O.G. Rose | Limits Are Limitless by O.G. Rose (On the Fre(Q) Theory of Alex Ebert) @O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel | Uploaded March 2024 | Updated October 2024, 4 hours ago.
Dr. Stephen Houlgate refers to Hegel as “presuppositionless philosophy,” but what does this mean? If this is possible, then it might be possible for Hume to be “thought beyond” in a sense, which is to say it is possible for us to move from “Hume to Hegel.” Well, this means that Hegel doesn’t base his philosophy on any assumptions, only on a simple observation that doesn’t require interpretation. What assumption is that (which doesn’t need interpretation, which on the face of it seems impossible)? The assumption is that “we are finite,” which is to say, “we are limited”—as Alex Ebert stresses and so well describes in “Fre(Q) Theory.”
Is that a presupposition? Seemingly not, for we are indeed limited, though what it means that we are limited could slip into presuppositional thinking. And since we require meaning and “understanding” to function, whatever conclusions we reach without presuppositions will almost immediately fall back into presuppositions, which we will then need to release again, only to hold onto new ones—on and on. For Hegel, an aid seems to be if we can possibly find a philosophy that trains us to move “in and out of” presuppositions, letting them come and go as they must. We must do this, which then means we must be limited from being an entity who doesn’t possibly have to engage in this effort. And so limits are not assumed but hit and encountered…
If it is impossible for us to entirely avoid presuppositions, then we are limited from entirely avoiding presuppositions, and so “we cannot say we cannot avoid presuppositions” without assuming we are limited, and yet the very fact we cannot know if we are limited (only assume such) is itself a limitation. And thus it is not an assumption that we are limited, but the way of things, a fundamental and essential reality for human beings. Ontology is defined by limits, even if somehow the ontic is not, and the very fact we can’t say either way is further proof of the fundamentals of limitation. Limits are axiomatic, and in fact, it almost seems wrong to say “limits are axiomatic.” They just are, “there”—hence perhaps why Hegel encourages us to “look on”...
For the Full Piece:
ogrose.substack.com/p/limits-are-limitless
On Medium:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/limits-are-limitless-16dbc134301a
For more by O.G. Rose:
og-rose.com
Photo by Kir
Dr. Stephen Houlgate refers to Hegel as “presuppositionless philosophy,” but what does this mean? If this is possible, then it might be possible for Hume to be “thought beyond” in a sense, which is to say it is possible for us to move from “Hume to Hegel.” Well, this means that Hegel doesn’t base his philosophy on any assumptions, only on a simple observation that doesn’t require interpretation. What assumption is that (which doesn’t need interpretation, which on the face of it seems impossible)? The assumption is that “we are finite,” which is to say, “we are limited”—as Alex Ebert stresses and so well describes in “Fre(Q) Theory.”
Is that a presupposition? Seemingly not, for we are indeed limited, though what it means that we are limited could slip into presuppositional thinking. And since we require meaning and “understanding” to function, whatever conclusions we reach without presuppositions will almost immediately fall back into presuppositions, which we will then need to release again, only to hold onto new ones—on and on. For Hegel, an aid seems to be if we can possibly find a philosophy that trains us to move “in and out of” presuppositions, letting them come and go as they must. We must do this, which then means we must be limited from being an entity who doesn’t possibly have to engage in this effort. And so limits are not assumed but hit and encountered…
If it is impossible for us to entirely avoid presuppositions, then we are limited from entirely avoiding presuppositions, and so “we cannot say we cannot avoid presuppositions” without assuming we are limited, and yet the very fact we cannot know if we are limited (only assume such) is itself a limitation. And thus it is not an assumption that we are limited, but the way of things, a fundamental and essential reality for human beings. Ontology is defined by limits, even if somehow the ontic is not, and the very fact we can’t say either way is further proof of the fundamentals of limitation. Limits are axiomatic, and in fact, it almost seems wrong to say “limits are axiomatic.” They just are, “there”—hence perhaps why Hegel encourages us to “look on”...
For the Full Piece:
ogrose.substack.com/p/limits-are-limitless
On Medium:
o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/limits-are-limitless-16dbc134301a
For more by O.G. Rose:
og-rose.com
Photo by Kir
