Andrew: “So my personal section is it: Alone, “X was Y” (in which Y isn’t same as X) isn’t inconsistent
- 3 Rosa Lichtenstein said during the step three:twenty two pm into the : Unfortunately, the author from the post have overlooked many glaring errors inside the Hegel’s ‘logic’ – mistakes that happen to be uncritically duplicated around the to your ‘Materialist Dialectics’ (regardless of the ‘materialist flip’ Hegel’s dialectic is dating chatiw claimed to possess had inflicted up on it).You will find in depth Hegel’s more serious mistakes here:
- 4 Andrew Kliman told you from the 1:58 pm for the : A reaction to Rosa Lichtenstein:Regarding brand new alleged low-paradox into the “John was men” or “the brand new rose try purple,” their instance appears to me to rely towards following the (for the page your mention):”Hegel … plainly thought he might ignore the logical/grammatical variations that exist involving the some words the guy put, otherwise, no less than, within jobs they filled inside the code – i.age., between naming, stating, discussing and you will predicating (we.elizabeth., saying something throughout the one thing or anyone).” not, as you penned eventually prior to one to, Hegel try trying inform you “one to actions try incorporated into Our very own Axioms, once the believe passes from 1 pole to another” (my hats).These are not the same thing.Maxims pertain to awareness; data of one’s characteristics that conditions gamble during the a code do perhaps not.Very, as an example, it is indeed you can and work out an analytical distinction between the new “is” regarding term in addition to “is” away from predication, but I happen to possess came across many people just who was so you’re able to explain anything giving examples of her or him (I am a teacher). Its statements out of what things “are” contain the contradiction which you state is not establish, zero?Also it isn’t really clear for me you to a meaningful definition-in lieu of a lists regarding characteristics (predicates)-can still get. Identify “Jesus,” such as for example.
- 5 Rosa Lichtenstein said on dos:forty eight pm toward : Andrew, to begin with, the web page you read try a simple addition on my suggestions intended for newbies. We produce my conflict from inside the a lot more outline at website links indexed at the end:” not, as you typed soon just before one, Hegel is trying let you know “one to action are built into Our very own Basics, as consider seats in one rod to some other” (my personal caps).Maxims relate to consciousness; analysis of attributes you to terminology enjoy inside the a vocabulary really does maybe not.Very, for example, it’s certainly possible and make an analytical distinction between the latest “is” off term and “is” from predication, but I happen to enjoys came across many individuals who is to identify things by giving examples of him or her (I’m an instructor). Its comments of exactly what anything “are” hold the paradox you state is not expose, zero?”I do not discover which so-called ‘contradiction’, and you can none your neither Hegel demonstrate that there’s you to right here.”Plus it actually clear in my experience you to a significant definition-in lieu of a directories out of services (predicates)-can always be provided with. Describe “Goodness,” particularly.”And you can, I am not sure how you get produced the phrase “definition” here, since i have didn’t use this term.Finally:”Principles relate to awareness; studies of one’s properties one to terminology play from inside the a words do not.”
I’m from the convinced that your (or Hegel) helps make which differences – even Hegel had to fool around with words (and illegitimately therefore, while i have shown) to attempt to create his area
He might have *thought* he was speaking about ‘concepts’, but what we actually come across your performing was balancing having jargonised linguistic phrases. And this, my personal grievance off their entry to language try legitimate.
It’s precisely just like the Hegel spoilt such an effective “distortion” out-of ordinary language that he thought he may obtain an effective ‘contradiction’ (and this was not one to anyhow).
But is (they?) was a paradox in the event the whenever this new Suggested “is” ‘s the “is” away from identity. It is similar to, or even an actual exemplory instance of, a paradox with regards to (particularly “round rectangular”) or classification mistake (purple logarithm).” However,, you have got yet to display talking about ‘contradictions’, and you will, of course, the term ‘paradox within the terms’ are a misnomer. [If you want us to describe as to why, I’m able to.]