Hegel, The night of the world

You're thoughts on what Hegel meant on this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2avv63NzVxE
lacan.com/zizpassion.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch45.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I think he's saying: "sometime in the future, quacks from France will realize from my example that by writing in a difficult style, people assume we have more profound things to say."

Hegel is talking about the abyss/void of subjectivity, it's negativity.

Zizek very briefly talks about it somewhere in this lecture explaining that Hegel is drawing upon a certain theological mystical tradition (Jakob Boehme) hence the cryptic obscurity of the words.

youtube.com/watch?v=2avv63NzVxE

The very gap between gnosticism and monotheism can thus be accounted for in the terms of the origin of evil: while gnosticism locates the primordial duality of Good and Evil into God himself (the material universe into which we are fallen is the creation of an evil and/or stupid divinity, and what gives us hope is the good divinity which keeps alive the promise of another reality, our true home), monotheism saves unity (one-ness) of a good God by locating the origin of evil into our freedom (evil is either finitude as such, the inertia of material reality, or the spiritual act of willfully turning away from God). It is easy to bring the two together by claiming that the Gnostic duality of God is merely a "reflexive determination" of our own changed attitude towards God: what we perceive as two Gods is effectively the split in our nature, in our relating to God. However, the true task is to locate the source of the split between good and evil into God himself while remaining within the field of monotheism - the task which tried to accomplish German mystics (Jakob Boehme) and later philosophers who took over their excellent (Schelling, Hegel). In other words, the task is to transpose the human "external reflection" which enacts the split between good and evil back into the One God himself.

lacan.com/zizpassion.htm

t. read Zizek on Hegel

Also I think Hegel is trying to break away from premodern concepts of the human subject that establish some kind of cosmic harmony with nature, such as the common old pagan version of "mother" nature (ironically with the help of a premodern thinker).

Typical spooky shit from a goddamn mystic.

I find it funny when people complain about the lack of theory on this board and when a thread comes up that deals with a very good topic of theory shitposters like you come up.

A.W may be rather arrogant from time to time but for good reason, the board needs more theory.

anyways it just shows that anarchists who like stirner are petty-bourgeois anti-intellectuals

I'm too stupid to understand philosophy, makes me feel like shit man

What the flying fuck does this have to do with theory?

It's not about anything relevant to leftism beyond the thinnest connection, and the topic itself has nothing to do with actual left theory.

A.W is not rather arrogant, he is very arrogant. And I agree: this board needs more theory. But don't pretend this is one of those threads.

If Hegel has nothing to do with leftist theory then why did both Marx & Lenin study Hegel in a fastidious manner? Indeed Lenin studied Hegel in quite astounding conditions, studying Hegel while the first world war was ravaging europe is quite something.

Hegel in general is not left theory, nor is this thread discussing anything taken from him and used in left theory. We're not discussing Lenin and Marx's materialist dialectics or even the Science of Logic. Like I said, don't pretend this is a thread about theory.

How are you this stupid?

Marx didn't really btw. His knowledge of Hegel is kind of suspect.

I wasn't talking about the quantity that Marx studied (as Norman Levine in his books showed that some works of Hegel were not available to him) but that Marx (and Lenin) too Hegel seriously


Perhaps the question should be reversed, how ISN'T human subjectivity related to theory?

Is leftist theory strictly economics?

Hell, perhaps we could glean insights from Hegel into how human subjectivity functions under capitalism?


Nice shitpost comrade

*but that Marx (and Lenin) took Hegel seriously

I'm also quite well aware that Marx sometimes took Hegel from 2nd hand sources such as Feuerbach or Bruno Bauer in his early years.

Spectacular reversal, comrade. Those goalposts are now miles behind where they were before.


Here's a book about philosophy written for proles. Read part one and two, the third is optional. It's not perfect (written by a French-Hungarian tankie) but a good intro. If you read the third section just take it with a grain of salt, it's out of date to put it simply.

I think it's such a weird coincidence that someone that studied Hegel "fastidiously" had to "accidentally leaf through the pages of the Logic" before getting reacquainted with the dialectical method.

Right, considering that you actually think the Stalinist interpretation of philosophy is okay I'm not going to take you seriously


Your sentence doesn't make sense, are you talking about Marx or Lenin?


I would be careful using that phrase, dialectics is not "applied" as a "method" to anything but is immanent to the object itself.

Don't forget to scratch another line on your victory tally.

