Excellent, a magnificent elaboration on “true infinity.” You articulate well how the moment a thing refers to itself, it “points” beyond that reference, for no thing can be captured in any finite “framing.” However, it is only through Reason that this “pointing” is followed deeper into the entity, while in Understanding we mistake this “pointing” as “pointing away” (versus “pointing in deeper”) and thus instead just think “the next thing,” which paradoxically means we “look away” spuriously versus follow “the pointing” deeper into the entity. That’s the strange but critical move, but we can grasp what’s happening if we can understand that it is the “thought of a thing” which is “pointing away toward the thing,” even though it seems to be the thing itself “pointing away.” This is because we require the thought "on the thing" to Understand the thing, but we move from Understanding to Reason when we catch this “slight of hand” and go deeper into the thing from the thought versus think it is the thing “pointing away” and thus end up moving on to “the next thing.” To go deeper is to see how we are always dealing with “the (in)finite,” while to be “pointed away” is to move finitely from one thing to the next, infinitely, and thus infinitely missing (in)finity. This is to pursue “untruth,” and unfortunately since “untruth” is not there, it cannot be obtained, and that means we can always keep trying, spuriously. But if we take seriously a lecture like this, we can avoid that mistake, so thank you for the lecture!

@Actual_Spirit

Жыл бұрын

You hit right on the nail, Daniel. That's a good way of re-wording Hegel's point. Thanks for watching.

@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel

Жыл бұрын

@@Actual_Spirit Thank you my friend, and excellent work on the reflection! You did an excellent job.

@bluesky45299

8 ай бұрын

@@Actual_Spirit How would you prove robot has consciousness using empirical data. How do you prove to blind man what color red is using empirical data. In theory, robot can be programmed to move its hand when it touches hot surface. How do I know its having the experience of hot using test tube(Deduction/induction). The only thing i am certain of is that i have experience of hot. This experience can only come from entity that can already experience existence (Allah-one/indivisible/self-sufficient/unique/All-Loving infinite perfection). If you cannot prove your own consciousness using “scientific method”, then how can you reject the existence of Perfect/infinite metaphysical being(Allah)? “Cogito ergo sum”( I think therefore I am) should be read as “cogito ergo est”(I think therefore Allah is)

very usefull, unique on YT, thank you so much

I'm still lost on the difference between limit and restriction, can you expound? The "ought" seems more like the space of likely possibilities for something. For example a human baby "ought" to become an adult, and a seed "ought" to become a tree. But how does this have anything to do with morality? Seems more like a the developmental functionality inherent in the nature of a something. What am I missing? If the "ought" is just reduced to functionality, then this pushes the moral question into the realm of society, since there's no behavioral functionality outside of social mores and costumes. But then how does this resolve different societies having different codes across time and geography? And more importantly what's the practical application of Hegelian ethics on the individual level ? Sorry I'm asking way too many big questions, some beyond the scope of this video. Thanks plenty for the video, subbed!