Article on Mechanical Process Section Three from Hegel's Logic

[ridetoruin]

Guidelines and Checklists (click to expand)

📝 Guidelines for Philosophical/Literary Contributions

License Agreement

By submitting this PR, you agree to license your content under the
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 License.

Required Steps

1. Please follow the formatting guidelines.
2. For citations, kindly use Chicago author-date style.
3. If needed, make sure to update the project's central bibliography.
4. Add metadata at the top of your file, with title in ## heading for the title, like so:

---
title: Abbreviated title
indexTitle: Title for the index (include the philosopher or system in parentheses)
seoTitle: Full title used for external links (This is the actual title)
description: Brief description of your content
isArticle: true
authors: Your Name (Year)
editors: Editor Name (Year)
contributors: Contributor Name (Year)
---

## Your Article Title

Optional

Consider adding the Stub component to encourage further contributions, like so:

import { Stub } from "lib/components/ui/Stub";

<Stub />

💻 Guidelines for Code Contributions

Recommended Steps

1. Ensure your PR is linked to an issue, or create one if missing. This is to ensure that multiple contributors are not working over each other on the same thing.
2. Review contributions document for coding.

License Scope

The Apache License 2.0 applies to all code except content within content/** folder (excluding /contributing/**, _meta.ts, acknowledgements.mdx, index.mdx, privacy.mdx, team.mdx, terms.mdx). This primarily covers technical implementations rather than content, literature, or philosophy.

License Agreement

By submitting this PR, you agree to license your content under the
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 License
and your code under the
Apache License 2.0.

Notice

🪄 Formatting is automatically applied by scripts. If you find there has been an error, create an issue or contact us by email.

[Firgrep]

This sentence isn't really informative. Consider dropping

[ridetoruin]

what do you mean by "dropping?"

[Firgrep]

Deleting, removing.

[Firgrep]

product of the formal mechanical process all in backtics seems a bit much. Do you mean that there is explicitly a category of that name or did you refer to a section of the text? Perhaps it's better to just put product in backtics - seems like that should be a category at this point?

[ridetoruin]

I think that the full title would be the proper name of the category - there will also be a product of the real mechanical process.

[Firgrep]

What do you think about designing shorthands like formal product and real product? These come a bit more naturally and are less verbose.

[Firgrep]

Remove backtics from Mechanism or de-capitalize it. Currently, it's ambiguous as to whether you're referring to the body of text called Mechanism or the category mechanism

[ridetoruin]

Here is my thinking: capitalising it refers to the chapter, and the backtics are helpful for when people want to search for it.
But as I say this, people shouldn't have a hard time finding it because it is an article inside Mechanism.

[Firgrep]

backtics are helpful for when people want to search for it.

Search for it how? Manually with their eyes or searching in text with the browser? The website has a search mechanism built in, so you needn't worry about things on that end.

The backtics are there to convey meaning: "here I refer to a category or concept in its technical sense".

Your usage here is ambiguous - are you referring to the piece of text or the category? It cannot be both.

[Firgrep]

See comment above about product of the mechanical process

[Firgrep]

See comment above about Mechanism

[Firgrep]

Good but a bit on the short side. Some final thoughts.

• Given it's so short, why even split the sections into different articles (files)? What do you think about merging it into one formal mechanical process article?
• There are no citations from the text in this one. I think we should have at the very least one or two to back up your statements.
• So far in your writing there has been no engagement with secondary literature. Including some of that would help unpack both the basics and the nuances at work here. Where is Ross!?

[ridetoruin]

as always, gold standard feedback.