fact, the point is, there can become eternal, Severino says how? For Hegel, is absolutely unthinkable, not even arise the problem of the existence of eternal becoming, because Hegel's concept of becoming a completely different (perhaps driven by the belief in the futility of the institution, much criticized by Severino). In fact, let's see what Hegel says:
"Becoming: Units of being and nothingness. The pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. The truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being is nothing in the past , being and nothingness, being and nothing are quite different, but at the same inseparable and indivisible, each immediately vanishes in its opposite. " This is the apology of becoming understood not as but how to become eternal transience of being. Because the two thinkers have a concept of becoming so different? I do not think it's just a matter of faith in the existence of anything that comes from having taken on faith as existing on the starting point of the Hegelian dialectic, that is to be indeterminate. Hegel justifies its become part of the dialectic between being and nothing INDETERMINATE, and Severino, saying that the proposition "being is" is an immediate start with the GIVEN, that is, a being that is not empty, and therefore not nothing can be approached dialectically to produce a synthesis (the synthesis is the development of Hegel as being sunset). If be the limit does not exist, it is clear that there can be nothing, let alone becoming Hegel, which is based precisely on the fact that being permanent, as permanent, already contains a void, emptiness. In other words: Severino has been right :-))
0 comments:
Post a Comment