · About Suffering for Being a Chri
 · Human factor in church preaching
 · 理想与现实的结合---牧师传道的最大
 · 对牧师讲道所面临的挑战的几点观察
 · 南北韩统一及亚洲第二军火出口国
【其它】
 · 陨石雨
 · 科学 数学 和 哲学的阅读理解难度之
 · 再略谈一下State
 · 如今世界的骗子也进化了?
 · 趣谈经济的网络视频
 · 动钟变慢到底是什么意思?
 · 对来自大洋彼岸的专业网军的古怪行
 · 我不是机器人。。。???
 · 文学的逻辑构造功能及其被忽视的后
 · 怎么烧得那么干净?
【心理学】
 · 梦之语言
 · 梦之逻辑
 · 禁忌与脾气
 · 人生中的次坏游戏
 · 两种不同的放下---信仰篇
 · 关于Libet Benjamin实验和自由意志
 · 瘾
 · 一个观测意识的非自主性的小“实验
 · 交谈的需要
 · 快乐与痛苦
【哲学】
 · 有关中药抗病毒的逻辑
 · 目前的油价下跌恰是延缓通货紧缩的
 · 国家基金救股市与QE之不同
 · 价格战与通货紧缩
 · 国家基金救股市?
 · 黑格尔认为的逻辑的特殊性是什么?
 · 与一位研究黑格尔40年的哲学教授的
 · 关于专业哲学之无能的对话
 · 文明的转折关头
 · State --- 中华文化中缺少的一个概
【中国文化】
 · State --- 中华文化中缺少的一个概
 · 解译《道德经》需要理性分析
 · 中国古代到底有没有科学?
 · 鲁迅之错
 · 《道德经》与清静无为
 · Tao Te Ching--The most misunders
 · 聊聊贸易战
 · 中国会改变颜色吗?
 · 中国史与汉史
 · 计谋---中国传统文化的一大特色
存档目录
03/01/2020 - 03/31/2020
02/01/2020 - 02/29/2020
01/01/2020 - 01/31/2020
12/01/2019 - 12/31/2019
11/01/2019 - 11/30/2019
10/01/2019 - 10/31/2019
09/01/2019 - 09/30/2019
08/01/2019 - 08/31/2019
07/01/2019 - 07/31/2019
06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019
05/01/2019 - 05/31/2019
04/01/2019 - 04/30/2019
03/01/2019 - 03/31/2019
02/01/2019 - 02/28/2019
01/01/2019 - 01/31/2019
12/01/2018 - 12/31/2018
11/01/2018 - 11/30/2018
10/01/2018 - 10/31/2018
09/01/2018 - 09/30/2018
08/01/2018 - 08/31/2018
07/01/2018 - 07/31/2018
06/01/2018 - 06/30/2018
05/01/2018 - 05/31/2018
04/01/2018 - 04/30/2018
03/01/2018 - 03/31/2018
02/01/2018 - 02/28/2018
01/01/2018 - 01/31/2018
12/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
11/01/2017 - 11/30/2017
10/01/2017 - 10/31/2017
09/01/2017 - 09/30/2017
08/01/2017 - 08/31/2017
07/01/2017 - 07/31/2017
06/01/2017 - 06/30/2017
05/01/2017 - 05/31/2017
04/01/2017 - 04/30/2017
03/01/2017 - 03/31/2017
02/01/2017 - 02/28/2017
01/01/2017 - 01/31/2017
12/01/2016 - 12/31/2016
11/01/2016 - 11/30/2016
10/01/2016 - 10/31/2016
09/01/2016 - 09/30/2016
08/01/2016 - 08/31/2016
07/01/2016 - 07/31/2016
06/01/2016 - 06/30/2016
05/01/2016 - 05/31/2016
04/01/2016 - 04/30/2016
03/01/2016 - 03/31/2016
02/01/2016 - 02/29/2016
01/01/2016 - 01/31/2016
12/01/2015 - 12/31/2015
11/01/2015 - 11/30/2015
10/01/2015 - 10/31/2015
09/01/2015 - 09/30/2015
07/01/2015 - 07/31/2015
06/01/2015 - 06/30/2015
05/01/2015 - 05/31/2015
04/01/2015 - 04/30/2015
03/01/2015 - 03/31/2015
02/01/2015 - 02/28/2015
01/01/2015 - 01/31/2015
12/01/2014 - 12/31/2014
11/01/2014 - 11/30/2014
10/01/2014 - 10/31/2014
09/01/2014 - 09/30/2014
08/01/2014 - 08/31/2014
07/01/2014 - 07/31/2014
06/01/2014 - 06/30/2014
05/01/2014 - 05/31/2014
04/01/2014 - 04/30/2014
03/01/2014 - 03/31/2014
02/01/2014 - 02/28/2014
01/01/2014 - 01/31/2014
12/01/2013 - 12/31/2013
11/01/2013 - 11/30/2013
10/01/2013 - 10/31/2013
09/01/2013 - 09/30/2013
08/01/2013 - 08/31/2013
07/01/2013 - 07/31/2013
06/01/2013 - 06/30/2013
05/01/2013 - 05/31/2013
04/01/2013 - 04/30/2013
03/01/2013 - 03/31/2013
02/01/2013 - 02/28/2013
01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013
12/01/2012 - 12/31/2012
11/01/2012 - 11/30/2012
10/01/2012 - 10/31/2012
09/01/2012 - 09/30/2012
08/01/2012 - 08/31/2012
07/01/2012 - 07/31/2012
06/01/2012 - 06/30/2012
05/01/2012 - 05/31/2012
04/01/2012 - 04/30/2012
03/01/2012 - 03/31/2012
02/01/2012 - 02/29/2012
01/01/2012 - 01/31/2012
12/01/2011 - 12/31/2011
11/01/2011 - 11/30/2011
10/01/2011 - 10/31/2011
09/01/2011 - 09/30/2011
08/01/2011 - 08/31/2011
07/01/2011 - 07/31/2011
06/01/2011 - 06/30/2011
05/01/2011 - 05/31/2011
04/01/2011 - 04/30/2011
03/01/2011 - 03/31/2011
02/01/2011 - 02/28/2011
01/01/2011 - 01/31/2011
11/01/2010 - 11/30/2010
10/01/2010 - 10/31/2010
09/01/2010 - 09/30/2010
08/01/2010 - 08/31/2010
07/01/2010 - 07/31/2010
06/01/2010 - 06/30/2010
05/01/2010 - 05/31/2010
04/01/2010 - 04/30/2010
03/01/2010 - 03/31/2010
02/01/2010 - 02/28/2010
01/01/2010 - 01/31/2010
12/01/2009 - 12/31/2009
11/01/2009 - 11/30/2009
06/01/2009 - 06/30/2009
05/01/2009 - 05/31/2009
02/01/2009 - 02/28/2009
01/01/2009 - 01/31/2009
12/01/2008 - 12/31/2008
11/01/2008 - 11/30/2008
10/01/2008 - 10/31/2008
09/01/2008 - 09/30/2008
08/01/2008 - 08/31/2008
07/01/2008 - 07/31/2008
06/01/2008 - 06/30/2008
05/01/2008 - 05/31/2008
04/01/2008 - 04/30/2008
03/01/2008 - 03/31/2008
02/01/2008 - 02/29/2008
01/01/2008 - 01/31/2008
11/01/2007 - 11/30/2007
10/01/2007 - 10/31/2007
09/01/2007 - 09/30/2007
08/01/2007 - 08/31/2007
网络日志正文
与一位研究黑格尔40年的哲学教授的对话 2020-02-23 00:07:47

