So, in this sense, logic has truly evolved into a science about the laws of human thinking. If the requirement for logic in Aristotle's era was only to emphasize the formal rules of logic, we can regard Aristotelian logic as a science about the form of human thinking. After modern philosophy, logic became a science about the content of human thinking, which is the science of laws.
So, this can be seen as modern philosophers' understanding of logic being different from Aristotle's and disagreeing with the understanding of history. Hegel's logic also continues this line of thought, that knowledge is an connotative line of thought, and therefore it regards logic as a regulation of the content of human thinking.
So, in the first sentence of the introduction to "Little Logic," he said that logic is the science of studying pure ideas and ideas that exist in abstract elements of thinking.
This is Hegel's fundamental principle of logic. It is precisely based on such a provision that Hegel could regard logic as the foundation of his entire philosophy. Because the entire philosophy is about discussing the issue of absolute ideas, their own development process, which is related to the development and evolution of absolute ideas. It is related to the ideas themselves, and we can even call this absolute idea a pure idea. It is related to the occurrence and development process of human pure ideas.
To study such a development process, the first element is to determine in what way we study the development process of such absolute ideas. Therefore, in this sense, Hegel must have regarded logic, the science that studies the pure forms of thought of absolute ideas, as the foundation of his entire philosophy.
So, Hegel's work, after completing "Phenomenology of Spirit," was called "Logical Science. In fact, this book 'Logic Science' is not the book 'Logic', but what we usually refer to as' Big Logic ', which is another logical work formed separately from' The Complete Book of Philosophy '.
Similarly, it is also a science of logic, just to distinguish it from the separately published book of logic science. Therefore, we usually translate this book directly as "Logic", and in one of He Lin's books, it is directly translated as "Small Logic" to distinguish it from Big Logic.
As the logical science or logic of "Little Logic", its provisions on ideas or pure concepts are mainly developed from three aspects: the first is the ontological provisions, and the second is the essentialist provisions. The third provision regarding conceptual theory.
In logic, he attempts to provide the fundamental ways in which all pure ideas that we can discuss can be constructed. Among these three methods, the most important and fundamental focus is on the third aspect, which is the conceptual approach. Because only in the conceptual way can we understand how absolute spirit evolves into an absolute idea, how it becomes an absolute idea, and ultimately jumps into the sea like a fish, that is, into the sea of nature, and ultimately generates its rich and complete spirit.
So, we can even describe his three paths simply. These three paths actually mean that we have logic, just like we need to prepare all the diving tools before going into the water. Logic equips us with the tools we can go into the water.
So, when we want to dive, we must prepare all the necessary conditions for diving. All our equipment, logic, actually provides us with all the necessary conditions for exploring objects, exploring nature, and even exploring human spiritual activities. This is logic.
So, without the preparation of logic, you cannot rashly enter the water, you cannot rashly deal with nature, and of course, you cannot rashly deal with human spiritual activities. So, logic is a prerequisite for us to enter the natural and spiritual world.
However, the prerequisite itself must be adapted to our diving activities, it must be adapted to our diving activities. If it does not adapt to this condition, it is useless and meaningless. So, when designing such conditions, that is, when designing such equipment, it is entirely for the purpose of better completing our diving activities.
So, you can't just dive without wearing swimsuits. For example, if I was supposed to dive, but I didn't wear a diving cap, I didn't even wear a diving suit, and I didn't bring any diving equipment, I just went straight into the water, or I brought other equipment into the water. The result can be imagined.
So, these tools of logic are not arbitrarily designed, or in other words, they are not constructed without purpose, reason, or preparation. On the contrary, logic is precisely designed to help us better understand nature. We seem to have a vague impression here, what impression?
Is Hegel's preparatory work here somewhat similar to Kant's requirement for the form of human intelligence before grasping objects for the sake of humanity. That is to say, if Kant said that if we want to understand objects or grasp phenomena, we must first possess some innate ability. If you do not have innate ability, how can you claim to be able to grasp objects?
Although this ability is not prepared for us to grasp objects, it is manifested simultaneously when we grasp objects. Just like how you can grow the taste of a pear without eating it, but in order to grow the taste of a pear, you must first have a sense of taste. If you don't have a sense of taste, how can you taste pear?
However, how can we test your taste buds? You must taste anything. If you haven't tasted anything, how can you tell if you have taste?
Therefore, in Kant's view, the so-called innate cognitive form he gave is manifested through our grasp of the object. Just like we have feelings, it's not because we have a innate feeling, even if we don't feel anything, that feeling is there.
In experiential life, in our real life, this situation does not exist. Just as you don't know how to swim, or how to verify that you can swim, you must go into the water and take a look. You can't say I can swim, but I've never been underwater.
But for Kant, to verify such things, the prerequisite is actually that you possess such ability. Because in Kant's view, the intellectual form or ability of human beings is precisely the ability that we possess before we can use this ability to understand objects. Although it must be demonstrated in the activity of cognition, it must have been present before cognition.
So Kant called this ability innate ability because it existed before our experiential understanding. Hegel here demonstrates a similarity between himself and Kant, in that when constructing the basic framework of logic, all the requirements he gives about the fundamental ability of humans to grasp the world are not determined by an intellectual judgment, but by a certain logical formal requirement possessed by human concepts.
It's Kang Hege trying to make the equipment as perfect as possible before we go into the water. Although we don't know if our device will truly work underwater, or if we even know if I can go underwater. But for Hegel, he said that even if you don't know how to dive, as long as you put on a diving suit, you will definitely dive.
He's not saying that I need to learn how to dive before I can wear a diving suit, or that I need to verify my ability to dive through my diving activities. Hegel's meaning is not like that. He said that as long as you master this method, you can follow it and do what it can do.
Why is Hegel often overcrowded? Why is Hegel's philosophy so popular among so many people?
He didn't say that you don't care what theory you accept, you can go down and try it out first, and then you can tell me, just like we often say Marx's Lenin or Mao Zedong's theory, what a pear tastes like, only by tasting it can you know.
Hegel said I don't need to taste, because what you call your practical activity is actually predetermined a priori in all the equipment you have prepared before starting your practice. So, one of Hegel's greatest advantages is that he never gave a set of obscure theories like Kant, which makes people uncertain. So Hegel's works are rarely revised or rewritten.
Hegel's works do not require a simplified and popular version. His books are very popular, so popular that when most people read Hegel's books, they do not expect that they are books that we need to have knowledge of philosophical history to read.
Why do we read it so obscure? It's not Hegel's fault, it's the translator's fault. If you were to read German, you would never feel as obscure as reading Chinese. So why do we always emphasize that to learn a culture, one must understand the language of its culture, to learn a philosophy, one must understand what the philosopher is saying, their language. If you don't understand their language, according to the translated understanding, it will only be scratching your feet and watching from afar.
You cannot truly delve into the true state of his philosophical thought. For Hegel, his greatest skill is his ability to make obscure ideas easy to understand, his ability to make absolute ideas lively, and his ability to make absolute spirit come alive, making us feel that this absolute spirit, where it is, is entirely someone living between us, and that person is called Napoleon.
