Post with no replies wins $10 on paypal

Post with no replies wins $10 on paypal

If you reply to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

If you don't reply to the post above your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

well you guys are fucked lololol

youtube.com/watch?v=k6EQAOmJrbw

The beginning both of cultural education and of working one’s way
out of the immediacy of substantial life must always be done by acquainting
oneself with universal principles and points of view. Having done that, one
can then work oneself up to the thought of what is at stake and, of no less
importance, to giving reasons for supporting or refuting one’s thoughts
on those matters. One must grasp the subject matter’s concrete and rich
fullness according to its determinateness, and one must know both how to
provide an orderly account of it and to render a serious judgment about
it.

However, the commencement of cultural education will first of all also
have to carve out some space for the seriousness of a fulfilled life, which
in turn leads one to the experience of the crux of the matter, so that even
when the seriousness of the concept does go into the depths of the crux
of the matter, this kind of acquaintance and judgment will still retain its
proper place in conversation.

The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific sys-
tem of that truth. To participate in the collaborative effort at bringing
philosophy nearer to the form of science – to bring it nearer to the goal
where it can lay aside the title of love of knowing and be actual knowing –
is the task I have set for myself. The inner necessity that knowing should
be science lies in the nature of knowing, and the satisfactory explanation
for this inner necessity is solely the exposition of philosophy itself.

However, external necessity, insofar as this is grasped in a universal manner and
insofar as personal contingencies and individual motivations are set aside,
is the same as the internal necessity which takes on the shape in which
time presents the existence of its moments. To demonstrate that it is now
time for philosophy to be elevated into science would therefore be the only
true justification of any attempt that has this as its aim, because it would12
demonstrate the necessity of that aim, and, at the same time, it would be
the realization of the aim itself.

In positing that the true shape of truth lies in its scientific rigor –
or, what is the same thing, in asserting that truth has the element of its
existence solely in concepts – I do know that this seems to contradict an
idea (along with all that follows from it), whose pretentiousness is matched
only by its pervasiveness in the convictions of the present age. It thus does
not seem completely gratuitous to offer an explanation of this contradic-
tion even though at this stage such an explanation can amount to little
more than the same kind of dogmatic assurance which it opposes. How-
ever much, that is to say, the true exists only in what, or rather exists only
as what, is at one time called intuition and at another time called either
the immediate knowing of the absolute, or religion, or being – not at the
center of the divine love, but the being of divine love itself – still, if that
is taken as the point of departure, what is at the same time demanded in
the exposition of philosophy is going to be instead the very opposite of
the form of the concept. The absolute is not supposed to be conceptually
grasped but rather to be felt and intuited. It is not the concept but the
feeling and intuition of the absolute which are supposed to govern what is
said of it.

If such a requirement is grasped in its more general context, and if
its appearance is viewed from the stage at which self-conscious spirit is
presently located, then spirit has gone beyond the substantial life which it
had otherwise been leading in the element of thought – it has gone beyond
this immediacy of faith, beyond the satisfaction and security of the cer-
tainty that consciousness had about its reconciliation with the essence, and
it has gone beyond the universal present, or, the inner as well as the outer of
that essence.

Besides, it is not difficult to see that our own epoch is a time of birth
and a transition to a new period. Spirit has broken with the previous world
of its existence and its ways of thinking; it is now of a mind to let them
recede into the past and to immerse itself in its own work at reshaping
itself. To be sure, spirit is never to be conceived as being at rest but rather
as ever advancing.

However, just as with a child, who after a long silent
period of nourishment draws his first breath and shatters the gradualness
of only quantitative growth – it makes a qualitative leap and is born – so
too, in bringing itself to cultural maturity, spirit ripens slowly and quietly
into its new shape, dissolving bit by bit the structure of its previous world,
whose tottering condition is only intimated by its individual symptoms.
The kind of frivolity and boredom which chips away at the established
order and the indeterminate presentiment of what is yet unknown are all
harbingers of imminent change. This gradual process of dissolution, which
has not altered the physiognomy of the whole, is interrupted by the break
of day, which in a flash and at a single stroke brings to view the structure
of the new world.

