General philosophy Kant vs Hegel

[Cubey]

What is a posteriori reasoning then you ask? A posteriori is the opposite of a priori. Whereas a priori reasoning relies solely on rationality and deduction to reach a conclusion, a posteriori reasoning uses experience to conclude its argument.

For example, mathematics is [so far] a posteriori. We are taught by experience because numbers are not an innate idea to humans. When we are taught mathematics as kids, we’re shown objects: an apple for instance. The teacher says this is one Apple. Child shows confusion so the teacher shows her an additional Apple. Now these are two. And so on. Once the child has grasped the concept mathematic can move forward but this doesn’t change the fact that it was learned by experience and not sheer logic. Model and proof theory however are aiming to put mathematics on a purely logical basis and it will certainly be done, so I await that eagerly

But I digress. A posteriori is learned through experience. It’s also a generalization-to-specific argument. So for example, EVERYONE agrees 1 + 1 = 2. Therefore it is proof of a universal truth.

So that’s it for the a priori and a posteriori reasoning. I could make one last post regarding the four kinds of arguments that can be formulated using the synthetic, analytic, a priori and a posteriori reasonings. If people want ofc

 

[Cubey]

Will update later with hegel’s response in a while, busy with work and ygo

 

[Cubey]

Hegel’s philosophy came about as a sort of counter revolution to the kantian crusade. Hegel took inspiration from several other great minds including Fichte, Goethe, and schelling.

His basic premise revolves around what he called “the Absolute” and how, the infinite spirit starts with a notion. It then forms a thesis which connotates but does not denotate the notion. This is immediately superseded by an antithesis. Finally, the two come together, forming a synthesis.

 

[Cubey]

Hegel begins his system by first addressing the most basic essentialities: the abstract “being” and the abstract “nothing”. He asserts that to think of being is to realize that it is emptiness, meaning nothing. And yet nothing is. So the contradiction ensues. How do we resolve this? According to Hegel, because the two are internally related, one must reject both separately and affirm both together: thus resulting in “becoming”. Thus, the law of non-contradiction is overcome. Hegel continues by saying that the dialectical process continues until an epiphany is reached.

 

[Cubey]

Feel like a professor

 

[Cubey]

Hegel is obsessed with infinity. He sees infinity as not only the goal of the Absolute but also the process by which the Absolute is achieved. The Absolute, in Hegel, is the final resolution of Spirit, where, as noted earlier, a thesis is superseded by an antithesis, which then forms a synthesis (see threadmark “Being and nothing”) and is again superseded by a new antithesis - which continues until a synthesis is formed which is identical to the initial thesis, except all notions have been denotated instead of simply being connotative (subliminal). The holistic process and resolution is the Absolute - at least as far as Hegel is concerned.

Now infinity is extremely important for Hegel because Spirit is what he sees as the basis of life and thus, the Infinite Spirit finds itself through logic, through - and I will be talking about this next- nature, and then through finite spirits expressing themselves in art, religion and philosophy to discover themselves as one with the Infinite Spirit itself.

In Hegel’s taxonomy, finitude and negativity are a necessary part of a complete and greater whole. If we were to only talk about infinity and leave out finitude, then we haven’t grasped infinity at all because infinity is resplendent in its assumption and triumph over finitude. The limitation of ignoring limits themselves is itself a gross misunderstanding of hegelianism.

 

[Cubey]

Ҥ 195.

Nature is, in itself a living whole. The movement of its idea through its sequence of stages is more precisely this: the idea posits itself as that which it is in itself; or, what is the same thing, it goes into itself out of that immediacy and externality which is death in order to go into itself; yet further, it suspends this determinacy of the idea, in which it is only life, and becomes spirit, which is its truth.

§ 196.

The idea as nature is: (1) as universal, ideal being outside of itself space and time; (2) as real and mutual being apart from itself particular or material existence, - inorganic nature; (3) as living actuality, organic nature. The three sciences can thus be named mathematics, physics, and physiology.”

Here is a quote to quickly summarize hegel’s thoughts on the second portion of his philosophy of the Absolute. In the “Science of Logic” he discusses being and nothing and their culmination in the absolute idea. The idea then progresses through nature, after the pure essentialities of logic.

Hegel claims that, unlike logic where all notions contain within themselves a portion of their antithesis (and are thus internally related), nature is purely external. Moments of times and parts of space exclude each other, with everything in nature being in space and time, and thus everything in nature is finite. Nature, taken as a whole, must confront death and, in order for spirit to advance with nature as a component, must become life itself.

This is a very esoteric portion of hegel’s philosophy because it says that

1. Nature can be torn apart
2. Nature as life itself implies the elixir of life, the blood of the philosopher’s stone

But that’s something I’ll discuss once I’m done explaining these two guys

 

[Cubey]

The final stage of the absolute, to briefly summarize, is hegel’s attempt to finally and eternally grasp the self. As noted earlier, Hegel starts the process by assessing the most abstract notions, being and nothing, and hopes to lead the way to the Geist, I.e. spirit which comprehends itself. Hegel’s bottom line is that inclusion of opposition to a given perspective creates the infinite mind, and this is the absolute. Now the reason for opposition to a particular perspective is subjectivity. This leads Hegel to argue that interpretations and creation of art, religion and philosophy are the final step in understanding the self (because without outside opinions, how could one ever see themselves as anything other than what they believe themselves to be).

This final step in hegel’s system solidifies that he is concerned with public opinion (the world at large, to put it bluntly) as he does not even consider God’s perspective and God’s assignment of roles to each identity in his philosophy.

 

[RavenSupreme]

But what do you believe. Personally.

 

[Cubey]

But what do you believe. Personally.

I’m giving my thoughts on the clash next, now that I’m done with both sides. Hang tight

 

[Cubey]

One last point on Hegel before I give my thoughts:

“For Hegel there are two views of infinity: the spurious (bad) infinity, and the true infinity. The former is represented by a straight line or a ray running one or both of its extremes ever onwards. This is the Understanding’s concept of infinity and is “bad” or “spurious” because it is truly a finite infinite that is ever delaying the final moment of its finitude in the infinite progression of its series. The latter, true infinite, is actually infinite and does not contain the determinateness of finitude; it is the Reason’s elevated concept of infinity, which is represented (in picture-thought) by a line that has bent back upon itself, so is, in other words, a circle: endless and eternal, having no beginning and no end. It is the image of the dialectic, and in the Science of Logic, in the sphear of essence, reflection (which is simple, self-related negativity) operates in the same place as the true infinity does in the sphere of Being.

So Hegel wants us to no longer conceive of the infinite as a series (like the number line) ever pushing forward in infinite progression, thus delaying the final moment of its finitude, yet still having it as a limit to its being, but instead to conceive of infinity as the dialectic, an eternal circle.”

 

[Cubey]

I’ll just come out and say it. For me, there is no competition between Kant and Hegel. Kant destroys Hegel. Kant’s concepts are straight Aristotelian in how they present themselves through logic, with a hint of Plato and Socrates. The concept of the thing-in-itself is German rationalism’s analogue to Plato’s theory of forms. The point he’s making is that the world and everything in it obscures itself to avoid being perceived I.e. a lie. So only the insightful can understand what meaning is hidden behind mundanity and capitalize on it. Now every form has a function, and every function has a purpose, so to understand the thing-in-itself is to properly utilize an object to its full potential.

The great thing about Kant is that he recognizes his limits. He understands that he is only a finite mind and is therefore subject to error. This is why he puts forth speculative philosophy in his Critique of Pure Reason. It is because we are subject to interpretation that we can ONLY speculate and, in this regard he is like Socrates, who famously said “the only thing is know is that I don’t know anything.” Why? Because unless you know everything, you don’t know anything.

On the thing-in-itself: Kant did posit that there is a noumenal realm superseding the phenomenal realm. If I had to give my thoughts, I’d say that phenomena interact with each other and end, yet at the same time each represent a noumena which is eternal and does not change.

More coming up

 

[Cubey]

On the thing-in-itself: Kant did posit that there is a noumenal realm superseding the phenomenal realm. If I had to give my thoughts, I’d say that phenomena interact with each other and end, yet at the same time each represent a noumena which is eternal and does not change.

To expound on this a bit more:

When I say that phenomena (a blue car driving across a bridge, for instance) interact with each other, I mean they are under each other’s influence. Say the brakes give out on a car. Well why didn’t the owner have them replaced? He was low on cash due to being hit-and-run by a drunk driver and had to pay for his tires. Why was the driver drinking? His wife took his kids because he had just lost his job. And so on. Phenomena are constantly at work, and keep us trapped in samsara, the Hindu/buddhist cycle of rebirth. However, Kant says [or rather, implies - I’m taking his words to their logical conclusion] no, and transcends the trap by saying that samsara is is a worldly illusion (see Descartes) and that phenomena only serve to point towards eternal objects of a higher plane. Influence implies causation, which in turn implies change and time.

- Causation implies change because if something is caused by another, it is intrinsically related to it. If the series of causes and effects is infinite both ways, then that effect which was caused by another, will eventually become an effect as well, causing another. Since there is [phenomenal] variety, we know that each cause is different from its effect, the only difference is to what degree. Since causes and effects are related, and a relation is a corruption in a thing’s nature, causation implies change.

- Causation implies time because each effect must end. However if the series of effects is indeed infinite, then all that means is that there are infinite moments making up time. Which amounts to nothing as they don’t last. So for a moment to have meaning, it must be immortalized. Things that do not change are eternal. They are not transient. Meaning:

The noumenal realm is full of BOSS ASS SHIT

 

[Cubey]

My thoughts on the antinomies:

Kant makes concise and precise points about the contradictions apparent in existence. The contradictions “either the universe is finite or infinite” and “either objects are reducible or irreducible” prove this all too blatantly.

My take on it is as follows:

I agree with Kant that indeterminacy is key here. As long as you have left the answer suspended, there is room for the truth to reveal itself. This is a matter of perspective. For example, the enlightened perspective holds no prior bias or subjectivity. This gives it the means to reach an objective answer. Now as far as indeterminacy goes, lies tell on themselves. So to determine the correct answer we must withhold all judgments and keep a keen ear and an open mind. We now reach the concept of kairos, aka the opportune moment. At kairos, we have weighed the scales and can now determine which side is right.

The biggest giveaway in judgment is the sheer notion of wrong and right, innocence and guilt, truth and falsehood. If two sides are opposite one another, then one side has assumed innocence and the other guilt, one truth and the other falsehood, one right and one wrong. And with this logic, we can be assured that, although everything in the universe is sacred, some have become rife with wrongness.

 

[RavenSupreme]

What I feel a strong pity for is Hegels focus on infinity as an absolutism without him having had the chance of incorporating the expanded upon layer of infinity which made the rounds some half a century after his death.

While not looking at it from a mathematical perspective, his philosophical approach and all the angles he took in regards to infinity would have benefited greatly from Cantors works of a "second" or "greater" infinity.

A mathematician formulating a complete new theory to infinity, which basically states that there is a greater infinity between 0 and 1 than there is between one and any other integer would may have caused Hegels work to expand even further.

And it is true. When you look at the mathematical idea of... alright when I want to go from 0 to 1, where do I start? At 0.1? Or 0.01? Or 0.001? Or 0.00000001? Or.... and realise that this infinity is truly uncountable

And compare it with the until now known idea of a "countable" 1,2,3,4......integer based infinity you would draw conclusions for your own philosophical ideas and theories.

And its truly a shame that this never came to pass. Like time robbed Hegel of a necessary inspiration.

 

[Cubey]

What I feel a strong pity for is Hegels focus on infinity as an absolutism without him having had the chance of incorporating the expanded upon layer of infinity which made the rounds some half a century after his death.

While not looking at it from a mathematical perspective, his philosophical approach and all the angles he took in regards to infinity would have benefited greatly from Cantors works of a "second" or "greater" infinity.

A mathematician formulating a complete new theory to infinity, which basically states that there is a greater infinity between 0 and 1 than there is between one and any other integer would may have caused Hegels work to expand even further.

And it is true. When you look at the mathematical idea of... alright when I want to go from 0 to 1, where do I start? At 0.1? Or 0.01? Or 0.001? Or 0.00000001? Or.... and realise that this infinity is truly uncountable

And compare it with the until now known idea of a "countable" 1,2,3,4......integer based infinity you would draw conclusions for your own philosophical ideas and theories.

