Posts by Amanda Jackson5

Maria Wells14 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_sea
http://www.duhaime.org/LawMag/LawArt...ect-Storm.aspx

The whole "drawing straws" thing where shipwrecked sailors pick one person to kill just so they can eat—it’s grim.
But honestly? It’s actually been tolerated in practice before.

Yeah, you see a scenario like that played out in the 2015 film *in The Heart of the Sea*. It’s all about the whaling industry, and they even throw in a cameo for Herman Melville—the guy who actually wrote *Moby Dick*—along with some nods to *Robinson Crusoe*, though it feels a bit like one of those tired, overused post-postmodernist tropes you see everywhere lately. Still, if you can look past that, the movie isn't half bad.

George Wood2 said:It is quite common to see individuals here unconsciously elevating Hegel, and thinkers of his ilk, to a near-divine status—treating their frameworks as the sole legitimate lens through which to perceive reality. Whether one admits it or not, this tendency mirrors the fundamental structure of any religion or spiritual dogma, or indeed, the more extreme manifestations of fanaticism.
No one simply accepts a reality they have become convinced of without some level of intellectual surrender.

At its core, philosophy functions a lot like religion. It shares a similar DNA with art, too. But there's a fundamental distinction between faith and philosophy: with philosophy—or at least when you look at Hegel as the peak of the discipline—you don't actually have to believe in anything or start from a set of unproven assumptions. You have arguments that you can attempt to dismantle. Some people have certainly tried, though they haven't exactly succeeded yet. With religion, however, arguments don't really carry any weight at all.

Joseph Murphy10 said:I went ahead and edited my post so nobody feels targeted or insulted. Honestly, if memory serves—and I think it does—I phrased things pretty poorly and impulsively back then, but everything else is fair game for debate. Besides, the whole topic was stupid anyway; good riddance to it being deleted.
On another note, I’d love it if someone would just come out and say it once and for all: that any philosophy rooted in a Christian worldview is treated with the same level of intellectual respect as any other view here on this forum.
And just asking for clarity... does that "looking for trouble and finding it" thing work both ways?

First off, I don't engage in hate speech. And using the kind of language you just used to trample over someone's rights? That’s exactly what hate speech looks like. You started out stirring the pot just like George and Peterson, and then you tried to backtrack, much like they did. Look, I'm not under any illusions thinking that you actually changed your mind.

Second, I’m struggling to wrap my head around what "recognizing equality" for certain philosophies even means. In this country, freedom of speech is the rule of the land. But freedom of speech is a two-way street—everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but everyone else also has the right to talk back. Beyond that, I don't really get what the substance of a philosophy based on a "Christian worldview" would even be. If the content is theological, then we aren't talking about philosophy anymore. If it's philosophy, then it isn't religion. Honestly, I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as a formal "Christian worldview." Within Christianity, you have a bunch of different sects with all sorts of conflicting ideologies; in the States, you see that manifest as specific subsets of religious nationalism. I wouldn't go so far as to call that collection of superstitions and myths a "worldview," let alone elevate it to the status of philosophy.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Spot on. They aren't exactly common, but when you find them, they're gold. I'm usually in a better spot during the summer because friends fly in from all over the country—people who actually get my vibe and want to sit down to trade perspectives or vent about whatever literature we've been chewing on. It's always a blast talking shop with them. In a crowd like that, you don't have to worry about someone—if I can put it this way—throwing insults at you just because you phrased something poorly or didn't finish a thought perfectly, unlike the cheap shots you see flying around here.

p.s. I looked over yesterday's debate since I couldn't jump in myself; nothing to add or take away. Stay sharp! Glad we have @Volver doing such a solid job keeping things running 👍

Look, I didn't call you a clerical-fascist snake; I just pointed out that you're the one peddling clerical-fascist nonsense by calling the legal right to abortion a "silent genocide." You’re the one who decided to escalate things with that heavy-handed rhetoric, so don't act surprised when you get hit back with the same energy. If you want to play that game, just know that's how it works.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Yes.

In fact—there’s a certain sentiment out there along the lines of, "Who am I to judge?"... which, if you think about it, can easily be rephrased as, "Who am I to even bother with tolerance."

That’s actually a pretty good way to look at it.

Hey planinar, what’s your take on LGBTQ folks? Are you cool with them?

The truth is the absolute truth. There’s really no other way to put it.

gentlerider7 said:And wouldn't you know it, he’d be sitting right there in the front pew at church, too.

They're always front and center when it comes to fighting for the working class, charging ahead without a single fear in their hearts.

gentlerider7 said:If you ask me, his heart was really set on a constitutional monarchy from the jump.

