#hegel — Public Fediverse posts

SIGUE ⬇️

Tras la muerte de Hegel en 1831 durante una epidemia de cólera en Berlín, su influencia comenzó a disminuir gradualmente.
Décadas después, el pensamiento de Schopenhauer empezó a ganar lectores.
Muchos europeos, desencantados con la política, las revoluciones fallidas y las promesas de progreso ilimitado, encontraron en él una visión más cercana a la experiencia real de la vida.

Ya anciano, Schopenhauer pudo contemplar cómo su fama crecía por fin.
Murió el 21 de septiembre de 1860 en Fráncfort del Meno, aparentemente a causa de un paro cardiorrespiratorio mientras desayunaba.

Había pasado gran parte de su existencia sintiéndose incomprendido, discutiendo con colegas, despreciando a la mayoría de la humanidad y encontrando consuelo en la compañía de sus perros.

Paradójicamente, aquel filósofo que pensaba que la vida estaba dominada por el sufrimiento terminó influyendo en generaciones enteras de escritores, artistas y pensadores.
Entre ellos Nietzsche, Wagner, Freud, Tolstói y numerosos intelectuales del siglo XX.

Quizá porque, más allá de su pesimismo, Schopenhauer se atrevió a formular una pregunta incómoda que sigue resonando hoy: ¿y si la felicidad no fuera el estado natural del ser humano, sino apenas un breve descanso entre dos inquietudes?

Y mientras medio mundo discutía sobre sistemas filosóficos, progreso histórico y grandes teorías abstractas, él parecía haber encontrado una certeza mucho más sencilla.

La compañía de un perro valía más que muchas conversaciones humanas.

▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDwssHn0DgQ

#arthurschopenhauer #schopenhauer #filosofía #historia #pensamiento #filósofos #sigloxix #perros #atma #butz #hegel #historiadelafilosofía #curiosidadeshistóricas #ecosdelpasado #culturageneral #filosofíaalemana #animalismo #historiaintelectual #pensamientooccidental #biografiashistoricas

Nine illustrated quote cards from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) — Phenomenology of Spirit, Philosophy of Right, and the lectures on history.

Two marked as paraphrase rather than direct quotation, including one that is actually Žižek's formulation.

lost-quotes.com

#hegel #philosophy #germanidealism #quotes

das Konzept dialektischer Kritik, die Theorie der Befreiung und schließlich exemplarische Positionen zu Hegel im Marxismus nach Marx. Lesetipp: dietzberlin.de/hegel-in-marx

#OnThisDay #karlmarx #marx #Hegel #HegelianDialectic #dialektik #philosophie #idealismus #marxismus #onthisdayinhistory
2/2

Das Logikdings: #Marx ist mit #Hegel — #AnDiesemTag 1770 in #Stuttgart geboren wurde — nie wirklich fertig geworden. Er war kein Hegelianer, aber seine Position zu ihm blieb stets in einer Art Halbdunkel. Andreas Arndt änderte das mit »Hegel in Marx. Studien zur dialektischen Kritik und zur Theorie der Befreiung«. Wie viel Hegel steckt in Marx? Arndts in diesem Theorieband gesammelten Aufsätze behandeln in vier Kapiteln das Verhältnis von Marx zu den sog. Junghegelianern,
1/2

Le net-zéro ou l’aveu du capital

Le net-zéro laisse croire qu’il suffirait de compenser les émissions. Mais les capacités de stockage du carbone sont limitées, fragiles et elles-mêmes dégradées. Si le capital ne peut plus compenser indéfiniment, il doit cesser d’accumuler. L’écologie radicale menace donc l’ordre établi : face à la domination capitaliste, choisirons-nous la mort ou la vie ? #NetZero #ClimateCrisis #Degrowth #Capitalism #Ecology #Reclus #Hegel…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/22/le-net-zero-ou-laveu-du-capital/

