Andrew: “Thus my section so is this: In itself, “X was Y” (where Y isn’t just like X) is not contradictory
- 3 Rosa Lichtenstein said at the step three:twenty-two pm with the : Regrettably, the writer regarding the blog post have ignored the countless glaring mistakes during the Hegel’s ‘logic’ – problems which were uncritically copied around the for the ‘Materialist Dialectics’ (despite the ‘materialist flip’ Hegel’s dialectic is alleged to own had inflicted up on it).I have detailed Hegel’s more severe mistakes right here:
- cuatro Andrew Kliman said on 1:58 pm for the : A reaction to Rosa Lichtenstein:With regard to the fresh new so-called non-paradox in the “John is actually a person” otherwise “new flower are red-colored,” your own situation seems to me to count into adopting the (towards page your mention):”Hegel … evidently believe he could overlook the analytical/grammatical variations that are offered between your various terms the guy used, or, at least, between the spots they occupied inside language – we.elizabeth., anywhere between naming, saying, explaining and you will predicating (i.elizabeth., saying some thing about things otherwise people).” not, since you wrote shortly before you to definitely, Hegel is actually trying let you know “you to definitely motion try incorporated into The Rules, because believe seats from 1 rod to some other” (my personal caps).These types of aren’t the same procedure.Rules pertain to awareness; research of your properties you to definitely terms and conditions play within the a language does maybe not.So, as an instance, it’s yes you’ll while making a logical difference in the new “is” from identity and the “is” of predication, but I affect features encountered lots of people which is actually so you’re able to explain anything by giving examples of them (I’m an instructor). Its statements from just what one thing “are” keep the contradiction which you say isn’t really introduce, no?Plus it isn’t obvious if you ask me you to a significant meaning-in lieu of a listings regarding services (predicates)-can still get. Explain “God,” for example.
- 5 Rosa Lichtenstein told you on dos:48 pm on the : Andrew, to begin with, the page you realize is a basic introduction to my suggestions meant for beginners. We establish my personal disagreement within the far more outline at backlinks indexed at the end:”However, as you published eventually ahead of you to definitely, Hegel are trying to tell you “you to definitely actions try built-into The Principles, just like the consider tickets from 1 rod to some other” (my limits).Principles pertain to consciousness; investigation of your qualities one terms enjoy within the a vocabulary really does not.Thus, for example, it is indeed you are able to and then make an analytical distinction between new “is” away from term while the “is” out of predication, however, I affect enjoys chatango found many individuals just who are to define something by giving types of her or him (I am a teacher). Its statements out-of what something “are” hold the paradox you state isn’t present, no?”Really don’t come across so it so-called ‘contradiction’, and you may neither your nor Hegel demonstrate that there is that right here.”And it also is not obvious to me you to definitely a significant definition-in lieu of a lists of characteristics (predicates)-can still get. Establish “Jesus,” such.”And, I don’t know what is causing brought the term “definition” right here, since i have don’t make use of this word.Finally:”Rules relate to awareness; research of properties one to terms and conditions play into the a vocabulary does perhaps not.”
I’m far from believing that your (or Hegel) renders so it variation – even Hegel had to fool around with words (and you will illegitimately so, once i demonstrated) to try to generate their part
He may has *thought* he was making reference to ‘concepts’, but what we actually pick him undertaking is juggling having jargonised linguistic expressions. And therefore, my personal problem from his use of language is legitimate.
It’s precisely due to the fact Hegel spoilt such an effective “distortion” off ordinary-language that he think he could obtain a good ‘contradiction’ (hence wasn’t that anyway).
It is (it?) is a paradox if the of course, if this new Created “is” is the “is” from label. It’s much like, or even a genuine instance of, a contradiction in terms (such as for example “bullet rectangular”) otherwise group mistake (purple logarithm).” However,, you have yet , to display talking about ‘contradictions’, and, without a doubt, the word ‘contradiction inside the terms’ is a beneficial misnomer. [If you want us to establish as to the reasons, I could.]