#hegel — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #hegel, aggregated by home.social.
-
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.
#anarchism #mutualaid #commons #philosophy #bookchin #hegel #dialectics #nature #society #ethics
-
-
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/
-
-
SIGUE ⬇️
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 #biografíashistóricas
-
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
-
The actual most interesting man in the world.
"[A]s #Morin always insisted, truth is complex. So, too, was his career, which in many ways reflects the origin story of the #French #intellectual. Born as #EdgarNahoum in #Paris in 1921, his parents were #Jewish immigrants from #Salonica, a city that had been home to #Greece’s largest Jewish community until #WorldWarII. (Nearly 90% of the community, some 54,000 men, women, and children were eventually murdered in #Nazi #deathcamps.) A precocious student, #Nahoum spent his days in libraries studying #German philosophers like #Hegel and his nights in cinemas studying French films directed by the likes of #MarcelPagnol.
Yet everything changed, including his name, come #France’s defeat and #occupation by #NaziGermany in 1940. Making his way to the Unoccupied Zone, the 20-year-old Nahoum, who had been a pacifist before the war, soon joined both the banned #CommunistParty and the #FrenchResistance."
-
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.
#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
-
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
-
Both Hegel and Heidegger would call small talk unproductive loss of time, each in their own way.
#philosophy #poetry #smalltalk #Heidegger #Hegel
Gerede and Geschwätz in verse.
-
Intelligibility is the form in which science is offered to everyone, and is the open road to it made plain for all. For intelligence, understanding (Verstand), is thinking, pure activity of the self in general; and what is intelligible (Verständige) is something from the first familiar and common to the scientific and unscientific mind alike, enabling the unscientific mind to enter the domain of science.
G.F. Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit
-
“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.
(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.
#AI #artificialIntelligence #BernardStiegler #ButlerianJihad #capitalism #computing #consolidation #culture #Hegel #history #Kant #LiamMullally #noosphere #OmegaPoint #PatrickTanguay #PeterWolfendale #philosophy #PierreTeilhardDeChardin #socialMedia #Technology #TeilhardDeChardin -
Hegel, a universal property-based testing protocol and family of PBT libraries
#HackerNews #Hegel #PBT #propertybasedtesting #softwaredevelopment #testinglibraries
-
Today is the day I begin reading THE SUBLIME OBJECT OF IDEOLOGY by Slavoj Žižek.
May any existing gods have mercy on my soul.
😆
#SlavojZizek
#Zizek
#agency
#Hegel
#Lacan
#Marx
#philosophy
#reading
#ILoveBooks -
@leyrer Hmmmm, mir fällt ja immer nur Hegels verschlafene #Eule ein...: "Wenn die Philosophie ihr Grau in Grau malt, dann ist eine Gestalt des Lebens alt geworden, und mit Grau in Grau läßt sie sich nicht verjüngen, sondern nur erkennen; die Eule der Minerva beginnt erst mit der einbrechenden Dämmerung ihren Flug.“
#Hegel #Minerva
#Philosophie -
This week I wrote about Aphrodite and the Hegelian concept of the beautiful soul: