Sorry, typo, I meant "He wrote about him". In the preface of his book "On the basis of morality" Schopenhauer adds Hegel's philosophy would be a "pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking" and describes it as "the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, most stupefying verbiage". He really hated him.The only interesting thing about Hegel is in fact his "dialectic method" which is not even from him according to Wikipedia. Today one would say "whatever you think, think the opposite".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic-J. -------- Original message --------From: Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> Date: 7/10/20 08:22 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is Glen a Pragmatist? BTW Schopenhauer hated Hegel. He wrote him:"Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are in my opinion not philosophers; for they lack the first requirement of a philosopher, namely a seriousness and honesty of inquiry. They are merely sophists who wanted to appear to be rather than to be something. They sought not truth, but their own interest and advancement in the world. Appointments from governments, fees and royalties from students and publishers, and, as a means to this end, the greatest possible show and sensation in their sham philosophy-such were the guiding stars and inspiring genii of those disciples of wisdom. And so they have not passed the entrance examination and cannot be admitted into the venerable company of thinkers for the human race.Nevertheless they have excelled in one thing, in the art of beguiling the public and of passing themselves off for what they are not; and this undoubtedly requires talent, yet not philosophical" (Arthur Schopenhauer in "Parerga and Paralipomena")-J.-------- Original message --------From: [email protected] Date: 7/9/20 23:03 (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected]> Subject: [FRIAM] Is Glen a Pragmatist? I thought Glen might like this:This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, every intellectual position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce and Hegel there is no final, fixed intellectual position free from any potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long run self-correcting.It’s from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk. Nick Nicholas ThompsonEmeritus Professor of Ethology and PsychologyClark [email protected]https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