Personally, I’d argue he was actually looking for a god who serves as the absolute and solitary truth.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Reading, listening, watching, absorbing a source... it's all just interpretation.

If we can actually grasp that, our level of tolerance naturally rises—because my interpretation doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute truth of the source. Ask Hegel, though I suspect we won't get much of an answer... since even he didn't have one.

Even Christianity is an interpretation. That’s why Christianity emphasizes love as the essential tool for "translation," and tolerance is really just another way of describing love.

Yeah, sure, let's call it an anal interpretation (check out post #111)

James Lee77 said:My bad, I didn't slip up because I forgot about those famous lectures on the history of philosophy that were published after he died, but more because the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Science was actually printed while Hegel was still alive. Here’s a bit from the start of that book, which Hegel had released in three editions during his lifetime:

Anyway, I guess people can interpret that however they want.

Sure, let me just interpret it my way: Hegel said God is the truth and he alone is the truth, so I'll just toss out everything else he ever wrote about truth, abandon atheism, and become a devout believer overnight because now I finally "get" what truth is. In this version of reality, the entire Science of Logic is basically just a massive textbook about God and nothing else, since God is the ultimate truth.

By the way, the Encyclopedia was actually being fleshed out with student lecture notes after he passed away, so you get all these different versions and editions floating around. There are short paragraphs he actually penned, but most of the text sitting under those paragraphs is just those various sets of student notes.

gentlerider7 As steelridge58 puts it:
If my memory serves me right, Hegel actually viewed the Prussian monarchy as the true pinnacle of progress regarding the consciousness of freedom, rather than the radicalism of revolutionary France. He wasn't some anti-revolutionary hack, either; he actually supported the core ideas behind the revolution, he just couldn't stomach the sheer terror that followed.

Honestly, I think you’re overestimating me here—I’m definitely not better than Deleuze.

Hegel didn't actually know what he was doing. If you want to make sense of him, you have to interpret him, and I’ve got a bit of a metaphorical formula for you. You know that term Deleuze uses when talking about how to read a philosopher—anal interpretation? Basically, you’re just screwing them. Deleuze claims that, unlike other readers, he performs an anal penetration of the philosopher because it leads to a kind of sinless conception. It's how you birth a monster. Well, I’m attempting the one thing Deleuze overlooked: I’m trying to screw Hegel with Lacan to produce a monstrous version of Hegel. To me, that's exactly where that radical dimension of subjectivity lies—the part I think Heidegger completely missed.

Žižek
(From: Joseph Carew: Ontological Catastrophe: Žižek and the Paradoxical Metaphysics of German Idealism. Copyright held by the author, Ann Arbor, 2014.)

gentlerider7 said:Besides, I haven't seen anyone else out there talking about this supposed split between a "real" Hegel and a "fake" one. Most people pretty much agree that when it came down to it, Hegel was a conservative through and through in his personal worldview.

You can split the whole thing into what people call metaphysical versus non-metaphysical interpretations, but honestly, the mere fact that you can even draw that line shows just how much Hegel towers over the debate; he’s operating on a level of universality that makes those distinctions feel pretty small by comparison.

gentlerider7 said:Besides, I haven't seen anyone else out there talking about this supposed split between a "real" Hegel and a "fake" one. Most people pretty much agree that when it came down to it, Hegel was a conservative through and through in his personal worldview.

It’s always a bit surreal when you run into a conservative who claims that spiritual growth is basically just an ongoing journey toward a deeper awareness of freedom, especially when they insist on celebrating the anniversary of the French Revolution every single year. It’s such a strange contradiction to witness.

James Lee77 said:Nah. I’m just saying Hegel definitely knew about the fate of Aristotle from Stagira, whose unpublished lectures basically turned into one of the absolute pillars of philosophy—you know, metaphysics. So, I guess it’s pretty likely he wouldn't be surprised if his own lecture notes—covering everything from his philosophy of religion to his aesthetics, history, and the Encyclopedia—were seen as a core part of his whole philosophical project. Honestly, that’s pretty much how everyone else views Hegel, except maybe you.

Look, I’m not out here claiming that personal notes—letters, scraps of paper, whatever—aren't an "integral part of the whole" or someone's life story, but you can't just cherry-pick them to prove he was some religious apologist or pretend those little scribbles carry massive weight. We all know what actually matters when it comes to Hegel: the science of logic. Or maybe the phenomenology of spirit, which basically serves as the primer or setup for the logic anyway. And we already know what his take on religion is in those texts. But in the science of logic? There’s nothing there. That’s common knowledge for anyone who actually spends time with Hegel. But hey, you aren't really into it, so I guess you don't have to know.

