What is Hegel's Epistemology?

[@estacoda545]

Two new videos back to back? Christmas early, friends.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Thanks! You ought to catch up with us on Discord when you have the time!

[@miralupa8841]

what’s the intro music?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Bach - Prelude and Fugue 6, played by John Lewis Grant

[@miralupa8841]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophythank you!

[@lendrestapas2505]

Can you make or do you have a video/blog entry on Hegel on free will? I‘m wondering if he has something to contribute to the still ongoing discussion whether or not we have free will.

[@RareSeldas]

Yes, he has a lot to contribute. The Will Is Freedom for Hegel. A.W. has a discussion video on this.

[@gilbertgonzales915]

Here before work

[@RareSeldas]

Hype.

[@dubbelkastrull]

2:31 bookmark

[@itsvoskalper3693]

fucking epic

[@animefurry3508]

Does not Hegel collapse epistemology into ontology, as to with telology as well is broken to just ontology?! At least that's my understanding.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

No. Everything collapses to logic. Ontology is a form of logic, and epistemology isn't even a form of logic, but phenomenology, the appearance of a finite subject.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy EPISTEMOLOGY: Epistemology is the study of KNOWLEDGE, that is, how we come to know the things we know. The concept of “justified true belief” states that, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant proposition, but also have justification for doing so, plus, of course, that the proposition is indeed true, without any false premises. “Epistemology” originates from the Greek “epistēmē”, meaning “knowledge”, the feminine of “epistēmōn” (i.e. understanding, knowing), from “epistanai” (i.e. “to know”), from “epi-+histanai” (i.e. to place). Knowledge may be defined as mental objects that correspond to objective facts. Because absolute knowledge cannot be achieved by a relative being (such as we humans), knowledge, at best, is normally defined as justified true belief (although that has been shown to be necessarily imperfect, due to the philosophical conundrum known as the “Gettier problem”). Furthermore, the above definition does not disqualify knowledge of fictitious stories, myths and legends. For example, if one was to assert that the legendary King Arthur of Great Britain, was sired by Uther Pendragon, was befriended by the magician Merlin, was betrothed to Mistress Guinevere, owned a sword called “Excalibur”, and was laid to rest on the mythical island of Avalon, one would be correct according to the ancient tale, even if Arthur did not, in fact, exist. Otherwise, one could not claim to KNOW anything of the narrative at all! See also the entries, “belief” and “episteme”, in the Glossary of this Holy Book. ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE IS UNATTAINABLE: Because we humans are situated in the comparative, transactional sphere, with a greatly-limited capacity for cognition, absolute knowledge is absolutely impossible. The only fact we can know for certain, is the fact that we are aware of being aware. All other knowledge is necessarily imperfect, and cannot be completely reliable. Even if we were really just brains in a vat (or any similar scenario), there would STILL need be something or someone who makes the claim that we are aware of our own existence. Consequently, some unsound thinkers may contend: “But then, that something or someone who claims to be existent, is merely an illusion - it doesn’t truly exist!”, to which the obvious rejoinder would be, “Then who or what is experiencing this supposed illusion?” That would be the subject. A subject is that which perceives an object. This concept of what thing(s) can be known “ABSOLUTELY”, was arguably first introduced into Western thought, by the seventeenth century French mathematician and philosopher, Monsieur René Descartes, in his “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences”, published in the year 1637, as a first step in demonstrating the attainability of definitive knowledge. The Latin dictum, “cogito, ergo sum”, which occurs in Part IV of the work, and usually translated into English as, “I think, therefore I am”, is the “first principle” of Descartes’ philosophy. He originally published it in French as “je pense, donc je suis”, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. It later appeared in Latin in his “Principia Philosophiae” (“Principles of Philosophy”). Descartes believes three things are not susceptible to doubt, and the three support each other to form a stable foundation for his method. He cannot doubt that something has to be there to do the doubting (“I think; therefore, I am”). The method of doubt cannot doubt reason as it is based on reason itself. By reason there exists a God, and God is the guarantor that reason is not misguided. Of course, we know now that this “logic” is exceptionally flawed. SCHOOLS OF EPISTEMOLOGY: Some of the most popular schools of epistemology in the Western tradition include empiricism, rationalism, scepticism, pragmatism, relativism, probability theory, and idealism. Some of these schools have strong equivalences in the traditions of Indian philosophy. According to some authorities, specifically those in Bhāratīya (Indian) philosophical traditions, there are (depending on the particular school in question) up to six “proofs”, or “instruments of knowledge”, or “means of right information” (“pramāṇa”, in Sanskrit), listed as follows: 1. Pratyakṣa (Perception) - Acquiring knowledge from experience, via sense perceptions and mental/intellectual acuity. 2. Anumāṇa (Inference) - Gaining right knowledge from logical conclusions, as far as human understanding allows. 3. Upamāṇa (Comparison) - Learning by observing similarities or analogies between two objects. 4. Arthāpatti (Postulation) - Supposition of a fact to support a well-established fact; derivation from circumstances. 5. Anupalabdhi (Non-apprehension) - Understanding non-existence by non-perception (e.g. “There is no such being as ‘God’”). 6. Śabda (Verbal testimony) - Gaining authentic knowledge from spoken and written testimony, composed by reliable authorities. Pramāṇa forms one part of a trio of concepts that describe the ancient Bhāratīya view on how knowledge is gained. The other two concepts are knower and knowable, each discussed in how they influence the knowledge, by their own characteristic and the process of knowing. These two concepts are called Pramātŗ (the subject; the knower) and Prameya (the object; the knowable), in the Saṃskṛtam language. This triad of the knowledge, the knower, and the knowable, is VERY closely aligned with the tripartite process of Seer-Seeing-Seen, mentioned in the sixth chapter of this Holiest of All Holy Scriptures (in fact, the only truly sacred book extant), “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. The author of this book proposes that INTUITIVE knowledge, gained from religious practices, such as meditation and peak experiences, is also of importance in regard to epistemology. This assertion is frequently justified when witnessing the highly-intellectual discourses and debates of certain scientists and philosophers, who may display extravagant technical knowledge in their respective fields of study, yet lack the wisdom and common decency that (ought to) stem from a lifelong spiritual practice (see Chapter 16 regarding the four systems of yogaḥ, or religion). EPISTEME MUST LEAD TO VERITAS: Throughout human history (or at least for the past ten thousand years or so), philosophers, theologians, as well as laymen, have debated their peculiar EPISTEMOLOGIES, in an attempt to discover “truth”. However, when all is said and done, that person who lives a life of negligible non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), even though his understanding of metaphysical reality may be quite imperfect, must surely have a greater insight into objective truth, than one who continually causes undue harm to himself, to society, to other living organisms, as well as to the inorganic environment. So, for example, the typical academic philosopher (particularly in the West, and especially since the eighteenth century) seems to support all kinds of immoral practices and ideologies (“adharma”, in Sanskrit). Assuming that the goal of philosophy is to discover “truth” and wisdom, in order to live a better life, one can only conclude that their knowledge and understanding of truth is fundamentally flawed! Therefore, one may have a wealth of intellectual knowledge and technical capability in the field of ethics, morality, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, and logic, yet, if one’s life is inebriated with adharma (criminal activity), that “knowledge” is of no practical benefit. In summary, that man who has found authentic peace within his own mind, and lives a life of minimal non-harm, has FAR greater knowledge (at least in the experiential realm) than an intellectual giant who lives a life of moral depravity. This attitude towards knowledge and wisdom has been termed “pragmatism” in recent centuries, though in all actuality, it is a very sound philosophical position, when one views the field of knowledge from a greater perspective. Meaning, the term “pragmatism” may seem unscientific, but factually speaking, it can be a highly rational field of study.

