Hegel's 'Thought as Concept and Idea'

[Andrej]

Let us discuss all of these sub-headings Hegel pointed out in his Thought as Concept and Idea chapter in the History of Philosophy.

As Concept. Thought is not something empty and abstract; it is determining, in fact self-determining. In other words, thought is essentially concrete. This concrete thought we call concept. Thought must be a concept; no matter how abstract it may seem to be, of itself (in sich) it must be concrete. As soon as thought is philosophical it is of itself concrete. From one point of view it is correct to say that philosophy deals in abstractions, insofar as it has to do with thoughts, which are abstracted from the sensible, the so-called concrete. From another point of view it is quite incorrect to speak in this way: abstractions belong to the reflection proper to understanding, not to philosophy; and it is precisely those who condemn philosophy for being abstract who are most immersed in the sort of reflections which are proper to understanding, even though they think they have to do with the concretest of contents. Because they reflect on the matter at hand (die Sache), what they have is a combination of the merely sensible and subjective thoughts – i.e., abstractions.

Is each thought self-determining, or just a thought in general? If so, why? What exactly defines a concrete thought, and not just a thought?

As Idea. In more precise terms, concrete thought is concept. Still further determined it is idea. The idea is the concept insofar as it is realized. To be realized it must determine itself, and this determination is nothing else but itself. Thus, its content is itself. Its infinite relation to itself, then, means that only from itself does its determination come.

“A concrete thought is concept” - does this mean that any thought that you believe to be concrete is automatically a concept, or is it still a developing idea?

What comes after this self-fulfilling determination from oneself? Can it also be that the “infinite relation to itself” does not depend on ones own determination?

Discuss.

[rasava]

@Andrej

“A concrete thought is concept” - does this mean that any thought that you believe to be concrete is automatically a concept, or is it still a developing idea?

You’re talking Hegel here, and in Hegel’s world the thought of a single individual is not a proper place to understand him. At this point he’s light years away from ordinary experience and his “dialectic” process has taken him to the broadest abstractions of the “concept of concept” and the “concept of idea”.

[rasava]

@Andrej

“A concrete thought is concept” - does this mean that any thought that you believe to be concrete is automatically a concept, or is it still a developing idea?

You’re talking Hegel here, and in Hegel’s world the thought of a single individual is not a proper place to understand him. At this point he’s light years away from ordinary experience and his “dialectic” process has taken him to the broadest abstractions of the “concept of concept” and the “concept of idea”.

[Alpha_Omega]

Not in any way directly answering your question I would quickly add:

It is a question of the gradation of being.

Certain sophists think that existence is an illusion, that each being is an absolute illusion which has no existence, in other words, that the existence of beings is like a mirage, or like the reflection of an image in water or in a mirror, which is only an appearance having in itself no principle, foundation or reality.

This theory is erroneous, for though the existence of internal beings in relation to the existence of exterior reality is an illusion, in the condition of being, it has a real and certain existence.

For example, the existence of the mineral in comparison with that of man is nonexistence, for when man is apparently annihilated, his body becomes mineral; however, the mineral has existence in the mineral world. Therefore, it is evident that earth, in relation to the existence of man, is nonexistent, and its existence is illusory; however in relation to the mineral it exists.

In the same manner the existence of internal beings in comparison with the existence of external reality is but illusion and nothingness; it is an appearance, like the image reflected in a mirror. However though an image which is seen in a mirror is an illusion, the source and the reality of that illusory image is the person reflected, whose face appears in the mirror. Briefly, the reflection in relation to the person reflected is an illusion.

Then it is evident that although internal beings in relation to the existence of external reality have no existence, but are like the mirage or the reflections in the mirror, yet in their own degree they exist.

This is why those who are heedless and deny external reality, and claim it to be merely ‘abstraction’ are said by certain entities to be dead.

[Andrej]

You’re talking Hegel here, and in Hegel’s world the thought of a single individual is not a proper place to understand him. At this point he’s light years away from ordinary experience and his “dialectic” process has taken him to the broadest abstractions of the “concept of concept” and the “concept of idea”.

What are you saying? Are you saying that his mind was far away from any concrete thoughts?

[Jakob]

@Andrej

Is each thought self-determining, or just a thought in general? If so, why? What exactly defines a concrete thought, and not just a thought?

Only when it is a concept, if I read correctly.

“A concrete thought is concept” - does this mean that any thought that you believe to be concrete is automatically a concept, or is it still a developing idea?

‘you believe’ doesn’t come from this passage you quoted - does Hegel speak about believing something to be a concept? He seems too view reality as too objective to take false and true beliefs into account.

What comes after this self-fulfilling determination from oneself? Can it also be that the “infinite relation to itself” does not depend on ones own determination?

Not from oneself, from the thought itself. From that devellops the idea - again, just reading the passage.
It seems Hegel regards thoughts as independent of the thinker.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Andrej

Let us discuss all of these sub-headings Hegel pointed out in his Thought as Concept and Idea chapter in the History of Philosophy.

