Responses to Fellow Versuchers' comments I

Thank you, fellow Versucher!
Your intellectual engagement and generosity with your time are the best motivation. Aran and Quan are truly grateful, and we think the best to express our appreciation is to take your comments as invitations to continuous conversations. This is our first attempt to seriously acknowledge your input.
PLEASE let us know if you have suggestions on the format of this exchange;
PLEASE continue to share with us (and other fellows) your wonderful questions, critiques, and thoughts.
‪@hansfrankfurter2903‬ ‪@digetic‬ ‪@Synodalian‬ ‪@jean-michelkampara‬ ‪@ceciliafenton5932‬

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

Hey guys, thank you for taking our comments, so cool of you. I think me and digetic have almost the same point, except that im criticizing not just Houlgate but Hegel himself. What I am saying is as far as I can tell there is no logical movement, transition or vanishing of being into nothing because they’re the exact same thing. In other words the “becoming” is illusory, or just a semantic shift between different names of the same thing. Kind of like how there is no becoming of water into H2O, they’re the exact same thing. That said, almost all the Hegelian literature I read all agrees that being and nothing are both identical and yet different, but I dont understand what is the difference here? The philosopher Schelling had the exact same criticism of Hegel which Houlgate attempts to address in an article. Itd be really cool it you guys can review that Houlgate article. That said, although Houlgate is thoughtful as always, he didn’t convince me. Also thank you for the excellent comments on the psychological aspect of it, much appreciated.