多年前我在華文博客討論了黑格爾的本體論的邏輯缺陷。後來我將其改寫為英文貼出，最近將英文鏈接在臉書的某哲學群分享，引來了一位研究黑格爾40年的專業哲學教授進行評論。他的評論雖然一點也不出我的意料，因為我太了解他們了（這些年來，有兩類人的行為水平讓我非常了解，一是網軍，二是專業哲學家），不過我想其結果可能會讓其他不了解今天的專業哲學家水平的人大開眼界。先告訴結論：這位40年的黑格爾專家根本就不像是讀過黑格爾的本體論，因此他似乎是在要教導我有關黑格爾本體論的評論完全與黑格爾的本體論無關。
下麵請欣賞精彩的評論（不好意思，沒翻成中文，如有讀不懂的，請用“有道”或google翻譯，這兩款翻譯器各有優劣）：
The imperfection of Hegelian ontology
Rongqing Dai, Ph.D. New Jersey Abstract At the core of the Hegelian ontology are pure nothing, pure being, and the instant becoming between them, which were established by Hegel through the quest f…
10 Comments
Comments
Fredrick George Welfare This is a superb example of Hegelese. I doubt that anyone can use such a closed system unless they examine both applications and criticisms of Hegel’s Logic.
Paraphrasing would be a much stronger and more edifying writing style than merely repeating Hegel’s statements. But, without giving definitions - what is logic, or examples, this essay is impenetrable to sensibility and sheds no light on the meaningfulness of Hegel’s thrust.
Ron Dai Thanks so much for providing a typical example of the hypocrisy that has caused philosophy to die!!!!....
In the past years, I have done in depth analyses of why the academic philosophy is dead...I have given many causes, such as the general (surprising) incapability of the academics to read difficult philosophy text, and many others...There is one important cause that I have noticed but have not got a chance to discuss, which is EXACTLY the opposite to what you are criticizing of my style: professional philosophers DO NOT have the good habit of citing the original text, and because of this, there has been a very BAD DISHONEST HABIT of the academic philosophers, which is the random false and fake interpretation of the difficult text that they are INCAPABLE to comprehend! Thank you for coming here to provide an example of promoting that BAD DISHONEST HABIT of misinterpreting the original text without citing the original.
How about a challenge that I bet you are NOT even ABLE to understand this article of mine at all, not to mention the original text of Hegel??!!
Do you want to go through sentence by sentence of this post?...See, I am calling you out...your comment is so typical of the hypocrisy of nowadays academia of philosophy!!! Do you want to take a chance to defend yourself, as well as the whole academia of philosophy??? Let's go through this article and to see if you really understand it, do you have the courage of doing this??? Come on, be brave!
Fredrick George Welfare Ron Dai No, I do not want to go sentence by sentence unless you clarify it with a clarifying meaning, AND address comparisons to critics and supporters.
Philosophy is hardly dead but you do not help by reciting text without clarifications or comparisons.
Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Your response is not surprising at all since LOW CAPACITY OF READING COMPREHENSION is typical of nowadays philosophical academics, and many of them are also lacking courage to defend themselves.
Now I give you another alternative to prove yourself: could you tell what is the thrust of the Hegelian Ontology that you seem to defend? Do you understand it at all?
Fredrick George Welfare Ron Dai
I am not here to take a test.
You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.
You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
Fredrick George Welfare Ron Dai You are reacting emotionally not addressing anything I have said.
Of course I read the article, I have also been reading Hegel for 40 years. So I know a little bit.
When you provide a quote you should do something more than reiterate what it says. Put it in ‘your own words’ is a good idea.
I expect any Hegel scholar to connect a quote to what others have said - make a comparison between Hegel and someone else: Marx, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Popper, Dewey, Pippin, etc etc etc.
Now stop bothering me unless you have a substantive question and not a complaint.
Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Please see my response in a separate thread, because someone from FB has deleted my response in this thread (I have the photo copy to prove it)!
Reply to Fredrick George Welfare...
Ron Dai To Fredrick George Welfare: Obviously, now someone comes to your rescue with technology not with reason...My response to your previous comment was deleted by FB or hacker...before I responding to your last comment, I would like to repost my previous comment that was deleted by FB or hacker (I have kept the photo copy of it as well):
[You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.
You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?]
Your above words again tells you are even NOT able to read my article....and also again you demonstrated a bad habit of put your own words into the author's mouth because you are NOT capable of reading difficult text, and accordingly you think it is okay for you to say whatever about the meaning of the original text since you even don't need to cite any part of it...
It's so funny to see you start to discuss Logic based on your own assumption about what I talked about in the article......If I am your school teacher, I would give 0 no matter how equolently you would present your very limited knowledge of Logic, since you are NOT talking about the article that you are supposed to discuss!
So would you please at least for the sake of this discussion to show that you do know how to respect the original text without making random comment which has nothing to do with it???
Would you please at least read the sentences of the article to prove that you are not viewing an article as a picture like those preschool kids would do...I am expecting you to show the least level of competence so that we might conduct a productive conversation here...
Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare
Now let me respond to your last comment...Again I need to give your thanks first because today have given so many excellent examples to demonstrate the problems of the nowadays academia of philosophy...
You said, [I have also been reading Hegel for 40 years.] ----that is EXACTLY the problem I have been talking about recently, for the past CENTURY, not past week, the academia of philosophy has failed, and it started right from the incapability of reading difficult text....you even cannot prove that you are capable to read my post here, but just putting your own words into my mouth, and then started to criticize my article for whatever your understanding of it in a VERY BAD HABIT of not citing the original sentences!
What you bet on is that the audience would NOT be able to understand the original text either, so they would take whatever you say once you tell them that you have more than 40 years of experience....So please point out which part of my article makes you feel that I don't know the importance of Logic and I don't agree with Hegel for his discussion of Logic?
Ron Dai If you don't dare to get into the details of my post here since it is verifiable to all the audience here and thus it would be too easy for them to judge your mistake once you get into the details, once again, I give you another alternative to prove yourself for the reputation of your 40 years hard work: what is special about Logic that Hegel considered for his ontological discussion?
By the way, the reason I asked the above alternative question is because your following comment does NOT show that you have even READ the original text of the Hegelian ontology at all:
[
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
]
At first, I did not want to embarrass you by pointing it out, but then I think it would be irresponsible for you and for the audience if I don't tell you this so that you would not make the same kind of mistake in front of your students...after all, I am obliged to your help in providing so much vivid example material for my current fight for a new philosophy!
Ron Dai Fredrick George Welfare Poor you...what can I say now? You even have trouble to read my short response here? I really hesitate to continue now...I don't have the habit to embarrassing weak ones...
This is the alternative question I am asking you: what is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his Ontology?
這篇對話未經整理，對話中我的直接回話曾被刪掉（應該是有權限的人刪的，臉書是個很複雜的地方），刪掉之後，他又加了一個回帖，這樣我不得不另起一個頭，再把被刪的內容重貼，而且申明我存了被刪內容的影像，這樣我的回貼就沒再被刪。
在讀本文對話中，請特別注意對方的這段話：
【You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.
You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
】
這段話是他也是當今專業哲學界之墮落的一個典型縮影。這段話又分成兩部分，第一部分是：
【
You are putting up quotations and reciting the same thing as the quote which provides no insight into Hegel, philosophy or logic.
You fail to see the important issues: why is logic a beginning point, what is logic? You take Hegel as without any presuppositions when there is obviously a presupposition, namely logic.
You are also unaware of why logic might have been a problem that Hegel and philosophers since then have been discussing - why is logic a problem?
】
這段的特點是他自說自話，在根本沒讀懂我的原文的情況下，對我的原文進行胡亂指責，我原文中不但完全沒有否認黑格爾是討論邏輯，而且完全圍繞著黑格爾對他的邏輯的討論展開分析的；而他的這段話裏最為嚴重的是，他提到“without any presuppositions”這幾個字，因為那不是我的話，那是黑格爾的話。這表明他不但根本沒讀過黑格爾的本體論討論，而且根本讀不懂我的原文！！！
所以我在後麵問他這樣一個問題：“what is special about Logic that Hegel considered when he discussed his Ontology?”因為那就是他沒讀懂的黑格爾那句話的一個核心意思！！！
再來看上麵那段話的第二部分：
【
Logic is a problem because it cannot generalize to ethics - ethics cannot be logicized, but any attempt to make ethics logical must be evaluated. Certainly Hegel holds that human institutions are firstly ethical, but to make this claim, the logical is at issue.
Underlying philosophy and logic is the relation of logic to psychology which doubles down on the problematic.
Logic works with natural bodies, objects which can be enframed under causal or means-end instrumental and pragmatic notions. The human subject cannot be so enframed! Thus, critics of Hegel, like those of Kant, attack over the claim of reification or fixity of the human subject without any ethical judgments interceding on behalf of the subject.
Logic works for objects, not for subjects. But I will listen to any refutations!
】
這部分就更是赤裸裸的自我暴露，因為那與他看起來要捍衛的黑格爾的本體論是風馬牛毫不相幹！此君看來這40年就是混吃混喝，根本不知道黑格爾的本體論到底在說什麽！！！但他絕非一個偶然的例子，而是今天的專業哲學界的一個典型代表！隨便來一個都是這副德性！
|