[@jordanh1635]

Is Hegel's theory of truth like identity theory

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

It's like reading source material and checking it against itself instead of checking against a secondary.

[@markuslucifer]

I consider any discussion of Hegel without reference to Williams or Strawson illegitimate. So you can take that back.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

I consider anyone referencing anyone else for Hegel to illegitimately comment on Hegel. I can't take back what someone never took.

[@markuslucifer]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Ok so you obviously don't know what you're talking about

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

@@markuslucifer That's a nice opinion. Do what you will, but don't kid yourself, it has nothing to do with Hegel. You can be an epistemologist. I don't see why you would care that Hegel gets tied to it. It doesn't legitimate the pseudo-philosophical field of epistemology any more than linking it to Einstein or whatever.

[@markuslucifer]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy What Hegel means to me can be a very different thing from what Hegel means to you. We can agree to disagree. Good day!

[@hss12661]

Strawson? As in Peter Strawson?

[@PartyComrade]

Algorithm comment

[@Pugilist379]

Proto-Lacanian solipsist in the streets Hermetic tradition in the sheets 😎

[@abominacao_disgenica]

“Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

[@RareSeldas]

the Schopenhauer people have I swear the same four quotes to where, unironically, if you meet one Schopenhauer fan you've actually met them all, and they think quote gotchas count as valid thinking but if all they can do is quote the same four things or W/E who's really the follower then, now that's pretty ironic

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Olá, macaquinho.

[@abominacao_disgenica]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I don't get the racism, to be honest. I'm of Portuguese and Spanish descent. It's quite possible that my ancestors may have held some of yours as slaves here.

[@abominacao_disgenica]

​@@RareSeldas Free thinking is mostly a vice of the modern age. I'm much more interested in the Truth, something that can't be said about the illiterate obscurantist Hegel and his followers.

[@RareSeldas]

@@abominacao_disgenica When you say something significant and not poorly attempt to be a baity little troglodyte is when you shall receive more attention. All the good on your journey kid.