User talk:Jazzbox

Hi. You contributed much to Science of Logic. We are trying to get History of logic to WP:FA status, and it was suggested that something about Hegel's logic should go in. Would you be able to help? From the other side (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I'm not a proper philosopher but I think I know basically where Hegel fits into the scheme of logic development. He really felt that logic had become a cold, sterile calculating machine and didn't realize the totality within which it operates. I suspect that present philosophers might not recognize the Science of Logic as applicable to logic pre se, although certainly Hegel envisioned it that way. The Science of Logic is more like a pretty robust ontology in my opinion with logic (traditional Aristotelian logic) built into the overall framework of his system. I think Hegel's introduction to the work contains a fairly understandable explanation for why he feels his approach to logic is superior. I guess I could try to distill that down to a few sentences, but it may be a while. I work on this only intermittently. Jazzbox (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi - User:KD Tries Again who has some knowledge of this tradition has put in a paragraph on Hegel's logic - do you want to have a look? From the other side (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. I think that captures the belief  Hegel had that logic shouldn't be an abstract calculus but is ultimately part of his conception of the "absolute."  It interests me because modern computing is essentially a cold calculating machine, step by step, but ignores the bigger picture, like self and other,  the unification of reality, and the sort of thing we see in Hegel's ontology. Jazzbox (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you like, you can support the article's nomination here: Featured article candidates/History of logic/archive1 From the other side (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Name
I am not actually a metallurgist. I was just into melting metals and other chemistry stuff when I made this account. :) I kind of dislike it because its not my usual identity online, but on the other hand I do kind of like it. --Metallurgist (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Science of Logic
hi there~

your revision to my revision of Science of Logic states: "these changes seem to be simply copied out of Hegel's text and do not offer any gains. It would be better to embellish what I had."

the only things copied directly out of Hegel's text are properly contained in quotation marks. the rest, i assure you, is my own paraphrasing [which you can easily confirm by consulting the text], which offers the only "gains" appropriate to an encyclopaedic entry: not embellishment, but brevity insofar as it remains true to the spirit of the text.

the work you've done here is admirable in intention, but contains numerous errors and outside reflections which are not intrinsic to the Logic itself, but are rather your own attempts at its interpretation. this is made especially evident by the fact that the entry contains no textual references whatsoever.

my hope is that you will recognize the soundness of the reasoning behind my revisions and allow me to continue my work without obstruction.

sincerely yours,

xianmw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xianmw (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

xiamnmw, I have no problem with you modifying the entry, none whatsoever. What I object to is your simply deleting what I had and inserting your own material wholesale. It is also evident that you are quoting Hegel and then putting in your own reflections. That's fine, but it sheds little light on the Science of Logic, which is an obscure work said by Carlson to only be understood by a handful of people. My approach, on the other hand, is basically understandable to anybody with nothing more than a philosophy 101 background. You say that since this is an encyclopedia, only your method is appropriate. I don't think so. I would look to this as a possible means of actually understanding the science of logic. What you seem to advocate is just doctoring up the table of contents a little bit.

As far as what you have stated above, firstly, I do include references to the text, such as Hegel's remark on determinate ground (look for "an official can hold office for a variety of reasons, these are given as ground"). True, I did come up with some of my own examples, but I don't see why using your own examples to illustrate his points is out of bounds.

As far as "errors" -- Hegel himself probably never fully understood what he had written. Saying someone made an "error" in interpreting the science of logic borders on silly, unless it is outright wrong. I spent several years on and off studying the SOL and I do basically understand the work. I mean I read it... did you? The small logic doesn't count...

I encourage you to contribute. Why not just make some changes which you think offer corrections. if you think something is "wrong" then offer the alternate interpretation. Jazzbox (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

...more thoughts... if you put this in Hegelese not many people will really understand it. SOL is arguably the most obscure book ever written. It is possible to understand it, but hegel himself built in obscurity as a necessary feature. That makes any exposition problematic at the outset and calls for approaches other than traditional IMO. I don't mind a lot of "alternately, another way of looking at this is..." etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.200.175 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * look. i didn't replace your entries in order to offend you or disrespect your efforts. i did so, secondarily, because there are no citations from the book nor evidence provided that these are anything but your own reflections, but primarily, because nearly every sentence contains at least one major error, misinterpretation or distortion---sometimes several. you, and anybody else, can review these in the detailed evidence i have provided for this assertion on the discussion page. i am not sure how to reply short of bewilderment, and said abundant proof to the contrary, to the idea that to the interpretation of a work on science and logic, of all things, error cannot apply. i promise you, i will do my best to retain anything you have written that merits retaining, i.e., can actually be found in the book the encyclopaedia entry is supposed to be about, or is an example which properly illustrates the logical principle accurately and without distortion [which can self-evidently be best accomplished in any case by using the illustrations hegel himself provides.]