I guess replace the word "method" with "immanent in the object itself" or whatever

It's about the concept of human subjectivity. Hegel and the German Idealist tradition treat the subject that experiences as an ultimate void of existence which negates everything. This void has the power to negate matter in its very existence (it's not material), it has the power to negate matter external to it (it labors and crafts), it has the power to negate its own body and desires (it has will), it has the power to negate appearances (it can know universal truths), it has the power to negate other subjects (it can say no), it can in the form of Spirit negate itself over time (it creates history and undoes false forms of life) and ultimately it has the power to negate the world itself as a whole (it is the simple principle of time itself, absolute negativity).

This isn't directly important for communists since they don't really care to know what such a subject is in itself, but what it is as a human.

well it is not right wing theorist either
He is a mere observer of history and concepts and that's it

+Why JUST leftist theory ? fuck you i will read everyone i want and discusses even that fucker evola "I reed his book The Bow and the Club and it worker so well as fantasy world body of myths as if he was the second coming of J.R.R Tolkien " you don't tell others what to read and there is a Marxist angle to every theory out there

To clarify more, subject basically means the unity of experience that we experience as our unified single self-consciousness that appears to us to be behind our eyes. This unity is beyond the explanation of science which can only observe the physical unity of processes and point to where this is carried out in the brain, but why and how this would generate experience and consciousness itself is a hopeless task empirical science can never achieve.


And now, pic related, Marx's own version has been demolished by that very same logic which he failed to keep purity with.

Yes I just realized that you were referring to Marx after remembering what you were paraphrasing, what you just quoted had to be put in context, Marx read Hegel and came under the influence of Young Hegelians but did not read the Logic until the 50's.

If you are talking about the claim that the later Marx stopped being under the influence of Hegel, this Althusserian nonsense. even up to 1870 said he was a "disciple of Hegel". See page 2 of this PDF

Hegel is under the influence of Boehme here no?


Well what do you expect when he takes Stalinist philosophy seriously?

That second paragraph seems like a really roundabout way of saying that capitalists don't respond to the catagories of value, but to price signals…

You made my day comrade
Top kek

Would "Stalinized philosophy" be better?

It's saying value isn't formed in production but in exchange. Contrarily, value cannot be created in exchange, only appropriated. Attached is a refutation of A.W's bourgeois prize-fighter.

Winfield's point is that price at which things >sell< IS value, there is no way around it logically. Labor is the value of capital, but capital doesn't (in abstraction) know how much value this is until it goes to markwt and actually sells. Value is what people are willing to pay, and if you can spook them into paying more then the LA or done to make the commodity is that much more valuable by social.perception, of metaphysical determination in production.

Eww. I don't know if this is something I can agree with. But thanks for sharing.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the abstract logic at the mere point of ONE capital producing in abstract. There is no value known before the sale, it is the sale which actualizes vale as such.

Meant

Also, enjoy being wrong. Forever. I argued in fwvir of the LTV until I read Winfield's critique of it's unnecessary addition into the logic of capital, and I've dropped it now. There really is no point for it even if you are a communist.

...

It's not what people pay it's what people produce you fuggen idealist. If people get spooked into paying more then capitalists get a super profit and other producers don't sell their goods, and thus value is appropriated, not created.


Fortunately for the rest of us Marx has endured more than one critique.

Well I'm not even convinced of the ltv like at all. I'm just not sure if I agree that the value of something is just whatever people will pay for it. im not sure what to think about it.

It empirically HAPPENS. This isn't some theoretical assertion. WE HAVE A WHOLE SECTION OF LAND CAPITAL based on nothing but arbitrary agreement to the price! We trade shit on arbitrary exchange value ALL the fucking time!

Realizing this and that Marx HIMSELF admits that labor does not explain price made.me.kick.it.

I don't believe in the ltv though. I usually just don't even think about what value is it might be.

"if capital meets an alien force which it can but partially, or not at all, overcome, and which limits its investment in certain spheres, admitting it only under conditions which wholly or partly exclude that general equalisation of surplus-value to an average profit, then it is evident that the excess of the value of commodities in such spheres of production over their price of production would give rise to a surplus-profit, which could be converted into rent and such made independent with respect to profit. Such an alien force and barrier are presented by landed property, when confronting capital in its endeavour to invest in land; such a force is the landlord vis-Ă -vis the capitalist."
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch45.htm
KYS
Y
S

Go and reread Capital you unbearable spastic. Pay attention to the words on the page and not what your ego is telling you.