Vor kurzem lief in an einem Sonntag durch #Berlin und blieb am Schaufenster eines #Buch Cafes hängen. Dort Stand das Buch: " #Sprachmaschinen - Eine Philosophie #künstlichenIntelligenz "...
Das habe ich jetzt ausgelesen und finde, das kann man empfehlen! Der Autor Roberto Simanowski wirft hier mit #Kant und #Hegel um sich und fragt nach, wer eigentlich entscheidet, was die sogenannte #KI für Werte vertreten soll.
Oder wer zukünftig noch was und wie denkt, übernehmen wir das Durchschnitts Denkmuster, dass uns die #SoCalledAI vermittelt? Wie umgehen mit #DatenInzest?

Bestellt euch das in eurem #Buchladen des geringsten Misstrauens und wehe ich sehe euch auf #FckAmazon surfen!

"For Hegel, your thoughts aren’t trapped in a cerebral box: they act on the world, making meaning and expressing your freedom"

https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-think-like-a-hegelian

#philosophy #hegel #idealism

Право, old
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/346

Право, law
+римское право
#Право, #law
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/345

Статистика
statistics
#Статистика
#statistics
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/343

Песни и стихи
Пісні та вірші, Songs and poems
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/342

Бердяев
Бердяєв, Berdyaev
#Бердяев
#Бердяєв, #Berdyaev
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/341

Theology, philosophy and the history of ideas
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/340

_философия 7112
_philosophy, _філософія
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/334

Статьи, доклады, тезисы по философским наукам 9463
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/333

_Русская философия
_Російська філософія, _Russian philosophy
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/332

Хайдеггер и Гёльдерлин
Heidegger und Hölderlin, Хайдеггер та Гельдерлін
#Хайдеггер и #Гёльдерлин
#Heidegger und #Hölderlin, #Хайдеггер та #Гельдерлін
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/331

_Ницше, Ніцше, Nietzsche
#Ницше, #Ніцше, #Nietzsche
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/330

_немецкие коммунаци
German communazi, німецькі комунаці
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/329

Иммануил Кант
Іммануїл кант, Immanuel Kant
#ИммануилКант
#Іммануїл Кант, #Immanuel Kant
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/328

_Гегель, Hegel
#Гегель, #Hegel
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/327

_Немецкая философия
Німецька філософія, Deutsche Philosophie
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/326

китайская философия
Chinese philosophy, китайська філософія
#китайскаяфилософия
#Chinese philosophy, #китайська філософія
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/325

_История философии
Історія філософії, History of philosophy
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/324

_Античная философия
ancient philosophy, Антична філософія, antique
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/323

cognition books, теория познания, епістемологія, эпистемология, epistemology, теорія пізнання
#cognition books, #теорияпознания, #епістемологія, #эпистемология, #epistemology, #теоріяпізнання
t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/317

New Essay!!! It is an epic.

"Philosophy of Freedom, From the Science of Logic to Dialectical Naturalism"

This essay moves from the logic, to nature philosophy, to social philosophy, to ethics, to the politics of libertarian communism.

https://usufructcollective.wordpress.com/2026/07/28/philosophy-of-freedom-from-the-science-of-logic-to-dialectical-naturalism/

#anarchism #mutualaid #commons #philosophy #bookchin #hegel #dialectics #nature #society #ethics

Nach #Hegel soll gemeinsam gebumst werden

When I first read what is commonly known as Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’ trans. A.V. Miller, but is actually his ‘Science of System’, I burst out into almost uncontrollable laughter.
Go to QuotesPorn
r/QuotesPorn
12y ago
imaguylikeme

"you have to laugh at the things that hurt you..." - Ken Kesey [1920x1080]

or release you from the lies of people who stake a claim on things and thoughts. Presumably Marx did not laugh, as had sufficient reasons to hate the Germans given the antisemitism of the princes and those like Johann Gottlieb Fichte? #philosophy #Zeitgeist #laughter #ThePrinciple #Marx #Hegel #Fichte

Robert Stern | "Hegel's Philosophy of Right" JHU Conference | Day 1 youtu.be/-sOkbwfTwVM?is… #Hegel #PhilosophyOfRight #Stern #philosophy #philsky #PhilosophySky

Robert Stern | "Hegel's Philos...