多年前我在华文博客讨论了黑格尔的本体论的逻辑缺陷。后来我将其改写为英文贴出,最近将英文链接在脸书的某哲学群分享,引来了一位研究黑格尔40年的专业哲学教授进行评论。他的评论虽然一点也不出我的意料,因为我太了解他们了(这些年来,有两类人的行为水平让我非常了解,一是网军,二是专业哲学家),不过我想其结果可能会让其他不了解今天的专业哲学家水平的人大开眼界。先告诉结论:这位40年的黑格尔专家根本就不像是读过黑格尔的本体论,因此他似乎是在要教导我有关黑格尔本体论的评论完全与黑格尔的本体论无关。

下面请欣赏精彩的评论(不好意思,没翻成中文,如有读不懂的,请用“有道”或google翻译,这两款翻译器各有优劣):

The imperfection of Hegelian ontology

Rongqing Dai, Ph.D. New Jersey Abstract At the core of the Hegelian ontology are pure nothing, pure being, and the instant becoming between them, which were established by Hegel through the quest f…

 

Top of Form

11

10 Comments

Like

CommentShare

Comments

Fredrick George Welfarehttps://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yV/r/LJet2Gkdxzg.png This is a superb example of Hegelese. I doubt that anyone can use such a closed system unless they examine both applications and criticisms of Hegel’s Logic.