Yet this newness is no more completely actual than is the newborn
child, and it is essential to bear this in mind. Its immediacy, or its concept,
is the first to come on the scene. However, just as little of a building is
finished when its foundation has been laid, so too reaching the concept of
the whole is equally as little as the whole itself. When we wish to see an oak
with its powerful trunk, its spreading branches, and its mass of foliage, we
are not satisfied if instead we are shown an acorn. In the same way, science,
the crowning glory of a spiritual world, is not completed in its initial stages.
The beginning of a new spirit is the outcome of a widespread revolution
in the diversity of forms of cultural formation [Bildungsformen]; it is both the
prize at the end of a winding path just as it is the prize won through much
struggle and effort.

Imagine if you lost this contest to me who doesn't have PayPal xd

I am here for my free (You)

It is the whole which has returned into itself from out of its
succession and extension and has come to be the simple concept of itself.
The actuality of this simple whole consists in those embodiments which,
having become moments of the whole, again develop themselves anew and
give themselves a figuration, but this time in their new element, in the new
meaning which itself has come to be.

On the one hand, while the initial appearance of the new world is
just the whole enshrouded in its simplicity, or its universal ground, still, on
the other hand, the wealth of its bygone existence is in recollection still cur-
rent for consciousness. In that newly appearing shape, consciousness misses
both the dispersal and the particularization of content, but it misses even
more the development of the form as a result of which the differences are
securely determined and are put into the order of their fixed relationships.
Without this development, science has no general intelligibility
[Verständlichkeit], and it seems to be the esoteric possession of only a
few individuals – an esoteric possession, because at first science is only
available in its concept, or in what is internal to it, and it is the possession
of a few individuals, since its appearance in this not-yet fully unfurled form
makes its existence into something wholly singular.

Only what is completely determinate is at the
same time exoteric, comprehensible, and capable of being learned and pos-
sessed by everybody. The intelligible form of science is the path offered
to everyone and equally available for all. To achieve rational knowledge
through our own intellect [Verstand] is the rightful demand of a consciousness
which is approaching the status of science. This is so because the
understanding is thinking, the pure I as such, and because what is intelligible
is what is already familiar and common both to science and to the unscientific
consciousness alike, and it is that through which unscientific consciousness
is immediately enabled to enter into science.

At its debut, where science has been brought neither to completeness
of detail nor to perfection of form, it is open to reproach. However, even if
it is unjust to suppose that this reproach even touches on the essence of sci-
ence, it would be just as unjust and inadmissible not to honor the demand
for the further development of science. This opposition seems to be the
principal knot which scientific culture is currently struggling to loosen and
which it does not yet properly understand. One side sings the praises of the
wealth of its material and its intelligibility; the other side at any rate spurns
the former and insists on immediate rationality and divinity.

Even if the
first is reduced to silence, whether by the force of truth alone or just by
the bluster of the other side, and even if it feels overwhelmed by the basics
of the subject matter which is at stake, it is still, for all that, by no means
satisfied about those demands, for although they are just, those demands
have not been fulfilled. Only half of its silence is due to the other side’s
victory; the other half is due to the boredom and indifference which result
from the continual awakening of expectations by promises never fulfilled.

When it comes to content, at times the other side certainly makes
it easy for itself to have a vast breadth of such content at its disposal. It
pulls quite a lot of material into its own domain, which is to be sure what
is already familiar and well-ordered, and by principally trafficking in rare
items and curiosities, it manages to put on the appearance of being in full
possession of what knowing had already finished with but which at the
same time had not yet been brought to order. It thereby seems to have
subjected everything to the absolute Idea, and in turn, the absolute Idea
itself therefore both seems to be recognized [erkannt] in everything and
to have matured into a wide-ranging science.

However, if the way it spreads itself
out is examined more closely, it turns out not to have come about as a result
of one and the same thing giving itself diverse shapes but rather as a result
of the shapeless repetition of one and the same thing which is only exter-
nally applied to diverse material and which contains only the tedious sem-
blance of diversity. The Idea, which is true enough for itself, in fact remains
ensnared in its origin as long as its development consists in nothing but
the repetition of the same old formula.

