I know you’re being sarcastic but indeed if we reasoned properly we would all agree

A common fallacy is that if you and I are smart then we will agree. Conflicts of interest and personal value systems and world views provide easy inlets for various counter points.

Well it isn’t a fallacy because if you reason without presuppositions you do uncover the absolute truth

> if you reason without presuppositions

This cannot be accomplished, and the conclusion that such a feat leads to absolute truth is philosophically untenable.

Yes it can. Hegel did it in the Science of Logic

Many people have made philosophical claims. That does not make them categorically true, and Hegel certainly has his critics.

I used to know a guy that read some Hegel and then claimed dominion over Knowing the Truth and I used to piss him off by saying shit like “dogmatic people are slaves to their fears” and “discourse is a form of oppression”

And what elevates Hegel over any other philosopher, prophet, god, or performance artist?

Hegel is extremely satisfying on an emotional level to some readers. The idea that you —yes you, the reader— not only stand at the precipice of unfettered genius by the mere fact of possessing any critical faculty, but you also already possess the requisite tools to seize and contemplate the infinite truths of the universe, is very seductive.

Like everybody loves being told that they are smart, and Hegel tells the reader that they can be superlatively intelligent. It’s a hella thrilling idea to entertain, and the best way to keep that feeling going is by believing that it’s true, and the best way to convince yourself of that is to write defenses of Hegel.

> know you’re being sarcastic but indeed if we reasoned properly we would all agree

We would also lose everything that makes us human and will find no satisfaction in knowing.

Satisfaction in knowing comes from disagreement? I don’t think so