Sewerage and drainpipes portal / Cesspool / Concepts of concrete thinking according to Hegel. Who thinks abstractly: Hegel on how to judge people

Concepts of concrete thinking according to Hegel. Who thinks abstractly: Hegel on how to judge people

15.09.2020

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists using the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Tula branch of the NOU VPO MOSCOW ACADEMY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP under the Government of Moscow

Test

by discipline: Philosophy

on the subject: Philosophy of Hegel: system and method

-Hegel G. "Who thinks abstractly?" Works of different years. M., 1972 T. 2. Key ideasand their significance for modern times

Completed: 2nd year student gr. 47

in the specialty: "Management"

Belan Anastasia

tula, 2014

1. System and method of Hegel's philosophy

2. Philosophical system

3. Philosophy of nature

4. Philosophy of spirit

5. Dialectical method

6. Analysis of the article by G.V.F. Hegel “Who thinks abstractly?

List of references

1. The system and method of Hegel's philosophy

GeorgeWilliamFrederickHegel (1770-1831) was born into the family of a major official. He studied at the Tübingen Theological Institute. For some time he worked as a home teacher. He served as director of the gymnasium in Nuremberg. From 1801 he taught at Jena University. At this time he, together with Schelling, published the "Critical Philosophical Journal". Since 1816

Hegel is a professor at the University of Heidelberg, and since 1818 - at the University of Berlin. For some time he was its rector.

Hegel's work is considered the pinnacle of classical German philosophy. In it the dialectical ideas put forward by Kant, Fichte, Schelling found continuation. But Hegel went much further than his great predecessors. He was the first to present the entire natural, historical and spiritual world in continuous development. He discovered and substantiated the basic laws and categories of dialectics from the standpoint of objective idealism. He deliberately opposed dialectics as a method of cognition to its antipode - metaphysics. Agreeing with the need to study the prerequisites of knowledge, on which Kant insisted, Hegel rightly reproached him for trying to present them outside the history of knowledge, in isolation from human mental activity. Kant, as you know, put forward the requirement: learn the ability of cognition before you begin to learn something. This is similar to the anecdote that is told about a scholastic who did not want to enter the water before he learned to swim, Hegel sneers. philosophy hegel thinking abstract

Hegel is an opponent of Kantian agnosticism and a priori. He disagrees with the metaphysical gap between essence and appearance, which Kant insisted on. The phenomenon, according to Hegel, is no less objective than the essence. The essence is, i.e. is found in the phenomenon, and the phenomenon acts as the carrier of the essence. It is a unity of opposites that cannot exist without each other. Therefore, Kant's statements about the fundamental unknowability of things-in-themselves are inconsistent. The thing-in-itself, Hegel teaches, is only an initial moment, only a step in the development of a thing. "So, for example, a man in himself is a child, a sprout is a plant in himself ... All things are in themselves first, but the matter does not stop there."

Contrary to Kant, the thing-in-itself, firstly, develops, entering into diverse relationships, and, secondly, is knowable, since it reveals itself in phenomena.

Criticizing Kantian subjectivism and agnosticism, Hegel recognizes the possibility of adequate knowledge of the world on the basis of the identity of thinking and being. Fichte's attempt to deduce the whole nature and society from the "I" is also untenable, Hegel believes, i.e. from the individual consciousness. He criticized Schelling for his penchant for intuition, for underestimating the role of reason and logic. However, common to Hegel and his predecessors was the idealistic solution to the question of the relationship between consciousness and the nature of matter. The differences between them in this matter are the differences between objective and subjective idealism.

Hegel's philosophy is the most rationalized and logicalized objective idealism. All that exists is based on the laws of thinking, i.e. laws of logic. But logic is not formal, but coincides with dialectics - dialectical logic. When asked where these laws came from, Hegel simply answers: these are the thoughts of God before the creation of the world. Logic is "an image of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and any finite spirit."

2.Philosophical system

The philosophical system is divided by Hegel into three parts:

1) logic,

2) philosophy of nature,

3) philosophy of spirit.

Logic, from his point of view, is a system of "pure reason" that coincides with divine reason. However, how could Hegel know the thoughts of God, and even before the creation of the world? The philosopher simply postulates this thesis, i.e. introduces without proof. In fact, Hegel draws his system of logic not from sacred books, but from the great book of nature and social development itself. Therefore, the most seemingly mystical part of his philosophy - logic - is based on a huge natural-scientific, historical material that was at the disposal of an encyclopedically educated thinker.

The "thoughts of God" are the most general laws of the development of nature, society and thinking. It is in logic that Hegel's dialectical idealism stands closest to dialectical materialism. In essence, this is materialism turned upside down and turned upside down. The matter, of course, cannot be reduced to a simple “overturning”. There are significant differences between Hegel's idealist dialectics and materialist dialectics, which will be discussed below.

The starting point of Hegel's philosophy is the identity of thinking (consciousness) and being. Things and thoughts about them coincide; therefore, thinking in its immanent definitions and the true nature of things are one and the same.

Logics ... The identity of being and thinking, from the point of view of Hegel, is the substantial unity of the world. But identity is not abstract, but concrete, i.e. one that also implies a difference. Identity and difference are the unity of opposites. Absolute identity, as in Schelling's, excludes the very possibility of development. Thinking and being are subject to the same laws, this is the rational meaning of Hegel's position on a specific identity.

Objective absolute thinking, Hegel believes, is not only the beginning, but also the driving force behind the development of all that exists. Manifesting in all the variety of phenomena, it acts as absolute idea.

The absolute idea does not stand still. It develops continuously, passing from one stage to another, more concrete and meaningful. The ascent from the abstract to the concrete is a general principle of development.

The highest stage of development - " absolute spirit". At this stage, the absolute idea manifests itself in the sphere of human history and makes itself the object of thought.

The philosophical system of Hegel's objective idealism has some peculiarities. Firstly, pantheism... Divine thought hovers not somewhere in the heavens, it permeates the whole world, constituting the essence of every, even the smallest thing. Secondly, panlogism... Objective divine thinking is strictly logical. And thirdly, dialectics.

Hegel is characterized by epistemological optimism, a conviction in the knowability of the world. The subjective spirit, human consciousness, comprehending things, discovers in them the manifestation of the absolute spirit, divine thinking. Hence follows an important conclusion for Hegel: everything that is real is reasonable, everything that is rational is real... Many were mistaken in interpreting the thesis of the rationality of everything that is real as an apology for everything that exists. In fact, existing, Hegel believed, is reasonable only in a certain sense, namely, when it expresses some kind of necessity, regularity. Only then can existing things be qualified as something reasonable. But as soon as the necessity for the existence of something disappears, it loses its status as real and must necessarily disappear. Outdated forms of life will certainly give way to a new one, such is the true meaning of Hegel's formula.

So, logic is a natural movement of concepts (categories) that express the content of an absolute idea, the stages of its self-development.

Where does the movement of this idea begin? After a long discussion of this difficult problem, Hegel comes to the conclusion that the category of pure being is the beginning. Being, in his opinion, does not have an eternal existence and should arise. But from what? Obviously, out of nothingness, out of nothingness. “So far there is nothing and something must arise. The beginning is not pure nothing, but such a nothing, from which something must come, being, therefore, is already contained in the beginning as well. The beginning, therefore, contains in itself both, being and nothing; it is the unity of being and nothing or, in other words, it is non-being, which is at the same time being, and being, which is at the same time non-being. "

One might get the impression that we are dealing with a verbal balancing act devoid of meaning. Hegel's line of thought seems artificial if one proceeds from the natural-scientific, deterministic premises. Indeed, out of nothingness, out of nothingness, something cannot arise. But after all, Hegel is not talking about the real world, but about the thoughts of God before the creation of the world.