Having the knowing subject apply
the one unmoved form to whatever just happens to be present and then
externally dipping the material into this motionless element contributes as
much to fulfilling what is demanded as does a collection of purely arbi-
trary impressions about the content. Rather, when what is demanded is for
the shapes to originate their richness and determine their differences from
out of themselves, this other view instead consists in only a monochrome
formalism which only arrives at the differences in its material because the
material itself has already been prepared for it and is something well known.

In so doing, this formalism asserts that this monotony and abstract
universality is the absolute, and it assures us that any dissatisfaction with
such universality is only an incapacity to master the absolute standpoint
and keep a firm grip on it. However much there was once a time when
the empty possibility of imagining [vorzustellen] things differently was
sufficient to refute a view [Vorstellung], and however much the general
thought, the same mere possibility, had also at that time the entirely
positive value of actual cognition, nonetheless nowadays we see the
universal Idea in this form of non-actuality get all value attributed to it, and
we see that what counts asthe speculative way of considering things turns
out to be the dissolution of the distinct and the determinate, or, instead
turns out to be simply the casting of what is distinct and determinate into
the abyss of the void, an act lacking all development or having no
justification in its own self at all.

In that mode, to examine any existence in the way in which it is in the
absolute consists in nothing more than saying it is in fact being spoken of
as, say, a “something,” whereas in the absolute, in the A = A, there is no
such “something,” for in the absolute, everything is one. To oppose this one
bit of knowledge, namely, that in the absolute everything is the same, to
the knowing which makes distinctions and which has been either fulfilled
or is seeking and demanding to be fulfilled – that is, to pass off its absolute
as the night in which, as one says, all cows are black – is an utterly vacuous
naiveté in cognition. –

The formalism which has been indicted and scorned
by the philosophy of recent times and which has been generated again in it
will not disappear from science even though its inadequacy is well known
and felt. It will not disappear until the knowing of absolute actuality has
become completely clear about its own nature. –

Taking into consideration
that working out any general idea [Vorstellung] is made easier by first having
it right before us, it is worth indicating here at least very roughly what those
ideas are. At the same time, we should also take this opportunity to rid
ourselves of a few forms which are only impediments to philosophical cognition.

In my view, which must be justified by the exposition of the sys-
tem itself, everything hangs on grasping and expressing the true not just
as substance but just as much as subject. At the same time, it is to be noted
that substantiality comprises within itself the universal, or, it comprises not
only the immediacy of knowing but also the immediacy of being, or, imme-
diacy for knowing. – However much taking God to be the one substance
shocked the age in which this was expressed, still that was in part because
of an instinctive awareness that in such a view self-consciousness only per-
ishes and is not preserved.

However, in part, the opposite view, which itself
clings to thinking as thinking, or, which holds fast to universality, is exactly
the same simplicity, or, it is itself undifferentiated, unmoved substantiality.
But, thirdly, if thinking only unifies the being of substance with itself and
grasps immediacy, or intuition grasped as thinking, then there is the issue
about whether this intellectual intuition does not then itself relapse into
inert simplicity and thereby present actuality itself in a fully non-actual
mode.

Furthermore, the living substance is the being that is in truth subject,
or, what amounts to the same thing, it is in truth actual only insofar as it
is the movement of self-positing, or, that it is the mediation of itself and
its becoming-other-to-itself. As subject, it is pure, simple negativity, and,
as a result, it is the estrangement of what is simple, or, it is the doubling
which posits oppositions and which is again the negation of this indifferent
diversity and its opposition.

That is, it is only this self-restoring sameness,
the reflective turn into itself in its otherness. – The true is not an original
unity as such, or, not an immediate unity as such. It is the coming-to-be
of itself, the circle that presupposes its end as its goal and has its end for
its beginning, and which is actual only through this accomplishment and
its end.