@DubiousCandy ‘The Law is King’ Thomas Paine? Accept when the law is written and serves the capital interests of ultra rich corporate investors and not the democratic rights and diverse interests of the many! #TheLawIsKing #AbsoluteMonarchy #CorporateLaw #CorporateSovereignty #TheLaw #MonarchsLaws #TheLawsOfThePeople #ThomasPaine #RepublicSovereignty #Freedom #PhilosophyOfRight #Hegel

Hegel, le perspectivisme et la vie réflexive du monde

Hegel ne dit pas que l’esprit fabrique le monde : il dit que le monde n’apparaît pas pareil à tous les vivants. Ce qui compte, c’est la forme de vie qui rend certaines choses saillantes, pensables, discutables. L’humain, auto-conscient, vit dans une tension réflexive permanente. #Hegel #Philosophy #Perspectivism #CriticalTheory #Ontology Chez Hegel, l’idéalisme ne consiste ni à dire que la réalité est mentale, ni à…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/06/30/hegel-le-perspectivisme-et-la-vie-reflexive-du-monde/

It's not every RPG group that starts going on about Hegel 🤣 🤗

#ttrpg #hegel

This is an outstanding collection of Rudolf J. Siebert’s most poignant essay on #hegel and his influence on the Frankfurt School, as well as Christian #LiberationTheology. #philosophy #germany #idealism #sociology #theology https://www.ekpyrosispress.com

On Philosophics Blog, I consider how ontological grammar commitments confound English translations of Hegel.

https://philosophics.blog/2026/06/04/titrating-hegel/?utm_source=masto&utm_medium=social

#philosophy #language #hegel #geist #ontologicalgrammar #metaphysics #spirit #mind #languageinsufficiency #translation #blog #podcast #video #ontology

@unir

Wichtig dabei: Die damaligen Zaren waren preußischer Adel, also deutsch. Er war in seinen jungen Jahren in der Militärakademie und auch am Zarenhof,

vertrat aber dann die #Aufklärung und #Hegel in seiner Moskauer Zeit, kämpfte gegen die polnische Zerteilung durch Preußen, Russland und Österreich.

Die #Sachsen verurteilten ihn, lieferten ihn nach #Österreich, die ihn, zum Tode verurteilt, dem Zaren in der Kerker lieferten.

Dass er mit einer "Lebensbeichte" dem Zaren sein Denken erklärte, wurde ihm von Kritikern vorgeworfen, aber er kam damit als russs. Adeliger in die sibirische Verbannung, in der er heiraten konnte und aus der er über China entkommen konnte.

Später konnte er seine Frau in die Schweiz holen und lebte mit ihr, die mit seinem Mitarbeitenden noch Kinder bekam, zusammen.

Seine Grundgedanken "Ohne Gott und Staat" von #Selbstorganisation, #Gewerkschaften und #Genossenschaften leben in allen südlichen Ländern von ital. bis span. & latein-amerikanischen Sozialisten mehr als #Parteien

A new colleague, Alaka Oluwatobi, shared his decolonial essay with me. I share this interest, so I read it and wrote a blog post. The essay is linked there as well as in the first comment if you'd like to read it without my opinions.

👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/05/07/the-masters-concepts-decolonising-the-house-without-keeping-the-furniture/?utm_source=masto&utm_medium=social

#philosophy #politics #society #culture #humancondition #language #morality #colonialism #liberalism #imperialism #hegemony #sovereignty #agency #autonomy #assey #blog #podcast #metaethics #metaphysics #fanon #hegel #history #critique

Certification for being a brutal warlord in the post-apocalypse is super-lax

https://piefed.social/c/philosophymemes/p/2014629/certification-for-being-a-brutal-warlord-in-the-post-apocalypse-is-super-lax

Certification for being a brutal warlord in the post-apocalypse is super-lax

https://piefed.social/c/fallout/p/2014628/certification-for-being-a-brutal-warlord-in-the-post-apocalypse-is-super-lax

No 10 knew Mandelson failed security vetting seven months ago, as revealed by The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-mandelson-security-vetting-downing-street-b2959664.html

Scapegoating, is it as unique to U.K. politics as is the corrupting influence of “big donors” are to U.S. politics? Undermining the separation of powers; executive, legislative and judiciary, is not that different from the abduction of democracy to undermine the difference between the monarch, government, the estates, corporations, the civil service, business and agricultural class! #Regression #PhilosophyOfRight #Hegel #Philosophy #Progress #DotardPolitics

“I tend to think that most fears about A.I. are best understood as fears about capitalism”*…

Further to Wednesday‘s and yesterday‘s posts (on to other topics again after this, I promise), a powerful piece from Patrick Tanguay (in his always-illuminating Sentiers newsletter).

He begins with a consideration of Peter Wolfendale’s “Geist in the machine“

… Wolfendale argues that the current AI debate recapitulates an 18th-century conflict between mechanism and romanticism. On one side, naive rationalists (Yudkowsky, Bostrom, much of Silicon Valley) assume intelligence is ultimately reducible to calculation; throw enough computing power at the problem and the gap between human and machine closes. On the other, popular romantics (Bender, Noë, many artists) insist that something about human cognition, whether it’s embodiment, meaning, or consciousness, can never be mechanised. Wolfendale finds both positions insufficient. The rationalists reduce difficult choices to optimisation problems, while the romantics bundle distinct capacities into a single vague essence.

His alternative draws on Kant and Hegel. He separates what we loosely call the “soul” into three capacities: wisdom (the metacognitive ability to reformulate problems, not just solve them), creativity (the ability to invent new rules rather than search through existing ones), and autonomy (the capacity to question and revise our own motivations). Current AI systems show glimmers of the first two but lack the third entirely. Wolfendale treats autonomy as the defining feature of personhood: not a hidden essence steering action, but the ongoing process of asking who we want to be and revising our commitments accordingly. Following Hegel he calls this Geist, spirit as self-reflective freedom.

Wolfendale doesn’t ask whether machines can have souls; he argues we should build them, and that the greater risk lies in not doing so. Machines that handle all our meaningful choices without possessing genuine autonomy would sever us from the communities of mutual recognition through which we pursue truth, beauty, and justice. A perfectly optimised servant that satisfies our preferences while leaving us unchanged is, in his phrase, “a slave so abject it masters us.” Most philosophical treatments of AI consciousness end with a verdict on possibility. Wolfendale ends with an ethical imperative: freedom is best preserved by extending it.

I can’t say I agree, unless “we”… end up with a completely different relationship to our technology and capital. However, his argument all the way before then is a worthy reflection, and pairs well with the one below and another from issue No.387. I’m talking about Anil Seth’s The mythology of conscious AI, where he argues that consciousness probably requires biological life and that silicon-based AI is unlikely to achieve it. Seth maps the biological terrain that makes consciousness hard to replicate; Wolfendale maps the philosophical terrain that makes personhood worth pursuing anyway, on entirely different grounds. Seth ends where the interesting problem begins for Wolfendale: even if machines can’t be conscious, the question of whether they can be autonomous persons, capable of self-reflective revision, remains open:

Though GenAI systems can’t usually compete with human creatives on their own, they are increasingly being used as imaginative prosthetics. This symbiosis reveals that what distinguishes human creativity is not the precise range of heuristics embedded in our perceptual systems, but our metacognitive capacity to modulate and combine them in pursuit of novelty. What makes our imaginative processes conscious is our ability to self-consciously intervene in them, deliberately making unusual choices or drawing analogies between disparate tasks. And yet metacognition is nothing on its own. If reason demands revision, new rules must come from somewhere. […]

[Hubert Dreyfus] argues that the comparative robustness of human intelligence lies in our ability to navigate the relationships between factors and determine what matters in any practical situation. He claims that this wouldn’t be possible were it not for our bodies, which shape the range of actions we can perform, and our needs, which unify our various goals and projects into a structured framework. Dreyfus argues that, without bodies and needs, machines will never match us. […]

This is the basic link between self-determination and self-justification. For Hegel, to be free isn’t simply to be oneself – it isn’t enough to play by one’s own rules. We must also be responsive to error, ensuring not just that inconsistencies in our principles and practices are resolved, but that we build frameworks to hold one another mutually accountable. […]

Delegating all our choices to mere automatons risks alienating us from our sources of meaning. If we consume only media optimised for our personal preferences, generated by AIs with no preferences of their own, then we will cease to belong to aesthetic communities in which tastes are assessed, challenged and deepened. We will no longer see ourselves and one another as even passively involved in the pursuit of beauty. Without mutual recognition in science and civic life, we might as easily be estranged from truth and right – told how to think and act by anonymous machines rather than experts we hold to account…

Tanguay then turns to “The Prospect of Butlerian Jihad” by Liam Mullally, in which Mullally uses…

… Herbert’s Dune and the Butlerian Jihad [here] as a lens for what he sees as a growing anti-tech “structure of feeling” (Raymond Williams’s term): the diffuse public unease about AI, enshittification, surveillance, and tech oligarchs that has not yet solidified into coherent politics. The closest thing to a political expression so far is neo-Luddism, which Mullally credits for drawing attention to technological exploitation but finds insufficient. His concern is that the impulse to reject technology wholesale smuggles in essentialist assumptions about human nature, a romantic defence of “pure” humanity against the corruption of machines. He traces this logic back to Samuel Butler’s 1863 essay Darwin Among the Machines, which framed the human-technology relationship as a zero-sum contest for supremacy, and notes that Butler’s framing was “explicitly supremacist,” written from within colonial New Zealand and structured by the same logic of domination it claimed to resist.

The alternative Mullally proposes draws on Bernard Stiegler’s concept of “originary technicity”: the idea that human subjectivity has always been constituted in part by its tools, that there is no pre-technological human to defend. [see here] If that’s right, then opposing technology as such is an “ontological confusion,” a fight against something that is already part of what we are. The real problem is not machines but the economic logic that shapes their development and deployment. Mullally is clear-eyed about this: capital does not have total command over its technologies, and understanding how they work is a precondition for contesting them. He closes by arguing that the anti-tech structure of feeling is “there for the taking,” but only if it can be redirected. The fights ahead are between capital and whatever coalition can form against it, not between humanity and machines. Technology is a terrain in that conflict; abandoning it means losing before the contest begins.

Wolfendale’s Geist in the Machine above arrived at a parallel conclusion from a different direction: where Mullally argues that rejecting technology means defending a false vision of the human, Wolfendale argues that refusing to extend autonomy to machines risks severing us from the self-reflective freedom that makes us persons in the first place. Both reject the romantic position, but for different reasons:

To the extent that neo-Luddites bring critical attention to technology, they are doing useful work. But this anti-tech sentiment frequently cohabitates with something uneasy: the treatment of technology as some abstract and impenetrable evil, and the retreat, against this, into essentialist views of the human. […]

If “humanity” is not a thing-in-itself, but historically, socially and technically mutable, then the sphere of possibility of the human and of our world becomes much broader. Our relationship to the non-human — to technology or to nature — does not need to be one of control, domination and exploitation. […]

As calls for a fight back against technology grow, the left needs to carefully consider what it is advocating for. Are we fighting the exploitation of workers, the hollowing out of culture and the destruction of the earth via technology, or are we rallying in defence of false visions of pure, a-technical humanity? […]

The anti-tech structure of feeling is there for the taking. But if it is to lead anywhere, it must be taken carefully: a fightback against technological exploitation will be found not in the complete rejection of technology, but in the short-circuiting of one kind of technology and the development of another.

As Max Read (scroll down) observes:

… if we understand A.I. as a product of the systems that precede it, I think it’s fair to say ubiquitous A.I.-generated text is “inevitable” in the same way that high-volume blogs were “inevitable” or Facebook fake news pages were “inevitable”: Not because of some “natural” superiority or excellence, but because they follow so directly from the logic of the system out of which they emerge. In this sense A.I. is “inevitable” precisely because it’s not revolutionary…

The question isn’t if we want a relationship with technology; it’s what kind of relationship we want. We’ve always (at least since we’ve been a conscious species) co-existed with, and been shaped by, tools; we’ve always suffered the “friction” of technological transition as we innovate new tools. As yesterday’s post suggested (in its defense of the open web in the face on a voracious attack from powerful LLM companies), “what matters is power“… power to shape the relationship(s) we have with the technologies we use. That power is currently in the hands of a relatively few companies, all concerned above all else with harvesting as much money as they can from “uses” they design to amplify that engagement and ease that monetization. It doesn’t, of course, have to be this way.

We’ve lived under modern capitalism for only a few hundred years, and under the hyper-global, hyper-extractive regime we currently inhabit for only a century-and-a-half or so, during which time, in fits and starts, it has grown ever more rapcious. George Monbiot observed that “like coal, capitalism has brought many benefits. But, like coal, it now causes more harm than good.” And Ursula Le Guin, that “we live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.” In many countries, “divine right” monarchy has been replaced by “constitutional monarchy.” Perhaps it’s time for more of the world to consider “constitutional capitalism.” We could start by learning from the successes and failures of Scandinavia and Europe.

Social media, AI, quantum computing– on being clear as to the real issue: “Geist in the machine & The prospect of Butlerian Jihad,” from @inevernu.bsky.social.

Apposite: “The enclosure of the commons inaugurates a new ecological order. Enclosure did not just physically transfer the control over grasslands from the peasants to the lord. It marked a radical change in the attitudes of society toward the environment.”

(All this said, David Chalmers argues that there’s one possibility that might change everything: “Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?” On the other hand, the ARC Prize Foundation suggests, we have some time: a test they devised for benchmarking agentic intelligence recently found that “humans can solve 100% of the environments, in contrast to frontier AI systems which, as of March 2026, score below 1%”… :)

* Ted Chiang (gift article; see also here and here and here)

###

As we keep our eyes on the prize, we might spare a thought for a man who wrestled with a version of these same issues in the last century, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; he died on this date in 1955.  A Jesuit theologian, philosopher, geologist, and paleontologist, he conceived the idea of the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving) and developed Vladimir Vernadsky‘s concept of noosphere.  Teilhard took part in the discovery of Peking Man, and wrote on the reconciliation of faith and evolutionary theory.  His thinking on both these fronts was censored during his lifetime by the Catholic Church (in particular for its implications for “original sin”); but in 2009, they lifted their ban.

source

Winterzeit = beste für Theorie based on #Marx. Wir haben 15 Bände zu seiner Relevanz für die Gegenwart im Programm… z.B. zu Ökonomischer Macht im Kapitalismus | Foucault mit Marx | Postkolonialer Theorie | Hegel in Marx | Geschichte des Geldes u.v.m.: http://dietzberlin.de/reihe/theorie /1

#bookstodon #marx #karlmarx #friedrichengels #kapitalismus #kapital #walterrodney #ökologie #geld #foucault #hegel #feudalismus

"Religion, right, ethics, and everything spiritual in human beings, is merely aroused. We are implicitly spirit, for the truth lies within us and the spiritual content within us must be brought into consciousness."

Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion: The Lectures of 1827, p. 161

#Hegel #Recollection #Anamnesis #Philosophy #Religion #Ethics #Spirit #Consciousness #Mysticism #GermanIdealism

Fast, @Reendear - Rechte lehnen Veränderungen meist aus #Reaktanz ab. Linke tendieren oft dazu, untereinander zu streiten, wohin "genau" die Veränderung zu führen habe. Der Philosoph Karl #Popper nennt dies das Problem des #Historizismus seit #Hegel & #Marx. Er meinte: Sowohl religiöse wie auch politische Gewissheit seien eine Gefahr, Hoffnung müsse reichen. #Liberalismus #Falsifikation

@bernab @freistern @better_tomorrow @Winni @andreas_tengicki @SheDrivesMobility

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/wisskon21-karl-popper-und-das-kreuz-der-falsifikation-religion-wissenschaft/

Der nächste, längst überfällige Schritt in der Entwicklung der Menschheit: Von moralisch zu systemisch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EVceb9lY

#Demokratisierung #Politisierung #Systemisierung #Moralisieren #Kant #Gesinnungsethik #Erziehung #Hegel #Hobbes #Luhmann #Marx #Thukydides #Platon #Akademie #Sokrates #Sozialdynamik #Institutionenethik #Individualethik #ArbeitAnDerGesellschaft #Moralismus #Individualismus #Individualisierung #Systemeffekte #SystemischesDenken #Ethik #Aristokratismus #Demokratie

The Yin unicorn & Yang unicorn always went dialectical. Yin is not Yang. Yin is the opposite of Yang. Yang is not Yin. Yang is the opposite of Yin. But they can not be distinct from each other, they flow into each other. They are of the same kind. Together they become something new, s.th. greater.

When Capital faced the #Hegel.ian dialectics, they were so shocked, that since then not only #Marx had by all means to be denied. Also the still capitalist Hegel were rejected a place in Valhalla. ( https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walhalla )

Why? Because #Capital assumes us to be the contrary to each other. As logical exclusions we hate each other and, the foremost important characteristics: we compete each other to death.

This peaked in the mass extermination of white men life on the battlefields of 1918 and 1945. The true catastrophe for capital was not the #holocaust, but that the whites race colonial order needed a redesign to prevent further world wars. In face of nuclear extermination a necessity.

The imperial order was replaced by a hegonomial hierarchy with the #US by all white western countries accepted head of the white world. That's why the US army has still 5 time the military than the 2nd place country.

But the united white world became rich and weak. Unfortunately, an upcoming multipolar world risks in this logic another final world war. Cause we didn't overcome the capital logic, deeply fabricated into each nation, yet.

#philosophy #dialectics #unicorns #yinandyang

#Goldman und #Stalin, #Zetkin und #Bogdanow, #Hegel und zweimal #Marx, öffentlicher #Luxus und #Vergesellschaftung – das sind die Themen unseres Herbstprogramms. Interessiert? Hier geht es lang: https://dietzberlin.de/verlagsprogramm-herbst-2023/

#Institutionalisierung und #unbeabsichtigt​e #Nebenfolge​n

Die #Zurechnung von #Institutionen auf #Intentionalität von #Handlung​en oder ihrem #Reflexionswert #unbeabsichtigt ist #Verwirrung

#Phänomenologisch​e #Unterscheidung der #Verwirrung in #idealistisch​er #Deutung (#Hume, #Smith, #Hegel) und #Problematisierung (#Marx)

#Institutionentheorie #Frühindustrialisierung

Rheinhard #Wippler 1981 #Erklärung​en #unbeabsichtigt​er #Handlungsfolge​n; #Theoriebildung S.247

https://d-nb.info/1191637182/34