 * anyway, i am not finding this 'argument' with you constructive or purposeful at this point. your first justification for redacting my paraphrasing was that i had merely copied it from the book; now you're saying that it contains nothing but my own reflections. aside from these being two mutually contradictory statements about the same text, both of them can be verified as false simply by looking at the citations i had provided: that's what citations are for!


 * further, i must tell you that you have only a right to make assertions about your own understanding or lack thereof of something. there is no way you, or anybody, can justify saying that no one can understand something simply because---as you boldly admit---you, and many other people, don't. and then to take this leap of induction to the point where you say, directly in the entry itself, that hegel himself did not understand his own book! that's a serious defamation for which you have provided not a shred of evidence ... and it is just not honest and it needs to be changed. i am obliged to provide you with no further proof of my own comprehension than the well-cited accounts and arguments i have provided on the discussion page and in the entry itself.


 * i do however take your point that the approach that i have taken, summarizing the logic with as much integrity as possible, will not be immediately accessible to anyone but serious students. it is these people, however, few in number though they may, in your estimation, be, that are the most appropriate audience to direct the entry to. nevertheless, i have also decided to provide some of the examples and illustrations given in the text by hegel himself. these are usually very clear and are simple enough even for a novice to grasp to some extent. your examples, while indeed understandable in themselves, are by-and-large inaccurate in terms of reflecting the text, and so can only facilitate its misapprehension by the beginner student. if staying as close as possible to the text doesn't 'help' in your opinion, it at least has the merit of not hindering a proper grasp of it.


 * finally, you should know that, arguably more for hegel than any other writer, a table of contents is not just a table of contents. it is a direct representation of the organizational structure of logic as a whole [consult 'general division of logic' and the introductory notes for the division of each of the three books]. why would you adopt any other schema than the one that the very book being written about provides?!


 * i think i have provided you with more than enough justification for my complete revision of this entry, and, again, unless you provide substantiated, textually cited arguments for any amendments or alterations, i request that you allow me to continue to work on this unimpeded. i ask you sincerely not to take this personally. my motivation, again, is not to make you feel bad, but to accurately and honestly represent, in as faithful a manner as possible, what is in my heartfelt opinion, perhaps the greatest formulation of truth in its proper element that has ever been achieved by humankind. there have got to be more places, in the midst of the vast ocean of subjective meanderings on the internet, for people to find it. your efforts, laudable however they may be, fall demonstrably far short of this mark.


 * sincerely yours,


 * Xianmw (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My approach at least yields some understanding for somebody who wants to take a stab at learning the science of logic. All you will accomplish in your effort is to get a nicely formatted description of the SOL in Hegelese. That is the complete effect of your result. You seem to repeatedly miss this point. Why is that? The SOL is a heaping mass of obscurity which has almost no equal. A traditional approach like you are embarking upon is not going to help the average reader much.

If you wanted to make the situation better, just pick up where I left off down in the Book of Essence. Try to describe what Hegel is doing. Don't put in a bunch of Hegelese. That won't help anybody. It would be better to just link to the "short logic" table of contents than do what you are doing. Jazzbox (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

probably I got a little carried away in my first paragraph, but hegel was obscure... schopenhauer said his philosophy was the stuff of madhouses... the intent behind my approach was to present what he meant, such that anybody who logs on to the internet can basically grasp it. There are certain basic themes which saturate the SOL. My approach was an attempt to explain this. There is little to be gained with arguing over small points and quotations in the SOL, since Hegel had the habit of saying that one thing was the other anyway, which is why it is better to try to look at the book from a minimum of the individual section level. It is understanding what was meant which is the tough part. Jazzbox (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * you are obviously not going to believe me that hegel is perfectly understandable with diligent and careful study ... let alone that i could possibly understand it. that seems to be the main point of our contention. i really believe that by far the greatest obstacle to gaining a human comprehension of hegel is his over-inflated reputation for being utterly beyond human comprehension: it has become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy [pinkard's biography of hegel, btw, gives ample reason to believe that schopenhauer had a professional interest in detracting from his intellectual rival]. my hope was you might read through my critique of your work on the discussion page and recognize - perhaps even benefit from - the painstaking level of attention and care i have put into an accurate understanding of the Logic. however, your steadfast, a priori conviction that he is insurmountable seems to have bled over to an exaggerated estimation of the impenetrability of my writing as well. to be honest, what i sense in reality is unwillingness masquerading as inability.


