La lógica de Hegel
- Idioma:
- inglés
- Estado:
- Obra completa
- Autoría:
- Escrita por el autor
- Estado del texto:
- Sin ruido de escaneo detectado (medición automática sobre todo el texto, no revisada a mano)
- Extensión:
- ~160.000 palabras · 738 pasajes
Cita esta obra
- APAHegel. (n.d.). The Logic of Hegel [La lógica de Hegel]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel/the-logic-of-hegel
- MLAHegel. The Logic of Hegel [La lógica de Hegel]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/es/works/georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel/the-logic-of-hegel.
- ChicagoHegel. The Logic of Hegel [La lógica de Hegel]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel/the-logic-of-hegel.
Referencia de la edición que reproduce SigPhi: SigPhi es su reproducción digital, no el editor. El año de la edición no consta en los metadatos (por eso «n.d.») y el traductor solo aparece cuando consta.
De qué trata
La traducción de Wallace de la primera parte de la Enciclopedia de Hegel: la versión breve de su lógica, escrita para sus estudiantes.
Contexto e historia
Conviene no confundirla con la «Ciencia de la lógica», que es una obra distinta y mucho más extensa. Esta es la «lógica menor»: parágrafos numerados y concisos, pensados para que el profesor los comentara en clase, y por eso es la puerta de entrada habitual. «Lógica» tampoco significa aquí lo que significa hoy: no es la teoría de la inferencia válida sino el examen de las categorías con que pensamos —ser, nada, devenir, cualidad, cantidad, esencia, causa, concepto— y de cómo cada una, presionada, se contradice y conduce a la siguiente. Está la crítica de la lógica del entendimiento que quiere fijar las determinaciones por separado, y la famosa transición del ser y la nada al devenir con que el libro arranca.
Contexto editorial, no una fuente citable: a diferencia de los pasajes de la obra, estos datos no se pueden comprobar contra el corpus.
Those who insist on this separation of religion from thinking usually have before their minds the sort of thought that may be styled _after-thought._ They mean 'reflective' thinking, which has to deal with thoughts as thoughts, and brings them into consciousness. Slackness to perceive and keep in view this distinction which philosophy definitely draws in respect of thinking is the source of the crudest objections and reproaches against philosophy. Man,--and that just because it is his nature to think,--is the only being that possesses law, religion, and morality. In these spheres of human life, therefore, thinking, under the guise of feeling, faith, or generalised image, has not been inactive: its action and its productions are there present and therein contained. But it is one thing to have such feelings and generalised images that have been moulded and permeated by thought, and another thing to have thoughts about them. The thoughts, to which after-thought upon those modes of consciousness gives rise, are what is comprised under reflection, general reasoning, and the like, as well as under philosophy itself. The neglect of this distinction between thought in general and the reflective thought of philosophy has also led to another and more frequent misunderstanding. Reflection of this kind has been often maintained to be the condition, or even the only way, of attaining a consciousness and certitude of the Eternal and True. The (now somewhat antiquated) metaphysical proofs of God's existence, for example, have been treated, as if a knowledge of them and a conviction of their truth were the only and essential means of producing a belief and conviction that there is a God.…