Posts by ruggedraven36

George Wood2 said:Yes, perfectly clear. Consider this example: someone is writing a deeply earnest piece on a separate thread—let’s say, an analysis of urban gardening—when suddenly, someone from an entirely different topic begins condescendingly lecturing them on how "strange" their focus is. 🙂Do you Shatner, figuratively speaking?
Such interactions ought to facilitate relaxed, constructive communication rather than unnecessary conflict, especially when we are attempting to engage in mature, philosophical debate. Divergent viewpoints should not be an issue, regardless of their philosophical nature. It shouldn't be taken personally, nor should it be treated as something sensitive.

It would be quite fascinating to start a thread investigating whether the majority of philosophers are truly self-actualized, or if they are like certain spiritualists who fail to realize they are merely being driven by their own inflated spiritual egos.

Don't get hung up on the examples. There are plenty of them—but most people show up here to actually talk shop and weigh in on some philosophical deep dive. Sure, you’ll get some casual banter and even a few arguments now and then, but that's not why we're all here. To me, it feels like most of us just can't find anyone in our own neck of the woods who wants to debate philosophy. That's why this forum works. If someone's just looking for a playground, they can easily go find somewhere else better suited for that.

George Wood2 said:🙂 Frankly, I have no idea what I am even writing anymore. I am simply amusing myself. And you? What is your purpose here?

Posting on Quincy is serious business for me—and honestly, for most of us hanging out here.

George Wood2 said:Logically, there is no way. If that were the case, it would blatantly indicate a disproportionate relationship between one thing and everything else, rather than just itself.

I'll give you that—what you're saying here is totally illogical.

George Wood2 said:Haha... you’ve actually managed to make me laugh. Thanks.
I suspect we aren't even discussing agreement or disagreement here. Rather, we are simply sharing various modes of thought. Fortunately,
truth cannot be defined or characterized by any human concept or attribute.
...But "beautiful and wonderful" in relation to what?
What if it is, in fact, "unimaginably beautiful and wonderful in relation to nothingness"?
The notion that a human being, as an individual, is some sort of superior intellectual entity on this planet does not grant them the capacity to perceive the absolute truth. That is merely a self-reinforcing infatuation born from a tendency toward egocentrism. And there is nothing personal involved here.

On the contrary: isn't it evident how much childish bickering is occurring here? In this instance, it stems from a trivial provocation regarding the reality of another person's existence—particularly those whose convictions are deemed exceptionally mature or profoundly personal (and yes, I am referring to myself!) 🙂. It is incredible how many judgments are passed without acknowledgment, simply because it is labeled "your" Reality. This is perfectly understandable to that incomprehensible force which serves as the foundation for all understanding.
And yet, there is this constant poking and prodding over a slippery word like "Bogey," acting as a deceptive distraction to prevent anyone from turning toward a more conscious study of their own cognitive systems—the very systems that construct the vast spectrum of belief and the intensity of opinion, which functions as a force that continuously shapes one's own perceived reality.

So what's your plan then? How would you describe it? Using non-human terms?

steelridge58 said:It lines up perfectly in terms of meaning.

No, you're missing the fundamental distinction here—true alignment between a concept and reality doesn't just dump all the truth onto the concept while dumping all the falsehood onto reality. The emphasis is on the *correspondence* itself. In the other quote, the point being driven home is that "only" Bog is true, and everything else is true "only" insofar as it reflects that truth. The correspondence is secondary there.

You can't just be tolerant of everyone—it’s impossible. How are you supposed to show tolerance to people who spend their lives preaching death, misery, and slavery?

steelridge58 said:The quote does mention Hegel, and you can find that exact same passage right here:
http://uwe-mortensen.de/Schnaedelbac...sLehre1993.pdf
on page 6.

That isn't a Hegelian quote; it’s a quote *about* Hegel. And I don't buy it. In this context, God doesn't carry the weight of the Absolute—but in the previous one, He does.

steelridge58 said:I actually laid all of that out way back in post #32.

There aren't any Hegelian quotes in that post—except for the one I already brought up.

steelridge58 said:Exactly.

And I think you’ve realized by now that this is the exact kind of meaning we see pop up in those March 28th quotes.

Which quotes? I only saw that one single bit that ties back to my point.

steelridge58 said:Let's try to "shake things up" a little bit here

So, we're talking about different modes, even if they're labeled with different names here—you even put that distinction in parentheses yourself, just so we wouldn't get
lost in translation
😉)

The reason I used parentheses is because in this specific quote God represents the absolute. If you swap out "God" for "the absolute," the whole meaning stays exactly the same.

"Only the absolute represents the true correspondence between the concept and the reality of all finite things—but all finite things carry a layer of untruth, possessing a concept and an existence that fails to align with how they are perceived."

Terry Martinez10 said: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.

If you track it down, let me know. I'm genuinely curious—maybe I totally missed it.

Amanda Jackson5 said:God and the absolute are two different things. Especially not according to Hegel.

Exactly. By the end of his logic science, Hegel argues that art, religion, and philosophy are just different ways the absolute idea perceives itself. Philosophy is the highest path, though—simply because it operates through pure concept.

@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?

@Twitter

Look, I just can't get behind your answer—or any answers like it, really. Truth isn't "truth" if it can't be grasped by a self-aware being, and let's face it, humans are self-aware. So, who else would truth even be for? Beyond that, truth has to be communicable. That’s why truth is inherently both beautiful and worthwhile.

Terry Martinez10 said: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.

Anyway, thanks. Don't worry about looking for it. I'll find it eventually—just need to put in a little work.

Terry Martinez10 said: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.

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.

Besides, God himself has to carry every single lie within him—otherwise, he'd be missing something entirely. By definition, the absolute can't have anything existing outside of his own being.

Terry Martinez10 said: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.

Yeah, though I wouldn't be quite so rigid about it. Correspondence isn't all-or-nothing. There's a massive difference between something that fits its definition almost perfectly and something where the gap is so wide it practically vanishes into nothingness.

Terry Martinez10 said: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.

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..)

Amanda Jackson5 said:That might hold water when you're looking at how Hegel defines a concept, but we aren't just playing around with conceptual definitions here; we’re talking about the classical notion of truth, which isn't strictly tethered to the concept itself.

Fair enough. But there's no harm in acknowledging this other version of truth—the kind that shows up in everyday life (like when someone talks about an "honest friend").