Paraphrasing would be a much stronger and more edifying writing style than merely repeating Hegel’s statements. But, without giving definitions - what is logic, or examples, this essay is impenetrable to sensibility and sheds no light on the meaningfulness of Hegel’s thrust.

Ron Dai Thanks so much for providing a typical example of the hypocrisy that has caused philosophy to die!!!!....

In the past years, I have done in depth analyses of why the academic philosophy is dead...I have given many causes, such as the general (surprising) incapability of the academics to read difficult philosophy text, and many others...There is one important cause that I have noticed but have not got a chance to discuss, which is EXACTLY the opposite to what you are criticizing of my style: professional philosophers DO NOT have the good habit of citing the original text, and because of this, there has been a very BAD DISHONEST HABIT of the academic philosophers, which is the random false and fake interpretation of the difficult text that they are INCAPABLE to comprehend! Thank you for coming here to provide an example of promoting that BAD DISHONEST HABIT of misinterpreting the original text without citing the original.

How about a challenge that I bet you are NOT even ABLE to understand this article of mine at all, not to mention the original text of Hegel??!!

Do you want to go through sentence by sentence of this post?...See, I am calling you out...your comment is so typical of the hypocrisy of nowadays academia of philosophy!!! Do you want to take a chance to defend yourself, as well as the whole academia of philosophy??? Let's go through this article and to see if you really understand it, do you have the courage of doing this??? Come on, be brave!

Fredrick George Welfarehttps://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yV/r/LJet2Gkdxzg.png Ron Dai No, I do not want to go sentence by sentence unless you clarify it with a clarifying meaning, AND address comparisons to critics and supporters.

Philosophy is hardly dead but you do not help by reciting text without clarifications or comparisons.

Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Your response is not surprising at all since LOW CAPACITY OF READING COMPREHENSION is typical of nowadays philosophical academics, and many of them are also lacking courage to defend themselves.

Now I give you another alternative to prove yourself: could you tell what is the thrust of the Hegelian Ontology that you seem to defend? Do you understand it at all?

Fredrick George Welfarehttps://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yV/r/LJet2Gkdxzg.png Ron Dai

I am not here to take a test.

You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.

You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.

You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?

Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.

Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.

Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.

Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!

Fredrick George Welfarehttps://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yV/r/LJet2Gkdxzg.png Ron Dai You are reacting emotionally not addressing anything I have said.

Of course I read the article, I have also been reading Hegel for 40 years. So I know a little bit.

When you provide a quote you should do something more than reiterate what it says. Put it in ‘your own words’ is a good idea.

I expect any Hegel scholar to connect a quote to what others have said - make a comparison between Hegel and someone else: Marx, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Popper, Dewey, Pippin, etc etc etc.

Now stop bothering me unless you have a substantive question and not a complaint.

Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Please see my response in a separate thread, because someone from FB has deleted my response in this thread (I have the photo copy to prove it)!

Top of Form

Reply to Fredrick George Welfare...

 

Ron Dai To Fredrick George Welfare: Obviously, now someone comes to your rescue with technology not with reason...My response to your previous comment was deleted by FB or hacker...before I responding to your last comment, I would like to repost my previous comment that was deleted by FB or hacker (I have kept the photo copy of it as well):

[You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.
You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?]

Your above words again tells you are even NOT able to read my article....and also again you demonstrated a bad habit of put your own words into the author's mouth because you are NOT capable of reading difficult text, and accordingly you think it is okay for you to say whatever about the meaning of the original text since you even don't need to cite any part of it...

It's so funny to see you start to discuss Logic based on your own assumption about what I talked about in the article......If I am your school teacher, I would give 0 no matter how equolently you would present your very limited knowledge of Logic, since you are NOT talking about the article that you are supposed to discuss!

So would you please at least for the sake of this discussion to show that you do know how to respect the original text without making random comment which has nothing to do with it???

Would you please at least read the sentences of the article to prove that you are not viewing an article as a picture like those preschool kids would do...I am expecting you to show the least level of competence so that we might conduct a productive conversation here...

Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare

Now let me respond to your last comment...Again I need to give your thanks first because today have given so many excellent examples to demonstrate the problems of the nowadays academia of philosophy...

