Welcome!
登入
註冊
美寶首頁
美寶百科
美寶論壇
美寶落格
美寶地圖
首頁
>
學涯 / Cultivation Career
>
學門 Academy
>
西方哲學
>
黑格爾哲學
Advanced
黑格爾哲學
作者:
主旨:
Tags:
Message:
boris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It has been a long time before last time I > visited here. > Hegel's work is always posing a challenge to me. > In Phenomenology of Spirit, the sense-certainty > and perception, as a starter, I have trouble to > even start to read; and did not get any help from > lectures found to detailedly explain sentence by > sentence. Winfield's lectures from University of > Georgia helps a bit. Finally I got over it with > the help from a secondary commentary by Stace's > 1950, The philosophy of Hegel: a systematic > exposition. In it there is a sentence (pp. 7): > > "Three-quarters (3/4) of the failures of > understand Hegel are due to the fact that this is > not understood." > > That "this" in the above quoted sentence means to > distinguish between "reality" and "existence." > Some of my own commentary: > 1. Sense-experience on individuals demonstrates > existence, therefore cannot give truth or true > knowledge. immediate but not universality. > 2. Perception is universality; therefore forges > reality. mediated but universality. > 3. Pure being is undeterminate, but is reality. > Determinate being exists as each every individual, > existence but not reality. > 4. Pure being is simply a being without > predicates. Determinate being is a being with > predicates. Pure being is potentiality, > Determinate being is actuality and concrete. > 5. Pure being reveals itself by dialectic process, > to not-being by negation, and by second negation > to becoming, becoming is the determinate being. > Further dialectic process will reveal more > concrete content of the determinate being. > 6. Piece by piece pure being reveals itself, and > eventually reveals the absolute. The absolute > constitutes the world. Pure being reveals the > absolute, and the absolute conceals the pure > being. > > The real may not exist, the exists may not be > real. Any thought on this line of thinking? care > to share a bit? Oriental religions mostly have > presupposed "the exist may not be real," be it > Buddhism or Hinduism. But it never has been a > claim of "the real may not exist." > My experience of reading/studying the > Phenomenology of Spirit might have to first read a > bit of Science of Logic. Even that the SL is > published after the POS. >