 * ... and i mean that as a compliment.


 * thank you for relenting ... however reluctantly. i will keep as much of your writing as possible if i can do so while remaining faithful to the text.


 * sincerely,


 * Xianmw (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I guess what you are doing has some merits, I can concede... if you really can explain Hegel in Hegel's terms I say go for it. The problem with Hegel is really that he seems to WANT not to make sense.... I mean, he has that built into his philosophy.  After fighting thru the SOL fully at least once (and much of it twice and more) I am convinced that his philosophy needs to be explained in borderline poetic terms, which is why we see seemingly crazy ideas like being-for-other being the same thing as being-for-self, and the like... but once you get the hang of it, you can kind of open your mind a little bit.

Your approach does have the merit of being "proper" and scientific looking, but I wonder if that is what Hegel actually intended. I guess at the outset I was thinking, hey, why not just write in the encyclopedia what hegel really meant? I am trying to understand the SOL, so a good exercise. That is what got me started. I submit that the narrative that I had to date stands as one of the more accessible, if not most accessible treatments of as far as I got, I think up to Condition, to date. I mean, I have Specifying Measure in terms of a Buick example. i will grant you, YES, that is not the stuff of scientific inquiry, but it does make it understandable.

I have actually hand written notes of somewhat less quality covering the rest of the book. If you'd like to use these I can send them to you. I actually basically do understnd the SOL at this juncture.

by the way, are you reading in German? My translation has sections that are simply impossible really come to any settled conclusion about. I have the Miller translation. I have noticed that Hegel in the SOL makes sense, perfectly, only if he is criticizing somebody else. When he trashes somebody else's philosophy in the SOL he does so in a very understandable fashion. Also occasionally his "Remarks" make sense. He has the nasty habit, however, of often making sense in some build up to some point, and then he tries to lose you in the conclusion. I mean, I don't think any fair minded person would say he he was not being deliberately obfuscating/confusing. Now, the short logic is probably another matter. I have looked at it, but not read it in detail. I understand that it follows the sequence of the SOL, but looking at it I don't think you could always make fair guesses about the SOL from it.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Metaphysics or Ontology
Jazzbox,

Dr. Carlson is one of very few people to have "mastered" Hegel's Science of Logic so to speak (of course, it is arguable that no one has mastered that work). Of that there is no doubt. But he is not a specialist in metaphysics (including ontology) per se, nor is he recognized in the field of metaphysics as such. The larger point is that the word 'ontology' is used far too loosely in philosophy. It has exactly three standard uses: two precise uses (scholastic and modern-logical) as one obscure usage (Heidegger). One of the main points of the Science of Logic is replace the paradigm of ontology (scholastic) with that of dialectics, "objective logic" as Hegel calls it. Hegel says this explicitly. Neither the modern-logical sense of 'ontology' nor the Hedegerrian sense applies here. But no one would argue that Science of Logic is a work of metaphysics, *except* when using 'metaphysics' as a synonym for 'ontology in the scholastic sense'. That was common in Hegel's time but not today. Metaphysics is the more general and precise word to use here.

Using 'ontology' loosely as a synonym for metaphysics -- which is what Dr. Carlson is doing -- is akin to using the expression 'beg the question' to mean "demand the question". It is a common usage but imprecise, if not outright "wrong".

I would love to help clean up the Science of Logic article on Wikipedia. It will take a very long time and the article is defective in innumerable ways. I agree for the need to use standard philosophical English and to avoid too much "Hegelese". OTOH, as a professor in metaphysics and philosophy, I do not have time for editing wars and the like. Hegel is notoriously precise and obscure at once, so it's easy to fall into a relativism of interpretation and to argue forever. So let's see if you and I can get past this hump: I will try once more and hope that you will accept the change from 'ontology' to 'metaphysics'. Thanks and best wishes.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)