Sandra Murphy33 said:But he does address God in his work... interpreting him, or at least attempting to... critiquing and refining the concept... In that sense, there isn't really a hard line separating his philosophical pursuits from his engagement with religion. Isn't that just part of being human? It serves as proof of his authenticity and his sincerity...

In the phenomenology of spirit, he explains that religion is just one of three ways the absolute spirit expresses itself—though, truth be told, it's inferior to philosophy because only philosophy provides a truly accurate, complete, and rational account of the absolute spirit. As for the science of logic, his magnum opus, God isn't even mentioned except in the preface.

Or, like I mentioned earlier in a different thread:

"It’s honestly kind of laughable to try and shove your own biases and desires into Hegel's mouth based on some Wikipedia summary rather than actually reading the man himself. Hegel was a much more profound intellect than you're giving him credit for.
According to Hegel, religion communicates through imagery. What religion refers to as God, philosophy identifies as the Absolute or the Absolute Idea. Religion, philosophy, and art are all just different modes through which the absolute spirit manifests—ways in which the human spirit, the collective consciousness, or whatever label you prefer, relates itself to the whole, to the totality. The peak of existence, the ultimate stage of nature's dialectical development, is the self-knowing spirit engaging in philosophical reflection, which exists solely as embodied human spirit (which is what the story of Jesus symbolizes). Religions don't express themselves through philosophical reflection, but through symbols and feelings, which is why they perceive that spirit as a transcendent 'other.' That is the core of Hegelian thought on religion. It's not some petty, small-minded rambling about whether Hegel 'proved' God's existence. Should I start pasting excerpts from the phenomenology of spirit here?"

"Why is Hegel such a big deal?", post #45

James Lee77 said:Exactly. Giving a public lecture—especially if you keep doing it over and over—that's basically publishing.

Alright, let's get to the heart of what you're actually getting at here. Are you suggesting that Hegel somehow provided a definitive proof for the existence of God? Honestly, looking through the books he actually put out and the way his entire philosophical system is structured, there isn't much of a mystery regarding his stance on religion or where he fits it all into his framework.

James Lee77 said:I mean, he passed away before that anyway.

What, did he start teaching philosophy of religion and immediately drop dead?

I’d suggest checking out this thread over in another section:

James Lee77 said:But wait, it wasn't like he was teaching some high school religion class. These were philosophy of religion lectures at the university in Washington, D.C.—which was basically the most important university back then. It was actually pretty common for professors from other departments to just show up and sit in on those philosophy lectures. So, yeah, he was lecturing to the smartest minds in Europe at the time, not some kids in a classroom. These talks happened in 1821, 1824, 1827, and 1831. Those last ones? Well, he was actually the university president by then (starting in 1830), so I don't think anyone was gonna come up to him and say, "Hey, go teach some teenagers about religion."

If that's the case, why didn't he ever put out a book on the philosophy of religion? Honestly, he probably felt too embarrassed by it. He clearly reserved his energy for what he considered truly worth publishing, which is why we have Phenomenology and Logic.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:What really grinds the gears of atheists is when believers start acting as divine spokespeople—deciding what God thinks, what He’d say, or what He finds distasteful—and then treating atheists like some sort of lost souls in need of a rescue mission.

If we want to understand how a thinker like Hegel viewed God as a believer, our only real recourse is to ask Hegel himself... Arguing over interpretations is a losing battle. Of course, believers seem convinced they'll eventually get their chance to ask Him directly, whereas for atheists, the window might have already closed.😁

Well, he put his thoughts out there for the world to see. Anyone can pick up the book and read it.

Sandra Murphy33 said:I would argue he was a believer who carried a seed of doubt in his heart—a doubt that ultimately served as the foundation for his entire philosophy. 🙂

We pulled that particular quote, along with several others, from ZL, where he offers various critiques of Christian theology.
As for his assertion that philosophy is theology, I actually went ahead and bolded and somewhat exaggerated that point in my previous post regarding 😬
In reality, what he is doing is replacing Christian theology with philosophy itself.

The thing about Hegelian philosophy is that it’s aggressively self-critical and essentially starts from scratch without leaning on any preconceived notions. Because of that, I don't see how it could possibly link up with religion, unless you count deriving the existence of God through some sort of logical deduction within a metaphysical framework—but frankly, I’ve yet to encounter a formula that actually pulls off a logical proof for God. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that this intense drive some believers have to "prove" God or make Him fit into a "logical" box probably just stems from their own underlying doubts.