If we abstract ourselves from the mystical plots of the divine creation of the world, being out of nothing, then in the philosopher's reasoning we will find a rational content, or, as they say, a rational grain. Being and non-being is the unity of opposites. One category denies the other. As a result, a third category arises, which synthesizes both previous ones. Hegel calls this new category becoming... "Becoming is the inseparability of being and nothing ... in other words, such a unity in which there is both being and nothing." Becoming is a dialectical process of emergence, which it is appropriate to call becoming, represents a turning point when things as an established integrity do not yet exist, but one cannot say that it does not exist at all. And in this sense, becoming can be considered a unity of non-being and being. “Becoming is erratic anxietywhich settles turns into a certain calm result» .

Synthesis of categories pure being and nothing gives the category of becoming, and from it a transition to the present is possible, i.e. some definite being. This is the scheme proposed by Hegel.

If Hegel seeks to express the dialectical process of emergence with the help of the category of becoming, then the process of disappearance, destruction is expressed by him with the help of the category of sublimation. It must be borne in mind that the German verb aufheben - to remove - has many meanings, including negative ones: to stop, cancel, abolish, eliminate. But at the same time, it also has a number of positive meanings: to save, preserve, provide. Accordingly, the noun Aufheben means both abolition and preservation. Hegel also refers to Latin, where the verb tollere has two meanings:

1) destroy, deny, remove and

2) exalt.

The philosopher does not accidentally use linguistic polysemy. In this case, it expresses a spontaneous dialectic and its main feature: identity of opposites... Nothing in the world perishes without a trace, but serves as a material, an initial step for the emergence of a new one. This pattern is reflected in the withdrawal category, as well as in the category negation, which Hegel widely uses in his philosophical system. Each category expresses one moment, an aspect of the development process and simultaneously serves as a starting point for the next category, which denies, removes the previous category. The new denies the old, but dialectically denies it: it does not just throw it aside and destroy, but preserves and in a revised form uses the viable elements of the old to create the new. This denial Hegel calls specific.

For Hegel, denial is not a one-act, but in fact an endless process. And in this process, he finds everywhere a bundle of three elements: thesis - antithesis - synthesis... As a result of the denial of any position taken as a thesis, an opposition (antithesis) arises. The latter is necessarily denied. Double negation occurs, or negation negation, which leads to the emergence of the third link, synthesis. At a higher level, it reproduces some of the features of the first, initial link. This whole construction is called a triad.

In Hegel's philosophy, the triad performs not only a methodological function, but also a system-creating function. This is not only a substantive principle, or the law of dialectics, but also a way of building a system. The entire architectonics, the structure of Hegel's philosophy obeys a threefold rhythm, is built in accordance with the requirements of the triad. In general, Hegel's philosophy is divided into three parts: - logic, philosophy of nature and philosophy of spirit. These are not adjacent parts that can be swapped. This is a triad, where each part expresses a natural stage of dialectical development. At least, Hegel himself thinks so. He also divides logic into three parts: the doctrine of being, the doctrine of essence and the doctrine of the concept. Each of these parts is also a triad. The doctrine of being, for example, includes:

1) certainty (quality),

2) value (quantity),

Quality has three parts:

b) being in existence,

c) for - itself - being.

Being, about which we have already spoken, is a triad: pure being - nothing - becoming. Here the limit of division has been reached, or a triad consisting of categories, each of which cannot be decomposed into triads.

There is neither the possibility nor the need to expound this whole complex system of large and small triads. Let's dwell on some of the most important points. The result of becoming is the present being. Unlike pure being, this being is definite, endowed with quality. Quality is the first immediate determination of being; Any thing is different from others due to its inherent quality. By virtue of qualitative certainty, things not only differ from each other, but relate to each other.

The category of quality precedes in Hegel's logic the category quantity... This order generally corresponds to the history of human cognition. Savages (like children) distinguish things according to their qualitative determination, although they do not know how to count, i.e. do not know quantitative relationships.

The synthesis of qualitative and quantitative certainty is a measure. Each thing, insofar as it is qualitatively determined, is a measure. Breaking the measure changes the quality and transforms one thing into another. There is a break in gradualism, or a quantum leap.

Hegel decisively opposes flat evolutionism, which recognizes only a gradual transition from one qualitative state to another. “They say: there are no leaps in nature ... But we have shown that, in general, a change in being is not only a transition from one quantity to another, but also a transition from a qualitative to a quantitative and vice versa, becoming different, which is a break in gradualness, and qualitatively different in comparison with the previous state ". Through cooling, the water does not become solid gradually, it does not become mushy at first, so that then, gradually becoming harder and harder, it reaches the consistency of ice, but solidifies immediately. Having already reached the freezing point, it can still completely retain its liquid state if it remains at rest, and a slight shock brings it to a solid state.

Hegel gives another example, but this time from the moral sphere. Here, too, there are transitions from quantitative changes to qualitative ones, and the "quality difference" turns out to be based on the difference in values. So, thanks to quantitative changes, the measure of frivolity is surpassed and the result is something completely different, namely crime. A qualitative leap can turn law into injustice, virtue into vice. The philosopher's reasoning is also curious: states, other things being equal, acquire a different qualitative character due to their difference in size. Laws and the political system turn into something else when the size of the state increases and the number of citizens increases. The state has a measure of its magnitude, surpassing which it irrepressibly disintegrates under the same state structure, which, with a different size, constituted its happiness and strength.

Hegel convincingly substantiates what later became known as the law of the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones and vice versa by leaps. The development of science and social practice has confirmed the correctness of this dialectical law discovered by Hegel.

The dialectic of the transition from quantity to quality answers the question of form development of all natural and spiritual things. But an even more important question remains about driving force, the impulse of this development. And here Hegel seeks the answer not in the other world, but in reality itself. He formulates this answer in the doctrine of entities... "By only wandering from one quality to another and by only one transition from qualitative to quantitative and vice versa, the matter is not yet over, but there is something abiding in things, this abiding is, first of all, essence."

Quality, quantity, measure - all of these, as already mentioned, are categories of being. These are the forms in which we perceive reality and perceive it empirically, empirically. But empirically it is impossible to comprehend the essence of things. Essence is the inner basis of being, and being is the outer form of essence. There are no pure essences, they are expressed, manifest in the forms of being. Essence is the same being, but at a higher level. Essence, as the inner cause of being, is not identical with the latter, it is different from him. In other words, essence is cognized from the opposite of immediate being. This means that cognition must go deeper, reveal their essence in phenomena.

What, according to Hegel, is this hidden essence of being? In short, in his internal inconsistency... Everything that exists contains a contradiction, a unity of opposing moments.

Identity, unity of opposites - the key concept of Hegel's logic. The ordinary consciousness is afraid of contradiction, considering it to be something abnormal. Yes, and formal logic with its laws (consistency, excluded third) prohibits logical contradictions. Hegel speaks many unfriendly words about this logic. But in fact he is not against formal logic, but against its absolutization. This logic cannot claim to be a general methodology as opposed to dialectics. In this case, formal logic turns into metaphysics. Correctly interpreted formal;) logic prohibits absurd contradictions, doctrinal contradictions, verbal, confusing reasoning. Hegel fulfills these requirements, otherwise he would simply not be understood. But besides the contradictions of incorrect reasoning, there are real contradictions, the contradictions of life itself. And nobody can get rid of them. "Contradiction is what really drives the world, and it is ridiculous to say that contradiction cannot be thought." "Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality, only insofar as it has a contradiction in itself, it moves, has impulse and activity."

Contradiction leads forward, it is the principle of all self-movement. Even the simplest type of movement - the movement of a body in space - is a constantly arising and immediately resolving contradiction. Something moves not only because it is now here, and at another moment there, but also because it is at the same moment both here and not here, i.e. and is, and is not at a given point on the trajectory. Hegel proposes "together with the ancient thinkers" to recognize the contradictions they discovered in the movement. But it does not follow from this that there is no movement, but, on the contrary, it follows that movement is an existing contradiction.

"Ancient dialectics", and these are the philosophers of the Eleatic school and, above all, Zeno, revealed in their aporias the objective contradictions inherent in movement, space, time. But since any contradictions were considered an unacceptable anomaly, an error of logical reasoning, the revealed contradictions were declared an appearance generated by the imperfection of sensory cognition. And in its essence, the world comprehended by the mind is devoid of both movement and diversity. A similar line of reasoning in Kant: the attempt of reason to comprehend things in itself leads to antinomies, i.e. to insoluble logical contradictions. According to Kant, the impotence of reason and the unknowability of the world should be recognized. Hegel, on the other hand, does not agree with this: the revealed contradictions testify not to the powerlessness of reason, but to its power. Antinomies are not a dead end, but a path leading to truth. “Since each of the two opposite sides contains in itself its other and none of them can be thought without the other, it follows that none of these definitions, taken separately, is not true, but only their unity is true. This is a truly dialectical way of considering these definitions, as well as the true result. " One cannot metaphysically divorce the finite from the infinite, discontinuity from continuity, freedom from necessity, etc. This is the essence of the dialectical way of thinking. The doctrine of the concept is the third and final part of Hegel's logic. Here he most sharply expresses the point of view of absolute idealism. From these positions, the philosopher criticizes formal logic, which sees in the concept "an empty and abstract form." “In fact, everything is the other way around: the concept is the beginning of all life, it is entirely concrete. This is a conclusion from all the logical movement done so far and therefore does not require proof here. " And why, in fact, does not require? Formal logic formulates the law of sufficient reason; every thought must be proved either by experimental data, facts, or with the help of scientific and other logical conclusions from already proven positions. Hence, proof can be either inductive or deductive. But Hegel does not need any of this. The concept and other logical forms are not, as he believes, a reflection of things. On the contrary, things are secondary, they are reflections of concepts, they must correspond to them. And concepts are of divine origin. After all, “God created the world from Nothing, or, in other words, ... the world and finite things came from the fullness of divine thought and divine designs. By this we recognize that thought, or, more precisely, a concept, is that infinite form, or free creative activity, which for its realization does not need material outside. " Neither concepts, nor judgments, nor inferences are found only in our head and are not formed only by us. The concept is that which lives in things, to understand an object means, therefore, to realize its concept.

All this, of course, is absolute idealism: real things in their essence are concepts, judgments and inferences. However, there is a rational moment here too: logical forms are not the subjective creation of the human head (although, from the point of view of materialism, they cannot exist outside this head), but a reflection of the laws of the objective world, the usual relations of things. Hegel correctly emphasizes that concepts, judgments and inferences are a dialectical unity of such categories as the universal, the particular and the individual. But this unity is inherent in real things, in the objective world, and then, and because of this, in logical forms. Applying the dialectical method to the analysis of logical concepts, judgments, inferences, Hegel, in contrast to traditional formal logic, revealed the dialectics of these forms. Marx rightly considered Hegelian dialectics to be the basic form of all dialectics, but only after it had been cleared of its mystical form.

3. Philosophy of nature

Hegel considers nature to be the second stage in the development of the absolute idea. Nature is a product of an absolute idea, its otherness. Generated by the spirit, nature has no existence independent of it. This is how Hegel resolves the fundamental question of philosophy, although this expression itself is not used by him. At the same time, Hegel tries to dissociate himself from the traditional religious concept of the creation of the world. The absolute idea at the level of logic exists, in his words, outside of time and space. It is no coincidence that these categories are absent in his logic. As Hegel says, it is wrong to talk about what happened before and what after. The expressions "before" and "later" are not appropriate for this case. They express a "purely logical" primary and secondary. And although Hegel's God is not entirely traditional, but an abstract idea of \u200b\u200bthe world mind, he still does not renounce the Christian dogma of the creation of the world.

Nature interests Hegel not in itself, but as a necessary stage in the development of the absolute idea. He considers mechanics, physics, organic matter its manifestations in nature. The transition from inanimate to living nature completes a purely natural process. Spirit emerges from nature, breaking through the outer crust of materiality as something lower.

A biased philosophical scheme did not allow Hegel to understand properly the dialectics of nature. Oddly enough, the great dialectician did not accept the evolutionary ideas in geology, organic chemistry, embryology, plant and animal physiology, which were advanced for his time. He called the evolutionary doctrine of the origin of more developed organisms from lower ones empty. In his opinion, all the variety of changes in nature fits within the framework of the eternal cycle. Therefore, "nothing is new under the moon," and the varied play of forms of nature "causes boredom." Only in the changes that take place in the spiritual sphere does the new manifest itself.

Sometimes there is no logic in Hegel's reasoning about nature, be it dialectical or formal. Engels rightly calls the philosopher's statement that nature develops in space, but not in time, as nonsense. After all, it is precisely time that is the main condition for all development.

Contrary to this, Hegel expresses deep dialectical guesses, which were confirmed in the further development of natural science. These include, for example, instructions on the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative ones in chemical processes, the understanding of electricity as a special form of motion of matter. On the whole, the philosopher was unable to overcome the metaphysical, mechanistic understanding of nature. He remained in the position of the old philosophy of nature, the essence of which is that a philosopher as a representative of the "science of sciences" and the owner of "absolute knowledge" can disregard the opinion of specialists in specific areas of natural science. This, apparently, should explain Hegel's protests against atomism, his non-recognition of the wave and corpuscular theories of light, the assertion that blood balls are formed only when blood comes into contact with air. Hence the strange formulas: "light is the simplest thought that exists under the form of nature", "sound is a complaint of the ideal," etc.

4. Philosophy of spirit

This is the third stage of the Hegelian system, which is a synthesis of the two previous ones. Here the absolute idea, as it were, awakens, frees itself from natural bonds and finds its expression in the absolute spirit. Man is part of nature. However, the human spirit is not a product of nature, but absolute spirit... And nature itself is generated by the spirit. “For us, the spirit has its prerequisite nature, he is her truth, and thus absolutely the first in relation to her. In this truth, nature disappeared, and the spirit was revealed in it as an idea that reached for - itself - being. " Self-development of the spirit goes through three steps. The first one is “ subjective spirit"- individual human consciousness, subdivided into three types: anthropology, phenomenology and psychology. The second stage “objective spirit” is human society and its three main forms: law, morality, state. The last step is “ absolute spirit"- includes art, religion, philosophy.

The problems raised by Hegel in the "Philosophy of the Spirit" are considered in more detail by him in a series of works: "The Phenomenology of Spirit", "Philosophy of History", "Philosophy of Law", "Aesthetics", "Philosophy of Religion", "Lectures on the History of Philosophy".

Philosophy of the Spirit is a work devoted mainly to individual and social consciousness, as well as to the dialectics of historical development.

Spirit is something unified and whole, but in the process of development, transition from lower to higher. Hegel considers the dialectical contradiction between subject and object, thought and object to be the driving force behind the development of the spirit. Overcoming this contradiction, the spirit progresses in the consciousness of its freedom. “The substance of the spirit is freedom, that is, independence from the other, attitude towards oneself. " Real freedom, according to Hegel, does not consist in denying necessity, but in its awareness, in the disclosure of its content, which has an ideal character. The history of mankind is progress in the consciousness of freedom, but again freedom of spirit and thought. Of course, Hegel's understanding of freedom was of a progressive nature, since it was directed against feudal remnants.

As for the philosophy of history, it has a teleological character in Hegel, i.e. the development of society is directed towards a predetermined goal. The philosopher divides world history into three eras: Eastern, Antique and Germanic. The Eastern era is completely devoid of the consciousness of freedom, in the ancient era, the consciousness of freedom was reached by a select minority, and as for the Germanic peoples, primarily the Germans, they have already reached the stage of freedom. The artificial nature and bias of such a scheme is quite obvious. The estate system, the monarchy (though constitutional) fit, according to Hegel, into the category of freedom. He considered the state not only the embodiment of freedom, but also the procession of God on earth. The limit of the development of human society and its political institutions is the constitutional monarchy, which retains the class features, but promotes reforms in the bourgeois-liberal spirit.

Events of world history are a dialectic of individual "folk spirits". Each nation with its inherent "spirit" is one of the stages, or moments of world history. And world history realizes the "absolute goal of the world." However, the overwhelming majority of peoples remain outside the bounds of progress and are declared unhistorical. They could not express any moments of the absolute spirit. Especially unlucky in this sense, the peoples of the East, the Slavs. They have no future and are forever frozen in their development. If world history begins in the East, then it ends in the West. Here the "absolute goal of the world" is realized. The development of human society, according to Hegel, must stop in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. Here is the peak and the end of world history. Here it "stops its course."

Art, religion and philosophy stand even higher in Hegel's system. And not just any, but the philosophy of Hegel himself. It was in her that the absolute idea found its full embodiment. Hegel believed that the essence of the world is as it is depicted in his philosophy, especially in "Logic". His philosophy is "the only", "absolute", "philosophy in general."

Ironically about such claims, L. Feuerbach noted: “But no matter how witty this author may be, he nevertheless acts uncritically right off the bat, without asking himself the question: is it possible at all for the genus of the absolute to be realized in one artist, and philosophy in one philosopher. "

5. Dialectical method

As already mentioned, in Hegel's philosophy it is necessary to distinguish between the research method and the system according to which the material is not only presented, but also structured. Method, according to Hegel, "is the movement of the very essence of the matter," the consciousness of "the inner self-movement of the content." He wears Hegel dialectical character, being the most general expression of the contradictory development of the world. The dialectical method, its principles and categories are developed mainly in the first part of its system. The system is the order of presentation of the material chosen by the philosopher, the connection of logical categories, the general construction of the entire philosophical building. Unlike the method, which is mainly determined by the objective content of the world, the system in many respects bears the features of the author's arbitrariness. The main principle of structural construction is the triad, as we could see. It has a rational meaning (an expression of the dialectical law of negation). However, Hegel formalizes this principle and often uses it as a template to which concrete material is forced to obey. Therefore, many transitions of categories are of an arbitrary, artificial nature. For example, the last triad in the system: art - religion - philosophy. To substantiate the logical connection between them, to show that philosophy is a synthesis, the unity of art and religion - this task remained unresolved. Hegel simply declares, but does not substantiate this construction.

Feuerbach, Herzen, Engels and other thinkers drew attention to contradiction between method and system in Hegel's philosophy... Spirit itself dialectical method contradicts the formalized conservative system. This contradiction cannot be classified as dialectical, it is a doctrine contradiction that is prohibited by both formal and dialectical logic. Hegel gives a paradoxical picture: dialectics with its struggle of opposites, spiritual and historical progress are actually turned into the past. They have no place either in the present or in the future: the "absolute goal" of progress has been achieved. For Hegel, the dialectical method cannot serve as an instrument for critical comprehension and transformation of reality. For it to become such, it is necessary to discard the conservative system of Hegelian philosophy. And this was done by K. Marx and F. Engels. The idealist dialectic was replaced by the materialist dialectic.

Hegelian philosophy is one of those classical doctrines that are fraught with endless interpretations. One of these interpretations of Hegel's philosophy was Marxism, which reworked Hegel's philosophy from the standpoint of materialism and had a tremendous impact not only on the subsequent development of philosophy, but also on the entire culture of the 20th century. However, of course, the importance of Hegel's philosophy is not limited to its influence on Marxism, since Hegel's philosophy has other outstanding followers who continued his line of objective idealism. In general, the words of his aphorism can be fully attributed to the philosophical heritage of Hegel: "A great man condemns people to explain him."

6. Analysis of the article by G.V.F. Hegel “Who thinks abstractly? Hegel G.V. F. Who thinks abstractly? // He's the same. Works of different years. In 2 vols. Vol. 1 - M .: Thought, 1972.

According to the definition, abstract thinking is the ability to translate information about · real objects into symbols, manipulate these symbols, · find some solution and apply this decision again to objects in · practice. This level is quite developed among modern people, since it works for science, which occupies a very large place in our life. The level of abstract thinking is most strongly developed among physicists and mathematicians. In a child, abstract thinking begins to manifest itself when he says that a cloud is a ship. If a commander, thinking of a battle, places potatoes on the table, and then wins the battle according to this plan, then this is already a successful translation of the solution found at the abstract level to the physical plane. Any equations with unknowns can be solved only if there is some degree of abstract thinking. Even the language itself is already a set of symbols, because the word “book” and a real book are very different things, and a person has learned many successful operations with the help of developed symbols and designations. In the emotional cry of an animal, · warning of danger, there is emotional energy, rather · directly conveying information. But if · two people talk about the methods of deduction and induction, while not losing · connection in their minds with those objects that are subject to the laws of induction · and deduction, then this is a correctly working abstract thinking, completely absent in animals. The artist can perform well the roles due to the · ability to reincarnate, imitate, without having a filled level · abstract thinking. But the poet, in order for his poems to evoke deep feelings in the reader, must create images that are sufficiently abstracted from the objects he is actually talking about, and subtly hinting at the individual qualities of these objects. For this he needs to have both levels filled: aestheticism and abstract thinking. Abstract thinking [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.sunhome.ru/psychology/51254. - Date of access: 04.12.2013.

The psychological portrait of a person with a pronounced level of abstract thinking can be depicted as follows: energy is collected in the head, almost all the time thoughts, reasoning, chains of facts, conclusions, etc. flow in it. People with abstract thinking prefer · to speak in the language of symbols, complex concepts, they themselves enjoy this process ·. Most often, abstract thinking is present in men; it is believed that there are few "abstract" among women. In their studies, the element of such people is the Faculties of Mechanics and Mathematics and Physics and Technology. People endowed with abstract thinking are often careless in their clothes - they may not pay attention or even simply not notice what they are wearing and whether the buttons are properly buttoned. Their energy is removed from the physical plane and is occupied with mental constructions. In conversation, they often build long arguments, sometimes forgetting where they started. The lack of people with abstract thinking is inattention to others. · Problems that worry the people around them seem small and not worthy of attention. People with abstract thinking live in their personal world, · are centered on themselves, therefore it is most difficult for them to develop altruism in the same place. ...

It should be noted that the widespread opinion that “Abstract thinking is the ability to translate information about · real objects into symbols, manipulate these symbols, · find some kind of solution and apply this solution again to objects in · practice” Ibid. does not apply to abstractology, since it has a limitation, namely: from the point of view of abstractology, abstract thinking is precisely thinking, and not skill, abilities, manipulations, finding a solution and their application ... For example, with a real abstract approach, finding decisions and abstract thinking are not related in any way. A person can think without achieving any goal. And the solution can come to him suddenly, when he does not think at all about the specific problem that needs to be solved. Any skills, experience are abstract, which means they have no real meaning. In abstract thinking there is only one skill - to think abstractly, proceeding from what has been said above about the state, goal, approach. And this is not even a skill, and not a skill of the mind in general. This comes from a state to which the mind is more likely to be subordinate, rather than as a controlling Abstract thinking [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://wikimoments.org/publ/15-1-0-55. - Date of access: 04.12.2013.

Abstract thinking is the opposite of the usual linear thinking of people, built on a causal model. This kind of thinking makes the range of perception of people very narrow. According to the source, the entire educational system is built on this model, as a result of which a person grows up with narrow opportunities. Almost all science, including psychology, which studies thinking, is built on this model, which places huge restrictions on the development of human thought and civilization as a whole. The only science built on abstract thinking is philosophy.

The concept of abstract thinking allows for a transcendent, abstract state - this is the state of "distraction", non-involvement. In abstract thinking, the goal is abstract: a person thinks without trying to achieve a result, but simply because he thinks. People who are inherent in abstract thinking have both advantages and disadvantages due to this thinking. The advantages include, firstly, the ability to think in complex categories, draw abstract conclusions, see situations from different angles; secondly, they have a strong mental apparatus, they have a great capacity for work and enthusiasm in their field; thirdly, they have the ability to detach themselves from the physical plane. The disadvantages inherent in people with abstract thinking include selfishness, self-centeredness; distraction, inattention to others; going into abstraction so much that conclusions become impractical; large expenditures of energy for theory, little remains for practice.

In the article by G.V.F. Hegel's "Who thinks abstractly?" in a journalistic form accessible to every reader, without being loaded with scientific philosophical terms, the author's point of view on the essence of abstract thinking is presented, which runs counter to the generally accepted opinion. Hegel from the analysis of mental abstraction passes on to the personality of the thinker, expressing the results of thinking in words. In general, the article is devoted to explaining one of the central ideas of Hegel's dialectics - the idea of \u200b\u200bthe concreteness of truth.

The article begins with a questioningly funny, even ironic appeal to the reader, and this ironic and questioning tone persists throughout the story. Despite the fact that Hegel's address is impersonal, it becomes clear that, first of all, he is addressing those who consider abstract thinking - along with metaphysics and thinking in general - to be almost indecent. This opinion was prevalent at the dawn of metaphysics and abstractology, and the author already here, at the very beginning, expresses in a few words his attitude to this opinion: “After all,“ metaphysics ”(as well as“ abstract ”and even almost“ think ”) is a frightening word, from which everyone in one way or another runs away, like from the plague ”Ibid. ...

Meanwhile, Hegel writes, despite the fact that the world does not like explanations (just as the author himself does not like them, by his own admission: “I myself get scared, hardly anyone starts to explain, because if need be, I I myself will somehow be able to understand "), just as he does not like abstractions, he still recommends that you read the article, since it is impossible to love or not love what you do not know, and Hegel is sure that most do not know about the correct understanding of abstract thinking ... Therefore, he explains that the article is just about the fact that any explanations are superfluous, and precisely for the reason that secular society knows what "abstract" is and that it avoids it. The author assures the reader that he is not going to "push through" the "abstract" and thinking under any other guise, so that, getting used to it, the world would consider it understandable and recognized. Such an approach, from Hegel's point of view, is fraught with miscalculation, since a deceived society would not accept the understanding obtained at a dear price for itself - “embarrassment”.

The author says that there is no mystery or intrigue, since the problem has already been voiced and is in the title of the article. And to read it or not is voluntary, because all things, objects and phenomena are called by their proper names.

Having established that in a respectable society (namely, in such a society, the author and readers are) everyone is familiar with the concept of "think" and the concept of "abstract", Hegel focuses on the fact that it is necessary to show who exactly thinks abstractly. Having no intention of reconciling society with these concepts, Hegel sets the task of “reconciling society with itself”, since “, on the one hand, it neglects abstract thinking, without feeling any remorse, and on the other hand, it still has , but at least in the soul, a certain respect as to something sublime ", and avoids it not because it considers abstract thinking to be something base, vulgar, unworthy, but because it considers it" something too tall and significant ”, aristocratic and even extravagant, such as clothing, a certain feature, the presence of which puts outside of society, makes it funny or too old-fashioned.

Further, the author gives a paradoxical assertion that it is not an educated person who lathers abstractly, but an uneducated person, because for a decent society consisting of educated people, such thinking is too simple, limited, as an occupation is insignificant and internally empty. And he gives a convincing reasoning for this statement. As the first example of abstract thinking, the author cites a murderer led to execution. Most of the crowd who have gathered for the spectacle see in him only a murderer, sentenced to death; for them this person is faceless, soulless, they do not want to know why he committed a crime, what kind of life he had, whether he had a family, parents, children. He is something abstract, the "killer" is no longer a man. And if any lady notices that the killer is an interesting man, she will be condemned, because according to the general opinion of the abstractly thinking crowd, which sees only a narrow fragment of reality, this lady behaves indecently: she saw in the killer an outwardly interesting person. This approach is typical for people with abstract thinking. Even if some connoisseur of human nature finds out that the person sentenced to death had a difficult childhood, that he was undeservedly punished and as a result he became angry with the whole civil society, or that a person committed murder in order to protect his own life or threaten the life of someone from relatives - such a crowd will say that he wants to justify the murderer. Not a person who has committed a crime, but a murderer - a narrow fragment of the entire human personality sentenced to death. Hegel writes: “This is what is called to think abstractly - not to see in a murderer nothing more than the abstract, that he is a murderer, eliminating all other qualities of a human being in him through this simple quality” Hegel GVF. Who thinks abstractly? // He's the same. Works of different years. In 2 vols. Vol. 1 - M .: Mysl, 1972.

Next, the author shows another example of abstract thinking - a wheel showered with flowers with a criminal tied to it, ironically noting that "Christians like to lay out a cross with roses, or rather roses with a cross, to combine roses and a cross." Hegel calls the cross a gallows, which has long been turned into a shrine, an instrument of dishonorable execution, which has lost its original meaning and now combines in one image "the highest suffering and deepest humiliation with the most joyful bliss, with divine honor." by: ibid. ... He calls the cross entwined with flowers a sentimental vanity, a reconciliation "in the Kotzebue style", a way of "untidy kissing of sentimentality with rubbish" Cit. by: ibid. ... Here, too, Hegel believes, abstract thinking does not allow one to deviate from the stereotype of the martyr, the martyr's cross, and the crowd does not think that it is an instrument of execution, for such a breadth of thought it lacks education, intelligence, etc.

Another kind of abstract thinking the author showed in the reaction of a certain old woman from an almshouse to a severed head lying on the scaffold and illuminated by the sun. She was glad that the killer's head was illuminated by the sun, which meant it was worth it. Hegel notes that when a mischievous person is angry with him, they say: "You are not worth the sun shining on you!" So, according to the subjective opinion of the old woman, the severed head was worth it to be illuminated by the sun, so that she would join grace, i.e. some kind of supreme mercy and goodness is shown, which, however, is completely useless for a severed head. To objectively assess the situation that a person has been deprived of life, has been executed, and that the severed head is lying on the scaffold, the old woman cannot do this. But at the same time, she called the executed by name - for her, he is not a murderer, but a familiar person, now executed, whose severed head was caressed by a ray of sun.

Another example: a tradeswoman and a customer in the market. The customer offended the merchant with the suspicion that she was selling stale, "rotten" eggs. To which the merchant immediately responded to the customer with abuse, recalling her whole life, relatives, describing her appearance as ugly, the customer herself as a slovenly, walking woman, her clothes as bad, torn and dirty. She cannot allow anything good in the customer, because she found her product bad. This trader thinks abstractly - she sums up everything in the customer, from head to toe, along with all her relatives - solely in the light of the fact that she called her goods stale. Hegel writes: "Everything turns out to be painted in the color of these rotten eggs, while those officers about whom the trader speaks (if they have anything to do with this at all, which is highly doubtful), would prefer to notice completely different things ..." Cit. Quoted from: Hegel G.V. F. Who thinks abstractly? // He's the same. Works of different years. In 2 vols. Vol. 1 - M .: Mysl, 1972.

