display all the ideas for this combination of texts
4 ideas
15608 | The act of thinking is the bringing forth of universals [Hegel] |
Full Idea: Thinking as an activity is the active universal, and indeed the self-actuating universal, since the act, or what is brought forth, is precisely the universal. | |
From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Logic (Encyclopedia I) [1817], §20) | |
A reaction: One should contemplate animal thought in the light of this remark. Thought requires the recognition of types of things, and resemblances, and repetitions, and patterns. Language consists almost entirely of universals. |
21986 | Hegel's system has a vast number of basic concepts [Hegel, by Moore,AW] |
Full Idea: For Hegel the full system of concepts ...contains many more than Kant's twelve. | |
From: report of Georg W.F.Hegel (Logic (Encyclopedia I) [1817], I §60Z) by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 07.7 | |
A reaction: This offers some sort of conceptual scheme, but not the structured one that Kant proposes. The sequence of dialectical mediation imposes some sort of shape on the concepts. |
15607 | We don't think with concepts - we think the concepts [Hegel] |
Full Idea: There is a saying that, when we have grasped a concept, we still do not know what to think with it. But there is nothing to be thought with a concept save the concept itself. | |
From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Logic (Encyclopedia I) [1817], §03 Rem) | |
A reaction: Analytic philosophers should read Hegel on concepts, because he approaches the matter so very differently, and seems to be the root of the continental approach to such things. He seems to me to talk more sense than Frege on the subject. |
15610 | Active thought about objects produces the universal, which is what is true and essential of it [Hegel] |
Full Idea: When thinking is taken as active with regard to ob-jects, as the thinking-over of something, then the universal - as the product of the activity - contains the value of the matter, what is essential, inner, true. | |
From: Georg W.F.Hegel (Logic (Encyclopedia I) [1817], §21) | |
A reaction: I prefer to talk of 'general terms' rather than 'universals'. If 'tiger' is coined for the first one, but must be applicable to subsequent tigers, it has to generalise what they all have in common. Locke's 'nominal' essence, I would say. |