As Concept. Thought is not something empty and abstract; it is determining, in fact self-determining. In other words, thought is essentially concrete. This concrete thought we call concept. Thought must be a concept; no matter how abstract it may seem to be, of itself (in sich) it must be concrete. As soon as thought is philosophical it is of itself concrete. From one point of view it is correct to say that philosophy deals in abstractions, insofar as it has to do with thoughts, which are abstracted from the sensible, the so-called concrete. From another point of view it is quite incorrect to speak in this way: abstractions belong to the reflection proper to understanding, not to philosophy; and it is precisely those who condemn philosophy for being abstract who are most immersed in the sort of reflections which are proper to understanding, even though they think they have to do with the concretest of contents. Because they reflect on the matter at hand (die Sache), what they have is a combination of the merely sensible and subjective thoughts – i.e., abstractions.

Is each thought self-determining, or just a thought in general? If so, why? What exactly defines a concrete thought, and not just a thought?

As Idea. In more precise terms, concrete thought is concept. Still further determined it is idea. The idea is the concept insofar as it is realized. To be realized it must determine itself, and this determination is nothing else but itself. Thus, its content is itself. Its infinite relation to itself, then, means that only from itself does its determination come.

“A concrete thought is concept” - does this mean that any thought that you believe to be concrete is automatically a concept, or is it still a developing idea?

What comes after this self-fulfilling determination from oneself? Can it also be that the “infinite relation to itself” does not depend on ones own determination?

Discuss.

I think the first thing you need to understand is that Hegel is not talking about an isolated, thinking individual - for him, all these categories (Thought, Concept, Idea) occur at the level of universal subjectivity. The universal subject is The speaker of language, considered as a vast united whole. Thus, each individual’s abstractions from the sensible world (i.e. their individual thoughts and ideas) coalesce and play off of one another in a vast, collective dialectic process which forms Concepts and Ideas of a far more concrete nature than that used at the level of the solitary brain inside a skull. These Concepts and Ideas are philosophical in nature insofar as they are the results of a universal dialectic, and they become the determining notions (for lack of a better synonym) informing the universal subject’s conscious activity in the world. This, to Hegel, renders them more “concrete” than the simple abstractions of a lonely person observing his or her environment. They are similar to forms, if only in that one sense . . .

You’re also dealing with the difficulties of translation - a lot of these notions of Idea, Concept, etc. get used in translations interchangably, when they are really meant to signify distinct things and vice versa. It’s hard to get an elegant translation of Hegel into English (they work much better in French, i’ve been told), because he probably wasn’t really much of a writer to begin with, and then a lot gets lost on top of that during the conversion . . .

[rasava]

@Andrej

You’re talking Hegel here, and in Hegel’s world the thought of a single individual is not a proper place to understand him. At this point he’s light years away from ordinary experience and his “dialectic” process has taken him to the broadest abstractions of the “concept of concept” and the “concept of idea”.

What are you saying? Are you saying that his mind was far away from any concrete thoughts?

No, not at all, just that it doesn’t make much sense to discuss Hegel from the experience of individuals. Hegel’s system to me just purports to be internally consistent, not outwardly justifiable by individual experience.

[Andrej]

@rasava

@Andrej

You’re talking Hegel here, and in Hegel’s world the thought of a single individual is not a proper place to understand him. At this point he’s light years away from ordinary experience and his “dialectic” process has taken him to the broadest abstractions of the “concept of concept” and the “concept of idea”.

What are you saying? Are you saying that his mind was far away from any concrete thoughts?

No, not at all, just that it doesn’t make much sense to discuss Hegel from the experience of individuals. Hegel’s system to me just purports to be internally consistent, not outwardly justifiable by individual experience.

But internally consistent is still relevant to individuals.

[rasava]

@Andrej

But internally consistent is still relevant to individuals.

Well the point wasn’t its lack of relevance, but that refuting Hegel by pointing to individual experience is like refuting the Big Bang Theory because when you look at an individual you don’t see the origins of it.

Of course, even if we were talking about relevance, I don’t see much relevance to me in Hegel’s philosophy. He’s going after God, not my individual meaning. That’s why a “pre-existentialism” began to form at that time in direct opposition to Hegel, where they insisted that philosophy be more concerned about human existence.

[Andrej]

@rasava

@Andrej

But internally consistent is still relevant to individuals.

Well the point wasn’t its lack of relevance, but that refuting Hegel by pointing to individual experience is like refuting the Big Bang Theory because when you look at an individual you don’t see the origins of it.

Of course, even if we were talking about relevance, I don’t see much relevance to me in Hegel’s philosophy. He’s going after God, not my individual meaning. That’s why a “pre-existentialism” began to form at that time in direct opposition to Hegel, where they insisted that philosophy be more concerned about human existence.

I didn’t though, or at least it wasn’t my intention to do so.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@rasava

Of course, even if we were talking about relevance, I don’t see much relevance to me in Hegel’s philosophy. He’s going after God, not my individual meaning. That’s why a “pre-existentialism” began to form at that time in direct opposition to Hegel, where they insisted that philosophy be more concerned about human existence.

Eh, why not speculate wildly upon the dynamics of what occurs outside human experience? It’s a mental exercise, yet people treat it like a threat to the great philosophical institution of the Examined Life - they’re all part of the same thing - we do MORE than just survive, we also speculate about the nature of things - sometimes in silly, yet constructive ways. Hegel had an unparalleled framework for the unknowable, he’s the scientific manifestation of Godel’s logical discoveries before they were even made.

[rasava]

@uglypeoplefucking

Eh, why not speculate wildly upon the dynamics of what occurs outside human experience?

I have no problem with that. I didn’t say that Hegel has no relevance in general, but just not relevance to me as an individual.

[Andrej]

He rarely spoke to the individuals.