[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination
- To: Annalisa Aguilar <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination
- From: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:52:17 +1100
- In-reply-to: <BY2PR07MB1071F166CFB2E806B10C775C1E90@BY2PR07MB107.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <BY2PR07MB107D4436F4E6466457B2B9EC1080@BY2PR07MB107.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AB83C26C-B5A7-485E-B80C-BEA79E7F68CD@umich.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHCnM0DsZ7dBez4JB=Ot4_o9vSR3wG9UZe1D3m1swcoYJp4y8Q@mail.gmail.com> <D12717D5-0173-4E5B-BFCB-9579F525A790@umich.edu> <email@example.com> <16E7372C-D528-458F-A156-0E12D04E6408@umich.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHCnM0D8KFgNXSsGekFBjj=CXQH2KKw4bk5OG=GSJJkoJp6J_w@mail.gmail.com> <8213AF51-7C8B-43CE-9B52-FAC3FB8B29F9@umich.edu>, <email@example.com> <BY2PR07MB107F0DC4CD3873A96C85649C1E90@BY2PR07MB107.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <56690CAC.firstname.lastname@example.org> <BY2PR07MB1071F166CFB2E806B10C775C1E90@BY2PR07MB107.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
- Reply-to: <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
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.
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.