The life of God and divine cognition might thus be expressed as a
game love plays with itself. If this Idea lacks the seriousness, the suffering,
the patience, and the labor of the negative, then it lowers itself into edifica-
tion, even into triteness. In itself that life is indeed an unalloyed sameness
and unity with itself, since in such a life there is neither anything serious
in this otherness and alienation, nor in overcoming this alienation. How-
ever, this in-itself is abstract universality, in which its nature, which is to
be for itself, and the self-movement of the form are both left out of view.

However much the form is said to be the same as the essence, still it is for
that very reason a bald misunderstanding to suppose that cognition can be
content with the in-itself, or, the essence, but can do without the form –
that the absolute principle, or, the absolute intuition, can make do without
working out the former or without the development of the latter. Precisely
because the form is as essential to the essence as the essence is to itself, the
essence must not be grasped and expressed as mere essence, which is to say,
as immediate substance or as the pure self-intuition of the divine. Rather,
it must likewise be grasped as form in the entire richness of the developed
form, and only thereby is it grasped and expressed as the actual.

The true is the whole.

However, the whole is only the essence com-
pleting itself through its own development

This much must be said of
the absolute: It is essentially a result, and only at the end is it what it is in
truth. Its nature consists just in this: to be actual, to be subject, or, to be
the becoming-of-itself.

As contradictory as it might seem, namely, that the
absolute is to be comprehended essentially as a result, even a little reflec-
tion will put this mere semblance of contradiction in its rightful place. The
beginning, the principle, or, the absolute as it is at first, or, as it is imme-
diately expressed, is only the universal. But just as my saying “all animals”
can hardly count as an expression of zoology, it is likewise obvious that the
words, “absolute,” “divine,” “eternal,” and so on, do not express what is
contained in them; – and it is only such words which in fact express intu-
ition as the immediate.

Whatever is more than such a word, even the mere
transition to a proposition, is a becoming-other which must be redeemed,
or, it is a mediation. However, it is this mediation which is rejected with
such horror as if somebody, in making more of mediation than in claiming
both that it itself is nothing absolute and that it in no way is in the absolute,
would be abandoning absolute cognition altogether.

However, this abhorrence [Perhorreszieren] of mediation stems in fact
from a lack of acquaintance with the nature of mediation and with the
nature of absolute cognition itself. This is so because mediation is
nothing but selfmoving self-equality, or, it is a reflective turn into itself,
the moment of the I existing-for-itself, pure negativity, or, simple
coming-to-be.

The I, or,
coming-to-be [werden], this mediating, is, on account of its simplicity,
immediacy in the very process of coming-to-be and is the immediate
itself. – Hence, reason is misunderstood if reflection is excluded from the
truth and is not taken to be a positive moment of the absolute. Reflection
is what makes truth into the result, but it is likewise what sublates the
opposition between the result and its coming-to-be.

This is so because this coming-to-be is just
as simple and hence not different from the form of the true, which itself
proves itself to be simple in its result. Coming-to-be is instead this very
return into simplicity. – However much the embryo is indeed in itself a
person, it is still not a person for itself; the embryo is a person for itself only
as a culturally formed and educated rationality which has made itself into
what it is in itself. This is for the first time its actuality. However, this result
is itself simple immediacy, for it is self-conscious freedom which is at rest
within itself, a freedom which has not set the opposition off to one side
and left it only lying there but has been reconciled with it.

What has just been said can also be expressed by saying that reason
is purposive doing. Both the exaltation of a nature supposedly above and
beyond thinking, an exaltation which misconstrues thinking, and espe-
cially the banishment of external purposiveness have brought the form
of purpose completely into disrepute. Yet, in the sense in which Aristotle
also determines nature as purposive doing, purpose is the immediate, the
motionless, which is self-moving, or, is subject. Its abstract power to move is
being-for-itself, or, pure negativity.

For that reason, the result is the same as
the beginning because the beginning is purpose – that is, the actual is the
same as its concept only because the immediate, as purpose, has the self,
or, pure actuality, within itself. The purpose which has been worked out,
or, existing actuality, is movement and unfolded coming-to-be. However,
this very unrest is the self, and for that reason, it is the same as the former
immediacy and simplicity of the beginning because it is the result which
has returned into itself. – What has returned into itself is just the self, and
the self is self-relating sameness and simplicity.

lol, imagine