Posted by Ed on April 05, 19103 at 17:51:28:

In Reply to: Re: Hegel posted by Sashathe on August 27, 19101 at 22:11:06:

: I cannot exhaustively answer your question, but I can put in the direction. Hegel's aufhebung is the philosophy of presence, par excellance, Hegels aufhebung is a paradoxical concept that allows a progression while letting go, but still retaining, it conserves and eliminates at the same time. This is admittedly vague, but so is hegel. In relation to derrida though, the dialectic of hegel, is a mastery of presence, par excellence, because being absorbs its opposite(nothing) and kinda controls and dictates it towards a telos of absolute knowledge, in which all contradictions are eliminated and pure presense is the result. Derrida argues that this telos is not a possibility, because of the structure in the sign or mark, always has possibilities of absence,this is all related to differance, the trace , and supplemtarity,in that there is always a non-plenitude in the sign, which is not accidental, but fundamental and can never be reduced to pure presence, as is tried by almost all traditional western philosophers, in such forms of intuition. This is of course is against hegel.I understand I did not adress Adorno,because I have never delved ino critical theory, also I have only answered your questions in a way that presupposes knowledge of either thinker.

: : Where is the difference between the dialectic of >Hegel and Deconstruction? But, please give the answer in the differnce views of Aufhebung. I mean, where's the differnce between a negative dialectic (Adorno) and Derrida's Deconstruction and relation to the other?

If Aufhebung is interpreted as maintaining non-being within being as it is when it initially presents itself then, yes, Derrida's criticism has some merit, but if Aufhebung is interpreted as maintaining non-being within being as it is transformed by its relationship with being, then Derrida's criticism has less merit. For example, if you understand the intial incorporation of non-being into being as simply making being indeterminate, then you are given the thread that can unravel being through its initial indeterminance. Essentially, being is always already able to collapse into non-being. Which interpretation did Hegel intend? Well, that's hard to determine, but given the tone of Hegel's works it would be hard to deny that Hegel seems to believe he has co-opted, so to speak, non-being, and rendered it harmless through his dialectic, but as far as the words themselves it is somewhat ambiguous and Derrida's criticism serves as a useful corrective.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup