This I believe is the key point of lecture 4. The reading is quite difficult with numerous twists and turns, so I won't give a full interpretation wit...
I like the circle analogy. The Absolute, as the premise, is the cause of the Hegelian dialectical process, but it is also what is supposed to emerge a...
Yeah but, it was used as two distinct words. Maybe spellcheck at play? I'm just being unexpected, hopefully in a nice way. I'd say Chef Wise is well e...
Your new example, "empty" and "full", only shows that these two do not properly qualify as contradictory terms, in the context of those fundamental la...
Did you read the quote? Maybe it's incorrect by conventional interpretations of Hegelian dialectics, but it is what Adorno is arguing about Hegelian d...
Being and nothing are only made to be two sides of the same coin, by doing violence to the concept. When they "disappear into Becoming", that is the s...
I figure what he is saying is that the concept ("Being" in the example) must be abused (defined in a way which is inconsistent with what it really mea...
We are taking about P and not P therefore the LNC and LEM apply. The qualification of "possibly" creates an exception, a violation. Why do you see the...
They don't speak about different things, they both speak about the very same thing, P. One says P might be false, the other says P might be true. With...
I don't think you quite get what I\m saying. In the context of applying the fundamental laws, the phrases tell us the same thing. That's theory, not p...
That the end is excluded from the idea leaves the purpose of usage totally to the discretion of the user. So mathematical ideas are super versatile, t...
I really don't see the difference. By the fundamental laws, there are only two possibilities, true or false. Therefore "P might be false" means the ve...
It's dependent on interpretation of a thorough reading. Plato's writing is commonly divided into three stages, early, middle, late. Here is a brief ex...
We were talking about "possibly P", and "possibly not P" as having the same meaning. Each means that neither "P" nor "not P" is true. How can two phra...
Jamal touched on this above, but at page 26, he appears to approach a negative part of positivity. Notice how saying 'if you have nothing positive to ...
The problem is that this supposed alienation, concept without object, is a very true aspect of reality, what is at the base of creativity, like I expl...
I don't like this concept-object confrontation, and I do not see the need for it. It appears like it will reduce the activity of mind to mere represen...
I don't get your point. Of course "P" and "not P" say different things, they are opposed in meaning. And, LEM says one or the other must be true. Yes,...
When he talks about "confronting concepts with their objects and, conversely, objects with their concepts", isn't this exactly the type of identity ph...
As you can see, I don't like. Rhetoric employs a number of different means, some logic, some not, depending on the circumstances. We cannot class appe...
There is no reason for him to mention "The enormous power of Hegel", and speak as if he's awed by this mysterious force of ideology. How is that consi...
You are the one who said "the right logic for this is Rhetoric", implying that rhetoric is a form of logic. It's clearly not. And, as I said, logic ca...
The problem though is that "Rhetoric" is not necessarily logic, it is language intended to persuade. If we class the language which deals with what is...
Ok, what I said was completely an exaggeration, not an interpretation which remains true to Adorno's intention. It seems I have an odd subconscious ha...
I don't see it. Wikipedia tells me reification is a form of alienation. So that would be the opposite of this negation of the negation, which leads to...
Yes, but that "it's not a static thing" does not imply that it's not an object. Objects are not necessarily static things, so how is reification impli...
We are not talking about the situation after a future reduction though, we are talking about the current situation now. At the present time, neither "...
So, he goes through a bunch of meanings for "positive" and distinguishes two principal uses, "positive" in the sense of good, and positive in the sens...
I don't doubt the consistency of S5. Did I say that one system of logic, or another is not consistent? No, I pointed out two systems of logic which ar...
You seem to have a limited capacity for understanding. What I said was: I then proceeded to explain the reason why the two are inconsistent. If that p...
The issue, is that you are making "possibly be" into a predicate. By doing this you violate the law of excluded middle, because the meaning of "possib...
Yeah, there it is. A relatively new type of logic which is not based in the fundamental three laws, and openly averts these laws. It's really not a bi...
Thank you. I'm going to take a look at the senses of "negative" referred to. I'm intrigued by the way that "negative" is associated with bad, and "pos...
The basic laws of logic apply to the the way the world is. They are rules concerning what we can say about things. Adding to this, "or could have been...
I interpret this negation of the negation in the following way. The rebellious subject sees the institutions of society as restrictive and infringemen...
The concept of "possible worlds" itself violates the fundamental laws of logic. To predicate of "a world" that this world is possible violates the fun...
Yes I noticed this. We employ different principles for categorization. I interpret that passage like this. In the case of "reality", nature is constra...
I think that's exactly the point made by the op. "Symmetry" is a sort of self-refuting idea, which we allow to have existence in our minds, but it is ...
Like I thought, two different meanings. I think the op uses the word in the following way: "the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts faci...
Comments