http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/ Hegel's Science of Logic Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:27:36 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1160 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1160 I think the problem with Euclid's notions and postulates; extrapolating from Hegel's ontology, is that they focus on the formal; a set of particular spatial Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:44:05 GMT hucklebird@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1159 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1159 Although Hegel was somewhat troubled by Euclidian geometry while writing his Science of Logic, with some consideration he might have realized that this did not Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:08:18 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1158 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1158 ... I don't think Hegel takes n as infinity. He might of written, as n tends to infinity, but the more important point, is I think that the one-sided notion of Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:49:36 GMT Debu Banerjee http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1157 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1157 For hegel-scilogic group members hello *Although Hegel was somewhat troubled by Euclidian geometry while writing his Science of Logic..*  Was he ? The point Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:47:36 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1156 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1156 Before I carry on, has anyone read Hegel's Grand Synthesis: A Study of Being, Thought and History, by Daniel Berthold-Bond. 1989?; I think I've got it now; so Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:46:54 GMT Tim http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1155 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1155 Although Hegel was somewhat troubled by Euclidian geometry while writing his Science of Logic, with some consideration he might have realized that this did not Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:45:13 GMT hucklebird@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1154 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1154 Tim, I should say this better. What is being said is that the impetus to draw a pure distance is negated when in fact the impetus discovers itself drawing a Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:46:51 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1153 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1153 ... Perhaps the problem, is with the difference between Hegel and Kant's notion of being?; if it is merely the form of a thing; pictorial representation, as in Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:24:38 GMT hucklebird@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1152 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1152 What is being said is that the impetus to draw some distance is negated when in fact the impetus discovers itself drawing a straight line. Likewise, the Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:07:06 GMT Tim http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1151 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1151 But this implies that curvature actually negates straightness. The only thing that can be said of curvature is that it produces an infinite number of straight Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:28:45 GMT hucklebird@... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1150 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1150 Hi all Here is my take on space-time as represented by geometry. An approach that offers interesting results is the method of construction as professed by Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:02:48 GMT Alan Ponikvar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1149 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1149 I think you have hit upon something important in this very clear explanation. Kant's philosophical project is motivated by the problems created for reason when Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:50:01 GMT Tron Furu http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1148 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1148 Hi, I'd like to approach the problem with a first step on the linguistic side. AFAICS the term "supersensible" is the english translation of the rather Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:49:57 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1147 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1147 Thank you, for the feedback. ... I take it that Hegel would say the only way you can know what things-in-themselves are, as being distinct, but not separated Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:07:11 GMT David Carlson http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1146 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel-scilogic/message/1146 My offhand suggestion, without studying the context of the CJ quote, is that supersensible being refers to the thing-in-itself, and that Kant here is warning