[Xmca-l] Re: Kant's Imagination

[Rauno Huttunen]

Hello,

Encyclopaedia Logic is more suitabe for beginners:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ol/encycind.htm

Rauno Huttunen
________________________________________
Lähettäjä: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] käyttäjän Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net] puolesta
Lähetetty: 11. joulukuuta 2015 4:16
Vastaanottaja: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Aihe: [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
>