[Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination

[Andy Blunden]

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
>
>
>