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

[Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination



Annalisa, I'd really like to give you a brief explanation rather than sending you a couple of links, but it is really quite impossible to grasp the starting point of Hegel's philosophy in this kind of exchange. You need to set aside a couple of days, ideally find a couple of friends to join you, and calmly and patiently works through, let's say, this one:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm
You may know what "San Diego is a city" means, but what does "San Diego is" mean? The same as "xmca is" or "Annalisa is" or "A unicorn is" - that's Being. Hegel is responding to the question "With what must Philosophy Begin?" Follow his argument. And I *will not* respond to further questions about this until at the very least you have studied the above chapter.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 11/12/2015 1:05 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:

Hi Andy,


I'll take a look at Hegel, but I see already, if Being is a logical category, then that is of the mind, because categories are of the mind. This appears to be a reversion to Descartes.


If "is" means "equals," then I'd have to disagree. If Being is a member of a category, that means there are multiple Beings, which is different than saying that Being takes multiple forms.


If we say beingness is a category, I could make sense of that. Everything we experience in the world in time and space has beingness or "is-ness" and even things we don't experience per se, so perhaps it's better to say any "object in the world."


I don't think Being itself can be categorized, because Being is not of the mind. I'm not saying he did or didn't, butif Kant said that, I'd have to disagree with him.


So we get back to how Hegel can know what Being is. To call it a category is still not knowing what it is. If calling something a category is done because it is cognitively necessary, just to be able to talk about it, then it's just a handle or container, and it isn't true knowledge of what Being is. That assignment would have more to do cognitive processing, as language, metaphor, or what have you, but not knowledge.


Still doesn't tell us what Being is, the reason being, it's not possible to know: Being is not of the mind: I am therefore I think. As I see it, the mind arises from Being, just like any other object in the world. The mind is not privileged as existing outside of Being.


I'll take a look at Hegel, but I'm already skeptical, and that's why.


Kind regards,


Annalisa