Andrew: “Thus my section is it: Alone, “X try Y” (where Y is not same as X) isn’t contradictory
- 3 Rosa Lichtenstein told you from the step 3:twenty two pm into the : Sadly, mcdougal on the blog post keeps overlooked the countless glaring errors from inside the Hegel’s ‘logic’ – problems that have been uncritically copied around the on the ‘Materialist Dialectics’ (in spite of the ‘materialist flip’ Hegel’s dialectic is said to own got inflicted on it).I’ve intricate Hegel’s more severe errors right here:
- 4 Andrew Kliman said at step 1:58 pm toward : A response to Rosa Lichtenstein:Regarding new so-called low-paradox during the “John is actually a man” otherwise “the flower try purple,” the situation generally seems to me to count towards the after the (toward webpage your cite):”Hegel … plainly think he could ignore the analytical/grammatical distinctions that exist between the various terms and conditions he put, or, at least, within jobs they filled in words – we.e., ranging from naming, stating, detailing and you may predicating (we.e., saying one thing in the something or somebody).”But not, because you penned soon in advance of you to, Hegel is seeking to tell you “that motion are built into Our very own Concepts, since imagine tickets from one rod to another” (my personal caps).Such aren’t the http://datingranking.net/bicupid-review same issue.Concepts relate to understanding; data of your own properties one terms and conditions play from inside the a words really does perhaps not.Very, by way of example, it is yes possible and also make a logical distinction between this new “is” out-of identity and the “is” out-of predication, but We happen to possess encountered many individuals whom try in order to explain some thing by giving examples of her or him (I’m an instructor). The comments regarding just what one thing “are” support the contradiction you say is not present, no?Also it isn’t really obvious in my experience that an important definition-in lieu of a directories away from features (predicates)-can always be given. Define “Jesus,” such as for example.
- 5 Rosa Lichtenstein told you at the 2:forty eight pm towards : Andrew, first and foremost, new page your realize try a simple addition back at my details intended for beginners. I establish my dispute in the a lot more outline at hyperlinks listed in the bottom:”Yet not, as you had written shortly just before one, Hegel try looking to reveal “you to motion are built into Our Concepts, due to the fact believe seats from rod to another” (my personal limits).Principles have to do with understanding; studies of your qualities you to definitely terminology play from inside the a language do not.Very, for instance, it’s indeed you can making a logical difference between the latest “is” from name together with “is” off predication, but I occur to has actually discovered many individuals exactly who are to help you define anything by giving examples of her or him (I’m a teacher). Their comments off exactly what something “are” keep the paradox you state is not expose, zero?”I really don’t pick this alleged ‘contradiction’, and none your neither Hegel demonstrate that there’s you to definitely right here.”Therefore isn’t really clear for me you to definitely a significant definition-in lieu of a listing out-of functions (predicates)-can invariably get. Explain “Goodness,” eg.”And, I am not sure what is causing brought the phrase “definition” here, since i don’t use this keyword.Finally:”Rules pertain to consciousness; study of properties one to terms and conditions gamble for the a words really does maybe not.”
I’m far from convinced that you (otherwise Hegel) tends to make so it change – even Hegel had to use language (and you may illegitimately so, as i demonstrated) to attempt to generate his part
He may have *thought* he had been discussing ‘concepts’, but what we really discover your carrying out is balancing which have jargonised linguistic terms. Hence, my problem off their use of words are genuine.
It is correctly since Hegel spoilt such an effective “distortion” away from ordinary-language which he thought he might get a ‘contradiction’ (and this was not one anyway).
It is (it?) try a contradiction in the event the just in case this new Intended “is” is the “is” out of title. It’s just like, or even a real exemplory instance of, a contradiction with regards to (including “round square”) otherwise class mistake (red-colored logarithm).” However,, you really have but really to demonstrate talking about ‘contradictions’, and you may, however, the term ‘contradiction for the terms’ is actually a great misnomer. [If you like us to establish as to the reasons, I am able to.]