Blast You Taste! Blast you! (Of course I trapped one. It's easy to trap birds once you know what their feed is) But Blast you anyway. IZE KREEM! Why did you have to go and find that! Do you not know what happens to a knight when he finds the grail? It the looking for it that keeps him going. Once he finds it he must pee in the cup and invent some other ridiculous quest of hopefully a somewhat more mysterious and unfindable thinguhmajig. I guess it will have to be the ark of the !@$!@%$! convenant or something like that. Frig.
Whoooboy. And I disagree on points 2 and 3. Not that I know why, but to agree would mean that I understand what I asked and I am not sure about that. On one I call it a draw between disagree and agree so your answer being dogmatic and certain must perforce be wrong.
Saying "I don't know" may be ok if it appears that you don't know because you really understand the implication of knowing changes the answer from correct to incorrect. What this means is that if you really don't know, the answer is correct if it is yes, and if you know the answer then it may be correct to say no if the answer seems to be yes and vice versa. This follows if your answer changes the answer in uttering it.
It's all part to what Hegel said is the inward infinite contingency of the will. i.e. its subjectivity.
Hegel perhaps meant that you can only get at the will from subjectivity or self-centered-realization or justification. Human volition is always at arms length from subjectivity but only because it is regressive in objective terms to where it MUST be rooted in an a priori self.
So volition is "inwardly infinitely contingent" on inward self justifico-realization (subjectivity) or, supposed non objectivity In my terms to be obective is to be "passively" infinitely subjective.
In other words if will is desire then to desire one must be from the inward self outwardly looking. Otherwise the will becomes a thing which recursively like Hamlet never finds
itself in action.
*************************************
Hegel -->
"Let us look back more closely over the moments through which the concept of freedom develops itself from the will's determinate character as originally abstract to its character as self-related, and so at this point to its self-determination as subjectivity. In property this determinate character is the abstract one, 'mine', and is therefore found in an external thing. In contract, 'mine' is mediated by the wills of the parties and means only something common. In wrong the will of the sphere of right has its abstract character of implicit being or immediacy posited as contingency through the act of a single will, itself a contingent will.
At the moral standpoint, the abstract determinacy of the will in the sphere of right has been so far overcome that this contingency itself, is, as reflected in upon itself and self-identical, the inward infinite contingency of the will, i.e. its subjectivity."
( Translation? id est: In examining right, the definition of will or the perception of it from another's standpoint in seeing someone who wishes to do right, cannot be determined except to say that will is always dependent on not being definable ab exteriori, because it needs self realization of the possessor of that will to be identified and to be realized. )
Hegel -->
"Addition: Truth entails that the concept shall be, and that this existence shall correspond with the concept. In the sphere of right, the will is existent in something external, but the next requirement is that the will should be existent in something inward, in itself. It must in its own eyes be subjectivity, and have itself as its own object. This relation to itself is the moment of affirmation, but it can attain it only by superseding its immediacy. The immediacy superseded in crime leads, then, through punishment, i.e. through the nullity of this nullity, to affirmation, i.e. to morality. "
******************************
Note. Buridan is known also as the owner of the famous ass who starved to death standing equidistant from two identical bales of hay being unable to find "sufficient arguments" to choose one of them.
This story is false. Asses don't argue.
*********************************************************
If you are confused by the above you drink Bud. If you think it is trite you drink cheap German imported wine. If you think it is deep you drink shaving lotion and if you are bored with it, you cannot read the labels so you don't know what it is that you are drinking, but you cannot afford to stop.
Note that if you drink Bud does not mean that you are confused by the above. But it helps.
EC<:-} |