The next example is servant and master. The author argues that nowhere does a servant live so badly and nowhere is paid so little as a person of low rank, with low income. Conversely, those servants who work for noble masters live well. The reason for this is the abstract thinking of an ordinary person, who "takes pride in the servant and treats him only as a servant"; according to the author, "he holds fast to this single predicate." Those. this is the only thing he can be proud of, take credit for - he has a servant, and he can push around with this servant, since no one else will listen to him. The author notes that the best gentlemen are the French: if an aristocrat is familiar with a servant, then a Frenchman becomes a good friend to the servant; he allows the servant to talk about those topics that he sees fit to discuss, without embarrassing him in anything. Consequently, the aristocrat's thinking is not abstract, because he knows that "a servant is not only a" servant ", that he, among other things, knows all the city news, the girls are familiar, and often quite good ventures visit his head." by: ibid. ... Those. the aristocrat gives a certain will to the servant in communication with him, but from the height of his position. So, perhaps, it is impossible to call an aristocrat specifically thinking, since he does not see that a servant is not only a servant who knows all the city news and good thoughts come to mind, but that a servant is also a person with his own feelings, thoughts , opinion, with likes and dislikes; that this servant works conscientiously for him and also has some thoughts about his master. As for the Frenchman, he here, writes Hegel, “the servant dares even to reason, dares to have and defend his own opinions, and when the owner needs something from him, he will not simply order, but will try to first explain his opinion, and even he will tenderly assure that it cannot be better than this opinion. " by: ibid. ... Here, as you can see, along with concrete thinking, abstraction also takes place, since, as you can understand, the French master and servant already have an established ritual, and go beyond this ritual, introduce into the relationship something new, albeit not equal, but respectful in relation to each other - there is no such breadth of concrete thinking.

...

Analysis of the article by G.V.F. Hegel “Who thinks abstractly? Hegel G.V. F. Who thinks abstractly? // He's the same. Works of different years. In 2 vols. Vol. 1 - M .: Thought, 1972.

The psychological portrait of a person with a pronounced level of abstract thinking can be depicted as follows: energy is collected in the head, almost all the time thoughts, reasoning, chains of facts, conclusions, etc. flow in it. People with abstract thinking prefer · to speak in the language of symbols, complex concepts, they themselves enjoy this process ·. Most often, abstract thinking is present in men; it is believed that there are few "abstract" among women. In their studies, the element of such people is the Faculties of Mechanics and Mathematics and Physics and Technology. People endowed with abstract thinking are often careless in their clothes - they may not pay attention or even simply not notice what they are wearing and whether the buttons are properly buttoned. Their energy is removed from the physical plane and is occupied with mental constructions. In conversation, they often build long arguments, sometimes forgetting where they started. The lack of people with abstract thinking is inattention to others. · Problems that worry the people around them seem small and not worthy of attention. People with abstract thinking live in their own personal world, · are self-centered, so it is most difficult for them to develop altruism there ..

Next, the author shows another example of abstract thinking - a wheel showered with flowers with a criminal tied to it, ironically noting that "Christians like to lay out a cross with roses, or rather roses with a cross, to combine roses and a cross." Hegel calls the cross a gallows, which has long been turned into a shrine, an instrument of dishonorable execution, which has lost its original meaning and now combines in one image "the highest suffering and deepest humiliation with the most joyful bliss, with divine honor." according to: in the same place .. He calls the cross entwined with flowers sentimental vanity, reconciliation "in the style of Kotzebue", a way of "untidy kissing sentimentality with rubbish" Cit. according to: in the same place .. Here, too, Hegel believes, abstract thinking does not allow one to deviate from the stereotype of the martyr, the martyr's cross, but the crowd does not think that it is an instrument of execution, for such a breadth of thought it lacks education, intelligence, etc. etc.

The next example is servant and master. The author argues that nowhere does a servant live so badly and nowhere is paid so little as a person of low rank, with low income. Conversely, those servants who work for noble masters live well. The reason for this is the abstract thinking of an ordinary person, who "takes pride in the servant and treats him only as a servant"; according to the author, "he holds fast to this single predicate." Those. this is the only thing he can be proud of, take credit for - he has a servant, and he can push around with this servant, since no one else will listen to him. The author notes that the best gentlemen are the French: if an aristocrat is familiar with a servant, then a Frenchman becomes a good friend to the servant; he allows the servant to talk about those topics that he sees fit to discuss, without embarrassing him in anything. Consequently, the aristocrat's thinking is not abstract, because he knows that "a servant is not only a" servant ", that he, among other things, knows all the city news, the girls are familiar, and often quite good ventures visit his head." by: in the same place .. Ie the aristocrat gives a certain will to the servant in communication with him, but from the height of his position. So, perhaps, it is impossible to call an aristocrat specifically thinking, since he does not see that a servant is not only a servant who knows all the city news and good thoughts come to mind, but that a servant is also a person with his own feelings, thoughts , opinion, with likes and dislikes; that this servant works conscientiously for him and also has some thoughts about his master. As for the Frenchman, he here, writes Hegel, “the servant dares even to reason, dares to have and defend his own opinions, and when the owner needs something from him, he will not simply order, but will try to first explain his opinion, and even he will tenderly assure that it cannot be better than this opinion. " by: in the same place .. Here, as you can see, along with concrete thinking, abstraction also takes place, since, as you can understand, the French master and servant already have an established ritual, and go beyond this ritual, introduce something new into the relationship, let not be equal, but respectful towards each other - there is no such breadth of concrete thinking.

Further, Hegel speaks of the military, and he does not spare the beaten Austrian soldier, who is supposed to be beaten, since he is a “canal”. The author emphasizes: "For the one who has only the passive right to be beaten is a canal" Cit. by: in the same place .. An ordinary soldier in the eyes of an officer is an abstract abstraction, a certain subject that must be beaten.

Thus, Hegel speaks in his article about the belonging of abstract thinking to an uneducated, uncultured part of society, not considering, however, that this part is exclusively the “lower classes” of the population. " Hegel is not joking at all, where he exposes the exaggerated emptiness of "usual" ideas, beyond which pretentious semi-education, imaginary education never goes. As the fundamental features of abstract thinking, he calls narrowness of thinking, the inability to think broadly, beyond a certain framework, such as, for example, a person sentenced to death - only a murderer, a servant - only a servant, a soldier - only a canal, etc. A person with abstract thinking thinks in abstractions - the cross is an abstraction, not an instrument of shameful execution, but a great martyr's pedestal, which should be covered with flowers; a ray of the sun fell on the severed one - God's grace, etc.

Abstract fragmentary thoughts can be acceptable only in conditions of a lack of knowledge, the presence of large gaps in them. But as knowledge accumulates and the gaps are filled, the activity of a thinking person should become more and more independent and creative. For a person, in conditions of progressive knowledge, it is both necessary and characteristic to gradually pass over rational thinking, and not remain on the rational, i.e. to move towards the ascent of thinking to the level of reason.

Thus, based on the material presented in this work, the following brief conclusions can be drawn.

From the point of view of psychology, abstract thinking is understood as the ability to translate information about · real objects into symbols, manipulate these symbols, · find some solution and apply this decision again to objects in practice. Philosophy, coupled with abstractology, believes that abstract thinking is precisely thinking, not skill. Those. abstract thinking is the natural natural state of a person who is endowed with this thinking.

How transcendental the state is and how and by whom it is expressed - these questions are considered in Hegel's article.

