Posts by Terry Martinez10

I wouldn't say I used to be this sensitive about things, but lately, it feels like I've developed this strange little internal antenna that just constantly picks up on everyone else's moods... almost like some kind of tiny, unwanted emotional magnet.

ruggedraven36 said:@Terry Martinez10

First, I went hunting through a translation of Lectures on Aesthetics using the index—nothing. Then I downloaded the full original text to be sure, and that sentence you cited isn't anywhere to be found. I'm stumped—maybe you pulled that Quote from the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences instead?

I recognized the quote immediately yesterday because I had actually scribbled it down in my Hegel notebook under aesthetics, but if you're saying it isn't there, then perhaps I made a mistake when I was transcribing it.
I suppose I'll spend some time working my way through the lectures on aesthetics today just to verify everything once and for all.

Amanda Jackson5 said:The real issue is how religion ends up muddying the waters of philosophy.

I’m certainly not out here contaminating anything, especially when I am simply providing a quote and its translation. I haven't actually written a single word regarding religion itself. It isn't a matter of us having differing perspectives; rather, it seems to be about this hypersensitivity triggered by a single word just because it was capitalized as a proper noun.

ruggedraven36 said:You're actually building on what I was quoting. It's weird, though—that sentence is in the Lectures on Aesthetics, but my quote came from the Encyclopedic Logic (as a supplement to paragraph 24), where the exact same line appears. Since the supplements to the Encyclopedic Logic haven't been translated over here in the States yet, but the Lectures on Aesthetics have, could you tell me which chapter of the Lectures on Aesthetics you pulled that from? I'm really curious to read the full section you're talking about.

I had no idea it appeared there as well.
I was just copying it down from my own notebook yesterday, so I'd have to hunt through the book to find the exact location, but those were definitely notes from the Lectures on Aesthetics... you know how it is, I just take notes as I read. So, I'll have to go back and find it myself; I don't exactly have the specific chapter number memorized.

These quotes come straight from Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics. The whole work centers on the nature of art... specifically his search for a definition of true beauty, which leads him into a deep dive attempting to define truth itself.
He’s talking about pure, unadulterated truth—the kind untouched by human oversight or subjective interpretation—and he weaves the concept of beauty right into that same framework.

Honestly, it blows my mind to think about how individuals would attempt to censor this kind of thought or strip away freedom of speech if they actually had the chance.

The core question here is: What actually constitutes truth?
It’s one of those philosophical rabbit holes that looks different depending on which angle you take, isn't it? Personally, I find a certain quiet pleasure in digging through various essays and interpretations, just wandering through all the possible answers people have tried to construct over the centuries.
That seems to be the aim here too—to pin down what truth really is—so I’m a bit puzzled by this sudden religious fixation that has emerged in the comments, especially since it wasn't even on my mind when I first posted.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Yes, you did. You really tried to squeeze God through a keyhole there.

I’ve added some more thoughts to what I wrote above.

Amanda Jackson5 said:In Hegel's framework, the concept of God functions primarily as a metaphor. When we get down to the brass tacks of what constitutes truth, Hegel puts it quite succinctly: "The Truth is the Whole." It’s essentially the same sentiment expressed by a fellow forum member over in the "What is truth?" thread:

That ultimate totality is what we call the Absolute, a point previously noted by our friend Simpleton. If you follow the logic that some people equate God with the Absolute, then everything actually fits together quite neatly, provided you look at it from a broad, unifying perspective rather than through a narrow, sectarian lens.

Well, obviously, I agree; it's not like I was saying anything else to begin with.

Amanda Jackson5 said:What you're describing there is essentially Platonism—or perhaps that scholastic version of "realism"—which Hegel eventually absorbed, integrated, or synthesized into his own framework, much like he did with pretty much every other philosophical system out there.

Think about it: the Platonic Socrates was firmly convinced that things are good or beautiful only by virtue of being good or beautiful. Hegel leans heavily on this doctrine of "participation"—that idea of *methexis*—when he argues that anything constituting truth is only true through the lens of Truth itself; thus, God, acting as the sole source of absolute Truth, becomes the ultimate, final reality behind all things.

ruggedraven36 said:I'm with you—in this specific case, they're essentially the same thing. I was actually tapping into Hegel here—he makes that distinction between Correctness and truth. In this sense a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction. Encyclopedia Britannica Section 24, Supplement 2 lays it out pretty clearly—something can be technically correct and still be fundamentally untrue at the exact same time.

Being untrue is just another way of saying something is bad—it's essentially failing to live up to its own potential. In this sense, a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction between the determination or given concept and existence of an object. When you look at an object like that, you can make a representation of it... and the content of this representation is an inherent untruth. It’s like when the correspondence of the concept and reality fails—all finite things have an untruth in themselves, they have a concept and an existence, but if the concept is inadequate, everything falls apart. Correctness. The premise itself—well, the whole point is baked right into the setup. I can't even begin to wrap my head around this. It’s just complete nonsense.."

"Untrue" basically just means "bad"—it’s inherently flawed. In this sense, a bad state is an untrue state, and the bad and untrue in general consists in a given contradiction—specifically, that gap between the determination or given concept and existence of an Object. When you're dealing with an object like that, you can only make a representation... Correctness Make a representation, but the content of this representation is an inherent untruth. The content of this representation is an inherent untruth..)

It keeps coming back to me, if my memory serves me right: "God alone is the true correspondence of the concept and reality; all finite things, however, have an untruth in themselves, they have a concept and an existence, but the concept is inadequate."

If I were to put this into my own words...

Only God represents the true correspondence of the concept and reality for all finite things, yet all finite things possess an inherent untruth in themselves; they have a concept and an existence that is fundamentally inadequate to their own understanding.

I used to be the type who would always sit there and listen, offering all the comfort and empathy you could ask for, but I eventually reached this rather quiet realization that such an investment only really pays off if it’s a two-way street. You know? If they’re actually willing to hold space for you and offer that same level of solace in return... otherwise, it just becomes this endless loop of "Oh, I feel terrible, everything is awful, poor me," and frankly, it's exhausting.

ruggedraven36 said:If we actually bothered to distinguish between correctness and truth, then most of these definitions are really just talking about being correct, not finding the actual truth.

But isn't truth essentially just Correctness used in the sense of being right? When we say someone did something "right," we aren't just talking about mathematical accuracy; we're often implying it was done correctly, which brings us right back to the realm of truth.

Joseph Murphy10 said:@Terry Martinez10 props on this question. It really forces you to sit back and actually think first. Plenty of people throughout history—think Pontius Pilate (IV 18,38)—never actually got an answer to this one. It’s such a massive, messy question that some thinkers, like Lacan, basically argued absolute truth doesn't even exist. Even when facts are laid out in an American courtroom, people who don't like the verdict struggle to wrap their heads around it—and honestly, you have to wonder if what’s being called "truth" is just whatever the person in power says it is. Same deal in science. Everything we call "fact" today might get debunked tomorrow. So, I'm tossing out all that legalistic and scientific positivist nonsense and just sticking to pure thought. In philosophy, they say when Hegel was called out by certain facts, he just shrugged and said, "go check the facts." @Amanda Jackson5 knows exactly the context behind that, assuming he even said it.

The answer is brewing in my head, but let it simmer for a bit.

@Amanda Jackson5, loved your response. You're definitely on the same wavelength as me. ruggedraven36, the answer is identical to Sigmund's 😲

thanks to everyone for the votes in the last round.

Thanks
This question has been gnawing at me for quite some time now, so while I will certainly try my best to tackle it, I am genuinely curious to see what everyone else has to say—I suspect the responses will be fascinating.

bluemason3 said:Welcome to the world of philosophy 😁

haha
Yeah
Thanks

I’m honestly pretty blindsided by this post.
Mainly because our whole discussion up until now felt so friendly and balanced, didn't it?
As for this whole critique of the moderation, I can't say I agree with it, mostly because it seems to me like the moderator is actually putting in the work and shouldn't be targeted like this.

To me, living a good life boils down to a simple equation: loving yourself while showing some decent respect to everyone else. It’s about wandering through the world with your eyes wide open, soaking up every weird and wonderful thing you can find, trying everything once, and constantly oscillating between being the student and the teacher. Isn't that the whole point? I'd like to think we can stumble into old age a bit wiser than when we started, but more importantly, actually proud of the life we lived. I want to reach that stage where I have a massive collection of genuine, heartfelt, and beautiful stories to tell—stories that might just serve as a little compass or a spark of inspiration for some kid out there who hasn't seen much of the world yet.

steelridge58 said:medonaodmoru

Honestly, that’s exactly how I picture him too, isn't it?

Donna White50 said:It doesn't sound idyllic if you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who imagined grinding away at a 9-to-5 corporate job just so they could spend the rest of their time being a total hedonist—you know, grabbing lattes at the mall, buying overpriced junk, or, in the worst-case scenario, just rotting on the couch all afternoon...

Like I was saying, the cost of living in a rural area about half an hour outside a major city is incredibly low. Let's say someone works from home $1667—that salary might barely cover the basics in a big city, but out in the country, you can actually live quite comfortably on it.
Since you aren't constantly fighting for survival against the elements, you don't have to worry about basic existence.
You can have your vegetable garden, grow some corn, and actually focus on yourself. People living out there don't need massive loans for fancy apartments, they aren't stressing over designer clothes, high-end phones, or luxury cars—and honestly, nobody is there to brainwash them into thinking they're worthless just because they can't afford the latest trends.
Most people with decent incomes end up buying a little getaway house just to find some peace and quiet...
You can pick up a place in the country for peanuts, whereas you can't find a city apartment for less than $4,000 a month, and land in the sticks might be worth next to nothing while city real estate is sky-high...

It would almost be illogical if a small cabin in the middle of nowhere cost the same as a high-rise apartment or a house in the heart of the city.
To actually get anything out of that garden, you really have to put in the sweat equity, and if you want corn, you either have to buy feed or grow it yourself, which just turns into either more labor or another line item in your budget.
The whole perception regarding pennies and cents has nothing to do with rural life itself, but rather with the individual and their mindset, much like the habit of sitting around drinking coffee in a shopping mall.

Donna White50 said:Just fix your income and go to the Moon if that's what you want.
Living in the country means zero stress and escaping the endless madness of just trying to exist.
Living costs are way lower, utilities don't break the bank, and you can even grow your own food if you're feeling it. You'll actually have some breathing room to focus on yourself—you know, self-improvement stuff—and honestly, life just feels a lot more grounded when people stop trying to sell you all that nonsense and fake dreams...
Just keep the kids and their schooling in mind when you're picking a spot...

Personally, I think it's just as full of stress and that infinite insanity of fighting for your very existence.
It isn't exactly easy to grow enough food to sustain your entire diet... that's a massive amount of work, quite frankly. You could spend all day working in the fields and still lose everything because of too much rain, a drought, some blight, or pests, and then what? What do you do then?
And don't even get me started on heating... you need a mountain of firewood just to get through one winter, and so on and so forth.
To my ears, it doesn't sound idyllic or particularly pleasant at all.

I’m leaning towards a "yes" on this one