Hegel Contra Sociology, Part One

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

I'm not sure if nihilism is the opposite of rationalism, I always thought that rationalism eventually leads to some form of nihilism.

[@Versucher]

I think Rose agrees with you, but in the sense that "Kantian" rationalism, in spite of its seeming opposition to nihilism, falls into the same pit. The idea here is that "bad" rationalism undermines reason itself and leave us with empty relativism of a kind that is a great receipt for nihilism. Rose hopes that Hegel's rationalism escapes this doomed fate. After discussing the opening part of Science of Logic, we are not sure about that anymore.

[@yurika.matsui55]

@@Versucher So you doubt the supposed "presuppostionlessness" of Hegel's SOL?

[@Versucher]

@@yurika.matsui55 Yes, but perhaps not for the commonly-held reasons. We appreciate the distinction between founding and enabling presuppositions that Houlgate brings forward, but we have serious doubts that the so-called enabling conditions are not driving the logical process. In short, thinking of logical movement without invoking some rules for inferential entailment seems highly implausible to us, and we think some axioms about communication and human nature are shaping such rules.

[@yurika.matsui55]

@@Versucher Right, but isn't that missing the point a bit? I thought the whole concept is to assume nothing, from a logical/epistemological perspective. Not that you come into things with no language no culture no structure ..etc. Maybe I'm missing something but to me this makes perfect sense. Hegel himself later on admits that these things do influence the self moving logical process, but not in the sense where he is forcing it upon it as some preconceived rule. The whole philosophy is its own time grasped in thought business..etc It also seems that the SOL does come to the conclusion that the immediacy at the beginning proves to be a mediated immediacy. A presuppostionless point that was brought about by certain presuppositions of the thought preceding it. Honestly i'm not sure, but it makes some sense to me.

[@Versucher]

@@yurika.matsui55 I think we are concerned about the impact all these "influences" may have on the logical process itself. If Hegel is simply assuming that transparent articulation in language is the only form the logical development can take, for instance, don't you think that is to rule out something like mystical revelation as a "logical" step without showing us why such revelation (in the form of intuition, dance, etc.) is an inherently invalid move?

[@kyawzayyarlwin8003]

Great job

[@Versucher]

Thanks for your attention!