According to Hegel's point of view, abstract thinking is narrow, limited thinking, which is based only on what a person sees, without thinking about the inner content of a phenomenon, an object. This thinking is one-sided, flawed, it makes it impossible to understand the picture of the world in all its diversity. In his article, Hegel says that it is much easier to think abstractly, with one-sided definitions, rather than on a large scale. He believes that the whole difficulty lies in “thinking concretely, in order to understand in form and with the help of abstractions the true essence of this or that object or phenomenon” Cit. by: So who thinks abstractly? - An uneducated person, and not at all enlightened // Hegel G.V.F. Who thinks abstractly? / after to Art. E.V. Ilyenkova // Knowledge is power. - 1973. - No. 10. - P. 41-42 .. The development of one-sided abstract definitions is just one of the moments in the comprehension of the phenomenon in its diversity, essence, specificity and concreteness. Real, concrete thinking is always meaningful by its very nature, and concretely in terms of purpose and task. The process through which it is possible to obtain such a specific understanding may consist in considering the history, the process of the emergence and development of the contemplated phenomenon, in the disclosure of those many different conditions of its existence, which in their totality determined its present state. Metaphysical, including philistine, thinking is limited to one-sided abstractions, one-sided definitions, and therefore slides over the surface of phenomena, is inevitably subjective. The need for a person to get out of the state, according to the definition of the German classics, "minority" set the requirement for humanity to make the transition from abstract fragmentary thinking to consistent and interconnected, from the stage of reason - to the stage of reason, as stated in the article by G.V.F. Hegel.

But Hegel's point of view runs counter to the modern generally accepted concept of abstract thinking, which is characteristic of people, in fact, not mediocre, who are now talked about with "creative" thinking. Abstract thinking contributes to finding successful solutions and alternatives, dates the possibility of a close examination of a narrow fragment of reality, without being scattered about particulars. Therefore, taking into account the examples given by Hegel, including the example of an old woman from an almshouse, who rejoiced for her severed head warmed by a ray of light while she was a living acquaintance (which means that he is worthy) and an aristocrat-host and a Frenchman-host, we can draw the following conclusion.

Obviously, Hegel believes that the "abstract" as such (as "general", as "the same", fixed in a word, in the form of "the generally accepted meaning of a term" or in a series of such terms) in itself is neither good nor bad. As such, it can express mind and stupidity with equal ease. In one case, the "abstract" turns out to be the most powerful means of analyzing concrete reality, and in the other, it is an impenetrable screen that obscures the same reality. In one case, it turns out to be a form of understanding things, and in the other - a means of mortifying the intellect, a means of enslaving it by verbal cliches. And this dual, dialectically insidious nature of the "abstract" must always be taken into account.

Systematization and connections

0. Some preliminary words. I will quote a lot, because otherwise, as practice shows, people do not trust the conclusions that I draw. I do these small works on Kant and Hegel not only for communicating to others, but also for myself, in order to summarize the path traveled and fix the results. I will try not to offend anyone. :))

1. Brief background of the question:

In previous posts:

i, based on the analysis of Hegel's Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences (EFN), concluded that

11. But what about speculative (dialectical in our terms, abbreviated as DL) logic? After all, Hegel's speculative logic was specially invented to return the spirit, the World as a whole and God to metaphysics. Apparently, DL as a speculative logic should deal with these three "endless" subjects. Because with the rest of the "finite" objects, the good old mind easily and without contradictions copes with its finite concepts. Good old Kant wrote about this, and Hegel himself admitted (reluctantly?).

2. However, my " constriction"The meaning of" Speculative Thinking "(DL) was raised two significant objections from Mikhail Grachev and Alexander Boldachev. The essence of these objections is as follows:

1) Even if speculative thinking had as its starting point criticism of Kant and his understanding of reason and at the same time represents a hidden theology, nevertheless, the result is that speculative logic also has an independent meaning ( M.Grachev);

2) Even if speculative thinking in Kant is understood as infinite (unconditional) thinking (mind) over infinite (unconditional) objects - spirit, the world as a whole, and God, and Hegel historically starts from this understanding, it (speculative thinking), nevertheless may also have other uses for Hegel. ( A. Boldachev).

Having asked these questions, I again tried to penetrate Hegel's thought. We omit Hegel's theological revelations. :))

3. Indeed, in confirmation of these objections, we find in Hegel:

Here we must mainly note that the antinomy is contained not only in these four objects borrowed from cosmology, but in all objects of every kind, in all concepts, concepts and ideas. The knowledge of this and the knowledge of objects in this property of them constitute an essential aspect of philosophical consideration; this property is what will be defined below as the dialectical Moment of the logical... [allotment me] (EFN, par. 48)

In these antinomies, it is by no means a question of vacillating between different bases and not of bare subjective reasoning, but of showing that any abstract definition of reason, taken only as it understands itself, immediately passes into its opposite. [allotment me] (EFN, par. 81)

In other words, Hegel believes that reason in its pure application (reason) in Kant gets entangled in contradictions not only because finite definitions (categories) are thrown over an infinite object - the World as a whole - but also because all sorts of abstract definitions of reason are intertwined in antinomy, thanks to dialectics, regardless of the subject of its (reason) application.

4. Indeed, Hegel distinguishes three points of the Logical:

1) rational (finite thinking);

2) dialectical, negatively rational (criticism of finite thinking);

3) speculative, positively reasonable (infinite thinking).

But how does Hegel understand dialectics?

5. The principle of rational thinking is identity or, in other words, the principle of consistency. That is why going out of reason is some admission of contradiction. What types of contradiction are possible in the sense of the structure of being-thinking, the world-cognizing subject?

1) the contradiction between being (the perceived state of affairs) and thinking. For example, such is Zeno's aporia "Achilles and the Turtle". From the point of view of perception, there is movement - Achilles will always catch up with the turtle. But from the point of view, thinking, there is no movement - because Achilles will never catch up with the turtle. This contradiction is analogous to the contradiction in science between theory and experiment. It is solved by correcting the theory. So Zeno's aporia was eventually solved by mathematicians, theoretically describing the movement in thinking.

2) contradiction within thinking. There are two possible cases here:

and) an irreducible contradiction is the contradiction of the object itself. The contradiction arises from the fact that some problematic object is taken as the subject of research - for example, the world as a whole (Kant's antinomies). It was for these objects that Hegel invented special speculative thinking. There are only three such objects - the soul, the world as a whole and God - three infinite objects;

b) reducible contradiction - inconsistency of reasoning or dispute. The contradiction within thinking arises from the fact that the same object (problem) is viewed from different sides (the result of a dispute or dialogue). In ancient times, this was actually called "dialectics" - (the art of conducting a conversation, "dialektikos" in Greek literally means " through conversation"). It arises due to the difference in the initial premises of the disputants. Allowed by parsing premises or logic. If everything is in order with both, then the only test is experience (if we are talking about an object of the world). Such a contradiction can also be, in principle, unsolvable, if there is no such object of the world on which to carry out a check, then we pass to the previous position of an irreducible contradiction.

3) contradiction within being (world). This is called the dialectic of nature.

In other words, it is assumed that the world itself is so arranged that there are contradictions within it, which are revealed by thinking and fixed.

In Hegel, there is a certain difficulty associated with the last point. The fact is that, according to Hegel, there is an identity of being and thinking. This means that the content of being (the certainty of the world) and the content of thinking are one and the same content. In other words, nature and spirit are two forms of existence. one and the same content of thinking (logic). In this sense, dialectic of nature \u003d dialectic of thinkingbecause thinking and nature are only different shapes existence of content.

6. But if being and thinking are identical, then any discovered contradiction in thinking is also a contradiction of being itself, and vice versa. Of course, everywhere here we mean not the thinking of the empirical subject (the single "I"), which can be wrong, but the thinking of the universal subject ("I" as a concept), which cannot be wrong. In the sense of this identity, the first contradiction is reduced to the third, since the content of being is the content of thinking.

At the same time, it will be true to say that being, the world is not contradictory and there is no dialectic of nature. Nature is consistent, Kant argued about this, and all private sciences insist on this. Hegel himself admitted elsewhere that in relation to finite objects the application of reason does not encounter any difficulties.

