Andrew: “Therefore my area is it: By itself, “X try Y” (in which Y is not just like X) is not contradictory
- 3 Rosa Lichtenstein said within step three:22 pm into the : Regrettably, the writer in the article features forgotten the countless blazing mistakes during the Hegel’s ‘logic’ – errors that have been uncritically duplicated all over into ‘Materialist Dialectics’ (regardless of the ‘materialist flip’ Hegel’s dialectic is considered having had inflicted abreast of it).We have in depth Hegel’s much more serious problems here:
- 4 Andrew Kliman told you during the step one:58 pm towards the : A reaction to Rosa Lichtenstein:Regarding the fresh new so-called non-contradiction in the “John are a man” or “the newest flower was red,” the case generally seems to us to depend into following (to the web page your mention):”Hegel … evidently consider he might ignore the logical/grammatical variations available between your certain words the guy put, otherwise, no less than, between the spots they filled for the language – i.elizabeth., ranging from naming, stating, discussing and you can predicating (we.elizabeth., claiming one thing in the some thing otherwise people).”Although not, since bbwdesire you wrote shortly just before you to, Hegel try trying tell you “one actions is actually integrated into The Principles, because envision seats from 1 rod to a different” (my personal hats).These types of are not the same situation.Maxims relate to consciousness; research of one’s services that terms play within the a vocabulary does not.Therefore, including, it is yes you are able to and then make a logical distinction between the fresh new “is” away from term in addition to “is” regarding predication, however, I accidentally keeps found many individuals who was to define some thing by giving types of them (I’m an instructor). Its comments out of exactly what something “are” support the contradiction that you say is not introduce, zero?And it also is not clear in my experience you to definitely a significant definition-unlike a listing away from qualities (predicates)-can still be provided with. Determine “God,” particularly.
- 5 Rosa Lichtenstein said in the 2:48 pm to your : Andrew, first and foremost, the newest web page you understand are a standard introduction to my facts meant for beginners. We make my dispute within the significantly more detail within website links indexed towards the bottom:”But not, because you penned eventually before you to definitely, Hegel is actually looking to inform you “you to definitely activity are built into All of our Axioms, because the envision entry from just one pole to some other” (my personal hats).Concepts have to do with awareness; analysis of your own functions one terms and conditions gamble inside the a words does maybe not.Therefore, including, it is indeed it is possible to and then make an analytical distinction between the newest “is” away from name and “is” from predication, but I accidentally has came across people whom are to describe some thing by providing types of them (I am a teacher). The comments of what things “are” secure the paradox that you say isn’t present, no?”I really don’t find which alleged ‘contradiction’, and you can none you neither Hegel have shown that there’s you to right here.”Therefore isn’t clear in my opinion you to definitely an important meaning-in place of a lists of characteristics (predicates)-can still get. Define “God,” such.”And you can, I’m not sure how you get brought the definition of “definition” here, since i didn’t use this phrase.Finally:”Basics pertain to awareness; investigation of one’s services you to definitely terms and conditions gamble into the a vocabulary really does maybe not.”
I’m from the believing that your (or Hegel) produces which differences – even Hegel needed to have fun with vocabulary (and you may illegitimately very, when i demonstrated) to attempt to create his part
He might features *thought* he was discussing ‘concepts’, but what we really find your creating are juggling having jargonised linguistic terms. And this, my complaint regarding his access to words try legitimate.
It’s precisely as the Hegel indulged such an effective “distortion” from ordinary-language he consider he may get a beneficial ‘contradiction’ (which was not one to anyhow).
It is (they?) is a contradiction in the event the of course, if the latest Suggested “is” ‘s the “is” from title. It’s like, if you don’t a genuine example of, a contradiction when it comes (eg “bullet rectangular”) otherwise class error (purple logarithm).” However,, you really have yet to demonstrate talking about ‘contradictions’, and you can, obviously, the word ‘paradox inside terms’ is an excellent misnomer. [If you’d like me to establish why, I can.]