[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination



You're taking Kant's point of view, Annalisa.
But remember, Being is a *logical* category, and Hegel's Logic has to be understood as a logic.
Here's a couple of links if you want to follow this up.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlintro.htm

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 11/12/2015 4:55 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
Hi Andy and others,

How could Hegel know there is nothing there?

Who is there being the one who is saying I know nothing is there (as the Final Turtle)?

There is a big difference between saying I know I can't know and I know nothing is there.

One is a stance of humility, one not, because if one says one knows, that's taking a transcendental POV that is impossible to do, which is different than imagining a transcendental POV.

What I'd like to explore however, is not to try to persuade anyone what Being is, since I know I can't know what it is, but what are the ethical implications that derive from saying nothing is there and knowing it's impossible to know.

I do know that Hegel had contentions with Kant, but I haven't looked at that as of yet.

Also, I still need to read the Hegel's imagination thread. I hope to do that today.

Kind regards,

Annalisa