Hegel is reductive OR productive, ever which way. if taken in his Platonic sense. But Hegel was an optimist and Plato not. He thought the reductio led to nothingness.
Now the productio leads to where?
To somethingness?
Both positions are untenable so either one or the other position holds water.
Back to basics, or the bracketing of both, one or the other, or both.That’s why the dialectic is a myth. Myths are reductive into nothingness.ad absurdum.
Please let me clarify this position if the argument doesn’t work for you.
Plato probably saw this duality and maybe he meant by that that ideal concepts are bound-to fail, if approached from a strictly logical basis. He couldn’t spell it out, and Hegel realized this also, and for the sake of a reversal, he posited a progression. That it was torn down.is the proof in the pudding.
Yes , negation or the concept that negates two contrary propositions is reductive to Plato.Therefore it is a myth. As much of a myth as Hegel’s dialectic.
It dissent completely nihikate to nothingness or, does it reach a. absolute.
There is no eternal death of anything , there is only eternal life, eternal death is again a contradiction in terms where life and death do not cancel out each other, they merely reinstate an eternal duality. A duality which may nominally be said to be indistinguishable.
Both the Beginning and the End of the universe stories are myth. There was no Big Bang and there will be no Heat Death.
Welcome to psychological manipulation of the population.
Also, all sand castles will be rebuilt … eventually.
Infant child like dreams of immortality with dreams of grandeur to live like gods. An inability to understand or overstate the limitations of the world and the human condition.
The universe is infinite. There is always an Earth somewhere. There are always beaches. There are always people building sandcastles. Always. Eternally.
We don’t have to see the other side of the Moon to know that it is there. And I wasn’t talking about traveling to any far away Earth. That will certainly never happen. But they are certainly out there. And always will be. It is mathematically impossible for them to not be.
It’s one thing to talk about the dark side of the moon and it is something entirely different contemplating infinite.
Stuck on this earth until massive level extinction event more likely and if travel to another planet was possible only those that can afford a golden ticket need apply.
I dont know why, perhaps because I am not super intelligent but:
I have always imagined that a superintelligence would not encounter the problems that we the human race encounter and have encountered.
I have never seen the movie so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Are you saying that an efficient and utilitarian use of a commodity is a super intelligent thing to do based on the definition I gave or that a superintelligence would exhibit this type of thought - I am leaning toward the former as a guess to what you meant - and perhaps both.
A point that stood out in the Wikipedia article was contained within the plot to the movie and is as follows: The 20th century’s industrialization led to overcrowding, pollution and global warming due to the greenhouse effect. It now has me wondering whether industrialization or overcrowding shows that we are intelligent at all - even though I intend some sarcasm, surely a superintelligence would be able to avoid such problems with forethought.