You said, [I have also been reading Hegel for 40 years.] ----that is EXACTLY the problem I have been talking about recently, for the past CENTURY, not past week, the academia of philosophy has failed, and it started right from the incapability of reading difficult text....you even cannot prove that you are capable to read my post here, but just putting your own words into my mouth, and then started to criticize my article for whatever your understanding of it in a VERY BAD HABIT of not citing the original sentences!

What you bet on is that the audience would NOT be able to understand the original text either, so they would take whatever you say once you tell them that you have more than 40 years of experience....So please point out which part of my article makes you feel that I don't know the importance of Logic and I don't agree with Hegel for his discussion of Logic?

Ron Dai If you don't dare to get into the details of my post here since it is verifiable to all the audience here and thus it would be too easy for them to judge your mistake once you get into the details, once again, I give you another alternative to prove yourself for the reputation of your 40 years hard work: what is special about Logic that Hegel considered for his ontological discussion?

By the way, the reason I asked the above alternative question is because your following comment does NOT show that you have even READ the original text of the Hegelian ontology at all:
[
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
]
At first, I did not want to embarrass you by pointing it out, but then I think it would be irresponsible for you and for the audience if I don't tell you this so that you would not make the same kind of mistake in front of your students...after all, I am obliged to your help in providing so much vivid example material for my current fight for a new philosophy!

o    Fredrick George Welfarehttps://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yV/r/LJet2Gkdxzg.png Ron Dai You are too long winded now.

Just make your claim in one paragraph.

Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Poor you...what can I say now? You even have trouble to read my short response here? I really hesitate to continue now...I don't have the habit to embarrassing weak ones...

This is the alternative question I am asking you: what is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his Ontology?


这篇对话未经整理,对话中我的直接回话曾被删掉(应该是有权限的人删的,脸书是个很复杂的地方),删掉之后,他又加了一个回帖,这样我不得不另起一个头,再把被删的内容重贴,而且申明我存了被删内容的影像,这样我的回贴就没再被删。

在读本文对话中,请特别注意对方的这段话:

You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.

You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.

You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?

Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.

Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.

Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.

Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!

这段话是他也是当今专业哲学界之堕落的一个典型缩影。这段话又分成两部分,第一部分是:

You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.

You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.

You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?

这段的特点是他自说自话,在根本没读懂我的原文的情况下,对我的原文进行胡乱指责,我原文中不但完全没有否认黑格尔是讨论逻辑,而且完全围绕着黑格尔对他的逻辑的讨论展开分析的;而他的这段话里最为严重的是,他提到“without any presuppositions”这几个字,因为那不是我的话,那是黑格尔的话。这表明他不但根本没读过黑格尔的本体论讨论,而且根本读不懂我的原文!!!

所以我在后面问他这样一个问题:“what is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his Ontology?”因为那就是他没读懂的黑格尔那句话的一个核心意思!!!

再来看上面那段话的第二部分:

Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.

Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.

Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.

Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!

 

这部分就更是赤裸裸的自我暴露,因为那与他看起来要捍卫的黑格尔的本体论是风马牛毫不相干!此君看来这40年就是混吃混喝,根本不知道黑格尔的本体论到底在说什么!!!但他绝非一个偶然的例子,而是今天的专业哲学界的一个典型代表!随便来一个都是这副德性!


浏览(115) (0) 评论(4)
发表评论
文章评论
作者:慕容青草 留言时间:2020-02-23 09:56:53

脸书再次被暴露是个复杂的地方。本文中的原始对话被篡改了,但是因为对方既读不懂我的文章,更读不懂黑格尔的原文,所以,他们越改越乱。下面是被篡改後的对话以及我的回应:

Ron Dai To Fredrick George Welfare: Obviously, now someone comes to your rescue with technology not with reason...My response to your previous comment was deleted by FB...before I responding to your last comment, I would like to repost my previous comment that…See More

Edit or delete this

Like

· Reply · 11h

Ron Dai

Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare

Now let me respond to your last comment...Again I need to give your thanks first because today have given so many excellent examples to demonstrate the problems of the nowadays academia of philosophy...…See More

Edit or delete this

Like

· Reply · 11h

Ron Dai

Ron Dai If you don't dare to get into the details of my post here since it is verifiable to all the audience here and thus it would be too easy for them to judge your mistake once you get into the details, once again, I give you another alternative to prove yourself for the reputation of your 40 years hard work: what is special about Logic that Hegel considered for his ontological discussion?

By the way, the reason I asked the above alternative question is because your following comment does NOT show that you have even READ the original text of the Hegelian ontology at all:

[

Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.

Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.

Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.

Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!

]

At first, I did not want to embarrass you by pointing it out, but then I think it would be irresponsible for you and for the audience if I don't tell you this so that you would not make the same kind of mistake in front of your students...after all, I am obliged to your help in providing so much vivid example material for my current fight for a new philosophy!

Edit or delete this

Like

· Reply · 10h · Edited

Ron Dai

Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Poor you...what can I say now? You even have trouble to read my short response here? I really hesitate to continue now...I don't have the habit to embarrassing weak ones...

This is the alternative question I am asking you: what is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his Ontology?

Edit or delete this

Like

· Reply · 8h · Edited

Ron Dai

Ron Dai FB: Why play this kind of trick? Why delete Fredrick's comment that I was responding to??? To protect him??? Be honest is the best protection for yourself as a social media!!!

Edit or delete this

Like

· Reply · 16m

Ron Dai

Reply to Ron Dai...

Fredrick George Welfare

Fredrick George Welfare This is a superb example of Hegelese. I doubt that anyone can use such a closed system unless they examine both applications and criticisms of Hegel’s Logic.

Paraphrasing would be a much stronger and more edifying writing style than merely repeating Hegel’s statements. But, without giving definitions - what is logic, or providing examples, this essay is impenetrable to sensibility and sheds no light on the meaningfulness of Hegel’s thrust. Provide a quote and then do something more than reiterate what it says. Put it in ‘your own words’ is a good idea.

A Hegel scholar should connect a quote to what others have said - make a comparison between Hegel and someone else: Marx, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Popper, Dewey, Pippin, etc etc etc.

The important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? Hegel without any presuppositions is contradictory when there is obviously a presupposition - logic.

Logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem? Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.

Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic. Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.

Logic works for objects, not for subjects.

Hide or report this

Like

· Reply · 49m

Ron Dai

Ron Dai Please be honest and do not change the history of conversation by deleting either my comments or your own. I don't know how could you do this without the help of FB. But if FB helped you to change the conversation history to protect you, it is very silly for them to do so since I HAVE the photo copy of the original conversation. If you publish the evidence online, it would not look good for FB.

Now let me tell you what is your problem:

1) You are not able to read my article, and thus your attack on my article is NOT relevant to the text of my article at all. You are just simply attacking whatever you imagined in your mind, not my article. You enjoy doing this kind of silly thing because you have been cheated by yourself. Your dishonest habit of commenting others' writing without quoting the original makes you feel that you could say whatever you think of the original text without the need to understand the original text;

2) Your comment exposed that you even NEVER read Hegel's ontological discussion which you seem to deffend here.

Your broken sentence [Hegel without any presuppositions is contradictory when there is obviously a presupposition - logic.] is the best evidence that you NEVER read Hegel's ontological discussion that you seem to defend here.

I don't want you hide behind your broken sentence. The following is the sentence of your original comment before you mysteriously changed the conversation history:

[

You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.

]

Your modified version missing two words: [You take].

I give you sometime to ponder why this sentence is the evidence that you either NEVER read Hegel's ontological discussion or NEVER truly understood it.

You put whoever from FB that helped you to change the conversatrion history in SHAME because you even made the original sentence into a broken sentence! Do not do evil! --- This is an advice to whoever helped you to change the conversation history. I have the complete photo copy!

回复 | 0
作者:慕容青草 留言时间:2020-02-23 09:07:22

上面两个补充跟帖已被合并到原文中。

回复 | 0
作者:慕容青草 留言时间:2020-02-23 00:32:20

而他们的拿手好戏便是这样的两部曲:1)胡乱解释原文;2)把他们所解释出来的意思当作原文来进行攻击。

在本文的对话中,那位研究黑格尔40年的哲学家把当今世界的专业哲学家们的上述拿手好戏演绎得凌厉尽致!

回复 | 0
作者:慕容青草 留言时间:2020-02-23 00:28:19

如今专业哲学界之堕落由此可见一斑。。。而堕落之基本原因居然是绝大多数一般人想也想不到的:他们读不懂具有难度的文章!

回复 | 0
共有4条评论  当前为第1/1页  首页 上页 下页 尾页  跳转到: 
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2017. CyberMedia Network /Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.