Thus, it turns out that contradiction cannot be understood by Hegel either in the sense of point 1 or in the sense of point 3 (which are identical due to the identity of being and thinking). This means that the mind falls into contradictions only in the sense of paragraph 2.

7. Now let us turn to how Hegel understands dialectics in EFN. Hegel writes:

p) The dialectical moment is the removal of themselves by such finite definitions and their transition into their opposite. (ESP, par. 81)

Dialectics, on the other hand, is an immanent transition from one definition to another, in which it is revealed that these definitions of reason are one-sided and limited, that is, they contain a negation of themselves. The essence of all that is finite is that it removes itself. Dialectics is, therefore, the driving soul of any scientific development of thought (EFN, par. 81)

But this definition of dialectics is strange. With this definition of dialectics, it is rather an absolute skepticism, and not the dialectic of Plato and Aristotle. After all, the ancients understood dialectics as a special kind of discourse, in which, as a result of research (dispute, dispute), a couple of statements appeared, contradicting each other, on the issue under study. In this case, it was precisely about a positive difficulty, such as Zeno's aporias or Kant's antinomies, and not about total skepticism, as Hegel wants to present it. Indeed, Hegel equates skepticism and dialectics:

Skepticism, in its true sense, is the uttermost hopelessness in relation to all those definite assertions that reason considers unshakable, and the state of mind arising from this firm conviction is a mood of steadfastness and peace of mind. (ESP, par. 81)

If, however, even now skepticism is often regarded as an insurmountable enemy of all positive knowledge in general and, therefore, also of philosophy, since the latter deals with positive cognition, then it should be objected that skepticism is dangerous only for finite, abstract, rational thinking, and only it cannot resist it; philosophy, on the other hand, contains skepticism as a moment, namely as a dialectical one. But philosophy does not stop at the bare negative result of dialectics, as is the case with skepticism. The latter mistakenly understands this result, taking it only as a naked, i.e., abstract, negation, because the negative, which is obtained as a result of dialectics, precisely because it is a result, is at the same time a positive, since it contains both removed is what it comes from and does not exist without the latter. But this already constitutes the basic definition of the third form of the logical, namely the speculative, or positively rational, form. [allotment me] (EFN, par. 81)

The difference between dialectics and skepticism is only in the final conclusions. Dialectics according to Hegel turns out to be something like positive skepticism. But skepticism is the deliberate setting in motion of concepts, in which consideration under one concept is intentionally opposed to consideration under another concept in order to disprove dogmatism. The goal of skepticism is precisely to destroy dogmatism, to carry out any statics into dynamics - into a movement of total negation. That is why Hegel believes that dialectics describes movement, that "the finite itself removes itself." It is interesting that in ancient times there was a contrast between dogmatism (academics, Stoics and Epicureans) and skepticism. And Hegel, without delay, calls all metaphysics up to Kant dogmatism (after him, Engels will do so):

3) This metaphysics became dogmatism, since it, according to the nature of the finite definitions, had to accept that of the two opposite statements, which were the above positions, one must be true, the other false.

Addition. The direct opposite of dogmatism is skepticism. The ancient skeptics called any philosophy in general dogmatic, since it sets forth certain provisions. In this broader sense, skepticism also recognizes speculative philosophy as dogmatic. But dogmatism in a narrower sense consists in the fact that one-sided rational definitions are maintained and opposite definitions are excluded. me] (EFN, par. 32)

In other words, the dogmatism of the old metaphysics was that it was not skepticism. Moreover, Hegel himself calls this metaphysics "a purely rational view" (EFN, par. 29). In other words, the following picture is obtained:

Former (before Kant) metaphysics \u003d rational view \u003d thinking in finite concepts;

- she is dogmatic because she is rational - puts the principle of contradiction at the forefront and it is bad that she is not skepticism.

8. So, for clarity, we build two chains:

Old metaphysics (before Kant) \u003d rational (finite thinking) \u003d dogmatism \u003d abstraction \u003d separative thinking;

Speculative philosophy \u003d reasonable (infinite thinking) \u003d dialectic (positive skepticism) \u003d concreteness \u003d totality.

9. Based on this scheme, it is clear that the dialectic of Plato and Aristotle was not "positive skepticism", but rather the difficulty - bringing the problem of the dispute to two opposite (contradictory) statements. The ancient dialectics sought to remove this contradiction in the way that they proved that one of the parties was wrong or simply recorded a failure (as with Zeno's aporias). So in the end, only one kind of contradiction remains for Hegel. to go beyond rational thinking (i.e. thinking based on the principle of identity):

contradiction in thinking associated with the contradiction of the very object of consideration (see paragraph 2 a). I know of only three such objects - the soul, the world as a whole, and God. These three infinite objects and give rise to a contradiction that goes beyond the ability to cope with it rational thinking (Kant).

10. It is interesting how Hegel himself interprets Kant's antinomies:

Note. Thus, it is said here [about the content of antinomies - approx. mine] that the content itself, namely the categories taken for themselves, lead to a contradiction. This idea, that the contradiction, which the definitions of reason believe in the rational, is essential and necessary, should be considered as one of the most important and significant successes of philosophy of modern times. As deep as this point of view, the resolution of the contradiction is just as trivial; it is only tenderness with worldly things. It is not the essence of the world that carries within itself the ulcer of contradiction, but only the thinking mind, the essence of spirit. It is not difficult to agree that the appearing world reveals contradictions before the reflecting spirit: the appearing world is the world as it is for the subjective spirit, for sensibility and reason. But if we compare the essence of the world with the essence of spirit, then one cannot help but wonder how, without hesitation, philosophers put forward and after them others repeated humble statements that not the essence of the world, but the essence of thinking - reason - is contradictory in itself. [allotment me] (EFN, par. 48)

Here, in a strange way, there is a contradiction in Hegel's reasoning. On the one hand, Hegel praises Kant for pointing out that contradictions are essential and necessary in the rational, and at the same time criticizes Kant that he took the contradiction to the lot of reason, and not the world - "they say that with worldly things. " Moreover, Hegel makes a strange statement:

It is not hard to agree that the appearing world contradicts the pondering spirit: the appearing world is the world as it is for the subjective spirit, for sensuality and reason. [allotment me] (EFN, par. 48)

In other words, the appearing world is itself contradictory? So where are the contradictions? In the mind? In the world being? And there, and there, if we take into account the identity of being and thinking? In other words, the very content of thinking, all thinking, is contradictory. But then what about Hegel's statement:

Speculative logic contains purely rational logic, and the first can be immediately turned into the last; for this, you only need to throw out the dialectical and the rational from it, and it will turn into what it is conventional logic... (ESP, par. 82)

10. In other words, what Hegel says about dialectics (\u003d negatively reasonable) and speculation (\u003d positively reasonable) is only addition Hegel to rational non-contradictory thinking. Reason itself does not fall into any contradictions when considering finite objects. Contradictions arise only when deliberately set in motion rational concepts in the manner of skepticism (dialectics according to Hegel) and when they consider infinite objects (which have contradictions in their definition).

1) dialectics (understood according to Hegel) leads rational thinking to contradiction only in the sense deliberate criticism from the standpoint of skepticism, and therefore in itself cannot be a basis for saying that rational thinking itself is contradictory.

2) speculative logic - there is non-judgmental logic (\u003d that is, the logic of an incorporated contradiction) only if infinite objects are considered. For Hegel, this subject is thinking as a totality. The manifestations of this totality are two more totals - spirit and nature. More precisely, the Absolute Idea as logic manifests itself in the thinking of the spirit and in the "petrified intellect" of nature. This is the concreteness of this Idea. For in thinking, concrete, according to Hegel, is that which is distinguished within itself.

It turned out long. We still need to think. Something important is not grasped and not given to understanding. :)))

actuspurus, February 15, 2012 - 21:50

Related materials: