File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0201, message 15


From: "Phil Walden" <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: BHA: Wrong infinity again
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:56:35 -0000


Hi Mervyn, Gary, listers,

Mervyn, thanks for the feedback.  When was Mike Inwood's A HEGEL DICTIONARY
published?  I know it's published by Blackwells but I can't recall seeing it
in their big store here in Oxford (and I always look at the Hegel shelves).
I suspect it is quite old.  For the last few years Mike has been
concentrating on Heidegger interpretation.  Many moons ago I used to cross
swords with Mike on Hegel interpretation at summer seminars at his college
(Trinity) because I thought he unduly downgraded the importance of THE
SCIENCE OF LOGIC, and propagated what I regard(ed) as a diluted version of
Hegel, in which the phenomenological and the analytical were foregrounded at
the expense of the dialectical.

I'm going to get hold of a copy of A HEGEL DICTIONARY.  I am intrigued by
this distinction you (and Mike Inwood?) make, Mervyn, between the "practical
aspect" and the "theoretical aspect" of wrong infinity.  Can you give an
example?  And does the distinction exist in Bhaskar's work?

As I understand Hegel, he does not accept Kant's doctrine of the primacy of
the practical, and he aims to reinstate the idea of THEORETICAL knowledge of
the unconditioned, even though he placed great weight on the practical and
aimed to incorporate it into his philosophy rather than simply leave it
aside.  Thus I think that Hegel believed in the primacy of theory over
practice.  So do I.  Therefore when I hear that a question is being
considered under its "practical aspect" rather than its "theoretical aspect"
I am inclined to doubt the whole approach.

Gary, on reflection your query about "bad infinity" seems to touch on some
recalcitrant problems in philosophy.  For example, can we understand
(dialectical) mediation without reference to a quantitative scale?  Isn't
the category of "value" quantitative at bottom?  I think Hegel would answer
yes to the first question and no to the second question, because Hegel seems
to hold that history has its own laws that transcend the (merely)
quantitative - though in the middle of the SCIENCE OF LOGIC he considers at
length "quantity", "quantum", "measure", etc.  But as for my opinion, I'm a
bit in the dark on these questions.  Any views, Gary?  Mervyn?  Or anyone
else?

Best regards,

Phil



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Mervyn
> Hartwig
> Sent: 09 January 2002 18:10
> To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: BHA: RE: A query
>
>
> Hi Phil, Gary,
>
> >It seems to me that "bad infinity" should be understood as something like
> >NOT FACING UP TO THE ROOT PROBLEM BY FINDING ANOTHER PROBLEM TO
> TALK ABOUT
> >INSTEAD.
>
> Wonderful! Consistent with what Inwood's saying considered under the
> aspect of practice rather than theory.
>
> Mervyn
>
>
> Phil Walden <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >Hi Gary,
> >
> >Funnily enough I can find no reference to the words "bad infinity" in the
> >original Hegel, though I have seen them in the work of commentators.
> >However, there is "wrong infinity" in the Wallace translation of
> the Smaller
> >Logic (paragraph &94):
> >
> >"....this infinite only expresses the *ought-to-be* elimination of the
> >finite.  The progression to infinity never gets further than a
> statement of
> >the contradiction involved in the finite, viz. that it is
> somewhat as well
> >as somewhat else."
> >
> >and in the Zusatze - lecture notes - which follow just below Hegel says:
> >
> >"....We lay down a limit: then we pass it: next we have a limit
> once more,
> >and so on for ever.  All this is but superficial alternation, which never
> >leaves the region of the finite behind."
> >
> >There is more just below in which Hegel injuncts us to make our
> >determinations concrete rather than abstract (which he calls "fleeing").
> >
> >It seems to me that "bad infinity" should be understood as something like
> >NOT FACING UP TO THE ROOT PROBLEM BY FINDING ANOTHER PROBLEM TO
> TALK ABOUT
> >INSTEAD.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >> [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Gary
> >> MacLennan
> >> Sent: 07 January 2002 01:58
> >> To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >> Subject: BHA: A query
> >>
> >>
> >> Could someone (Mervyn?) explain to me what Hegel meant  by a 'bad
> >> infinity'?
> >>
> >> Please!!
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
> --
> Mervyn Hartwig
> 13 Spenser Road
> Herne Hill
> London SE24 ONS
> United Kingdom
> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005