An Emergent Order

[thirdform]

if ‘materialism as matter-in-motion’ transcends philosophy and language, how do you articulate this truth without relying on the very philosophical constructs (words, ideas, frameworks) you dismiss as idealist?

Firstly I don't dismiss idealism, I think it is wrong, but that doesn't diminish my respect for the idealist par excellence, Hegel. I dismiss half-materialists.

By working through the contradictions and limitations inherent to idealism. Noone can actually explain God. hence, idealism contains the germs of its own refutation.

Because idealism is ultimately theology.

Like I said above, Hegel is the last true christian. Everyone since have lived as secularists, even if they have professed the strictist faith.

 

[thirdform]

I think zlavloj's politics are really pedestrian but I told @version to read this. He is an atheist who acts as if God still exists, and that's why he can not (alongside @Mr. Tea ) refute biscuits. Only I make the progressive quake in his boots.

How to read Lacan – “God is dead, but he doesn’t know it”: Lacan plays with Bobok – Žižek.uk

zizek.uk

 

[version]

If Hegel believes history's essentially the process of the manifestation of God, where does his idealism stem from? It seems as though he's working his way up to God the way Bakunin describes, but what's the starting point if it isn't materialism? Does he just believe humanity inherently has ideas and everything flows from that?

 

[germaphobian]

Firstly I don't dismiss idealism, I think it is wrong, but that doesn't diminish my respect for the idealist par excellence, Hegel. I dismiss half-materialists.

By working through the contradictions and limitations inherent to idealism. Noone can actually explain God. hence, idealism contains the germs of its own refutation.

Because idealism is ultimately theology.

Like I said above, Hegel is the last true christian. Everyone since have lived as secularists, even if they have professed the strictist faith.

if your "matter-in-motion’" is beyond philosophy, why does explaining it require Hegel’s dialectics and his idealist theology?

 

[thirdform]

If Hegel believes history's essentially the process of the manifestation of God, where does his idealism stem from? It seems as though he's working his way up to God the way Bakunin describes, but what's the starting point if it isn't materialism? Does he just believe humanity inherently has ideas and everything flows from that?

god is the absolute idea of existence, and human history is a greater god self-consciousness. In a way this was true and still is true, but only because the mode of production undergirding theological coercion (the feudal/tributary mode) has become superannuated. We can talk about God precisely because God is dead.

 

[version]

god is the absolute idea of existence.

Why does God need to be assembled then?

 

[thirdform]

Why does God need to be assembled then?

I'm not a christian, but where did you get the idea of assembling?

 

[thirdform]

what Hegel is saying is not novel to him, it traverses all the major abrahamic mystical tradition. That god is the univocity of being.

 

[version]

I'm not a christian, but where did you get the idea of assembling?

What I've read and heard about Hegel covers some variation of him claiming all history's leading towards God coming into being, which suggests God doesn't exist yet. Maybe something's being lost in translation though and he means contact with God or evidence of God rather than us effectively building God like some sort of cosmic AI or whatever though.

 

[thirdform]

if your "matter-in-motion’" is beyond philosophy, why does explaining it require Hegel’s dialectics and his idealist theology?

it doesn't, we're only using the language of Hegel and Marx(s) refutation, because the question was posed in a philosophical, quasi-religious manner. Agnosticism is a philosophical position, it is untenable and unrealisable in practical human activity.

The aim is simply to show up the limitations of the non-comittal approach that cannot escape the maws of religious doom, no matter how hard it tries.

 

[germaphobian]

god is the absolute idea of existence, and human history is a greater god self-consciousness. In a way this was true and still is true, but only because the mode of production undergirding theological coercion (the feudal/tributary mode) has become superannuated. We can talk about God precisely because God is dead.

it's the same again. a claim made from within certain hegelian framework with no possibility of being proven (or disproven) if you step outside that framework. it's basically "trust me bro"

 

[germaphobian]

obviously a foundational claim again

 

[germaphobian]

it doesn't, we're only using the language of Hegel and Marx(s) refutation, because the question was posed in a philosophical, quasi-religious manner. Agnosticism is a philosophical position, it is untenable and unrealisable in practical human activity.

The aim is simply to show up the limitations of the non-comittal approach that cannot escape the maws of religious doom, no matter how hard it tries.

if your critique of ‘religious doom’ requires you to borrow hegel's theology and philosophy’s tools (Marx), isn't your ‘materialism’ justa a prisoner of the very system it claims to escape?

 

[thirdform]

What I've read and heard about Hegel covers some variation of him claiming all history's leading towards God coming into being, which suggests God doesn't exist yet. Maybe something's being lost in translation though and he means contact with God or evidence of God rather than us effectively building God like some sort of cosmic AI or whatever though.

no it is consciousness, not contact or evidence. that is the rational kernel in the mystical shell. The mystical shell is God, but the rational kernel is greater human consciousness of its activity.

 

[version]

no it is consciousness, not contact or evidence. that is the rational kernel in the mystical shell. The mystical shell is God, but the rational kernel is greater human consciousness of its activity.

One of the stumbling blocks for me is clearly having come into philosophy via Baudrillard, D&G, Nick Land and co. The way I'm trying to understand Hegel seems like Land's conception of capital with God in its place, i.e. God putting itself together via humanity, rather than whatever Hegel was actually saying.

 

[thirdform]

it's the same again. a claim made from within certain hegelian framework with no possibility of being proven (or disproven) if you step outside that framework. it's basically "trust me bro"

your liberal atheism is exactly the same though, worse still in that it cannot account for persistent belief in God.

 

[germaphobian]

your liberal atheism is exactly the same though, worse still in that it cannot account for persistent belief in God.

I don't deny it though

 

[thirdform]

One of the stumbling blocks for me is clearly having come into philosophy via Baudrillard, D&G, Nick Land and co. The way I'm trying to understand Hegel above seems like Land's conception of capital with God in its place, i.e. God putting itself together via humanity, rather than whatever Hegel was actually saying.

you should come into philosophy through Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Ibn-Arabi, Spinoza, Liebniz, Locke, Rousseau, etc.

not these ephemeral artfags of overexpired delicatessen.

 

[thirdform]

if your critique of ‘religious doom’ requires you to borrow hegel's theology and philosophy’s tools (Marx), isn't your ‘materialism’ justa a prisoner of the very system it claims to escape?

no because all living phenomena is multilaterally interconnected. Like I said, the dark underbelly of religion is atheism.

 

[version]

you should come into philosophy through Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Ibn-Arabi, Spinoza, Liebniz, Locke, Rousseau, etc.

not these ephemeral artfags of overexpired Delicatessen.

I did a bit of philosophy and ethics in school and that was all Kant and Bentham, iirc, but I can't remember any of it.