http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/ understand and update G.W.F. Hegel Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:35:48 GMT john http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5859 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5859 ... Dear Stephen, I hate to keep talking about something I know so little about--namely, McTaggart. But the subject does interrest me. McTaggart's commentary Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:37:06 GMT Alan Ponikvar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5858 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5858 Hi Randall, I see that I am going to have to stop complementing you for the clarity of your presentation. It is evident that this is simply your natural way of Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:13:03 GMT stephen theron http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5857 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5857 Dear John, Thank you for your letter addressed to me. McTaggart´s commentary is a very painstaking work. it ends with recommending the task which McTaggart in Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:06:07 GMT john http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5856 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5856 ... Dear Stephen, Although you express yourself in general terms, I assume you have McTaggart's commentary particularly in mind. Very likely you are the only Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:07:03 GMT thefearsome2000 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5855 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5855 [Alan] ... Hello Alan, One thing I like about your style, is that you aren't afraid to be wrong. It certainly makes for dramatic debate. ... [Hegel] para 78 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:48:03 GMT stephen theron http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5854 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5854 This is surely one side of a more complex picture, a bit black and white. I suppose bad or indifferent "commentaries" are written at all times. If they indeed Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:29:31 GMT john http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5853 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5853 ... This link that Kai provides is very interesting. It is a 100 page commentary on the "Measure" chapter of the SL. So far I've just read the first 11 pages. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:44:57 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5852 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5852 So by Hegel's Logic can you have left vs right pragmatism; the individuals right to exploit vs the collective right to be oppressive?; both appear to normalise Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:58:58 GMT Phil brennan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5851 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5851 thanks to respondents of my request for suggestions on commentary to Hegel's logic.  I think I'll begin with Carlson as that seems the type of thing I was Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:09:03 GMT thefearsome2000 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5850 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5850 Hello List, Stephen, When I met up with Richard Winfield this past summer he recommended Houlgate's book too. The reason why books on Hegel are "outdated" is Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:32:39 GMT stephen theron http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5849 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5849 Yes but then well if they are outdated in this automatic way then Hegel will be even more so, or if not why not? Conversely, that Houlgate or anyone else cast Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:50:55 GMT hegelnet http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5848 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5848 ... Yes, I agree that this book is also excelent. It only covers the first 1/9 of the Science of Logic, from pure being to Being-For-Itself (Fuersichsein), but Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:07:58 GMT Paul Healey http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5847 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5847 I suppose you could argue that Charles Taylor's 1975 'Hegel' provides a clear understanding from which a more sublime analysis could be built on. So what does Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:48:56 GMT Alan Ponikvar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5846 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5846 Hi Paul, As I read Hegel, he means to offer an alternative to formal logic or to the logic of the understanding. As I can see it, formal logic does not allow Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:57:13 GMT Bruce Merrill http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5845 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/5845 The Geraets, Suchting and Harris translation of the En Logic (Hackett, 1991) has an extensive bibliography, with comments, re discussions of the Logic. pp