And its truly a shame that this never came to pass. Like time robbed Hegel of a necessary inspiration.

Those are called infinitesimals and yes they are an infinity between each integer. Also irrational numbers.

But I have a theory that there is a complete and finished number line that does not repeat endlessly using zeros the way our current notion of infinity does (1-10, 11-100, 101-1000, etc). Its based on vortex math (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 vs 3, 6, 9), the integer sqr root of 2, and the law of 7 (the hidden pattern)

 

[Cubey]

Final thoughts on Kant.

His theory of the four categories of propositions is fantastic. To reiterate, you have

Analytic a priori (proposition whose predicate is contained in the subject and is known via deduction)

Analytic a posteriori (proposition whose predicate is contained in the subject and is known via experience)

Synthetic a priori (proposition whose subject contains one or more predicates not within it and is known via deduction)

Synthetic a posteriori (proposition whose subject contains one or more predicates not within it and is known via experience)

This is simply masterful. When I was in younger, I had ambitions regarding all of these propositions. I’ll list them one by one

Analytic a priori - proving atomic mathematical statements without experience or analogy, but deduction alone. To put math on an infallible status.

Analytic a posteriori - I should mention that out of the four propositions, this is the one Kant dismisses as outright impossible. This proposition is the noumenal realm, the thing-in-themselves. Their subjects hold within them their predicate(s) and they are known through experience rather than deduction - theophany.

Synthetic a priori - another lofty goal of mine. To find the cause of causes, the origin of origins (lol). We can denotate every phenomena in the universe and their reasons and do it with nothing but logic. We will get more information than what we started with. Sound crazy? All in, say “aye”.

Synthetic a posteriori - this is simply divine revelation or a miracle

Kant is one of my all-time favorite philosophers for these reasons and once I’m done giving my thoughts on Hegel I’ll have more to say about him.

 

[Cubey]

I guess analytic a posteriori could also double as self-realization where one takes off their jungian mask. The soul is laid bare and comes into unison with the body and mind, creating an unhindered self.

 

[Cubey]

So to start with a criticism of Hegel’s Science of Logic, I think his assertion that the two most fundamental concepts in logic or thought are “being” and “nothing” is quite arbitrary, and arbitrarily assigning meaning to anything is a fatal flaw in any philosophy. Anyways “being” here has several synonyms which he cleverly did not address: “existence” and “reality” for example.

I think this was done purposely because if he had addressed the inherent connection between “to be,” “to exist” and “to realize”, he would’ve noticed they all eventually lead to Kant’s thing-in-itself e.g. noumenon. There would then have been no need for an opposite to form a synthesis with (“nothing”). What this means is that Hegel is concerned with the fettered world of samsara, rather than finding the Absolute.

Secondly, to address the notion of “nothing”: “nothing” isn’t some object that actually exists because that would be a contradiction in and of itself. On the one hand you’re claiming nothing, on the other you’re saying that there is something that is nothing which is real. Makes no sense whatsoever. However if you’ve studied Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy, you’d realize that, everything has an essence and accidents. Sugar for instance is not defined by its whiteness. Just add food dye to it. Now it’s red. It’s sweet. Sweetness is the essence of sugar. Now what’s a scholastic accident you ask?

A scholastic accident is that property which when removed from an object does not affect it in the slightest. Can you think of anything that, for example, removed from a bicycle wouldn’t change anything. NOTHING. When nothing is removed, nothing changes (everything remains). Therefore, Hegel’s attempt at incorporating “nothing” into the Absolute is misguided at best and an ulterior motive at worst.

Last point is that the idea that being is founded in the ability to think (in hegel’s case a thinking of nothing) isn’t new. It is Cartesian, as Descartes already gave his famous summation “I think therefore I am” many years prior.

So yeah. That’s one.

 

[Cubey]

The second section of Hegel’s encyclopedia talks about the metaphysics of nature and how nature is a realm of externality. This is complete horseshit and is a blatant attempt at subjugating the universe to the will of man. Most of mankind is selfish, and thus cruel. The existence of money which controls and oppresses the world causing war crimes, etc is evidence of this. Just as an example, America funds troops in Africa and the Middle East for natural resources such as oil and diamonds and gold - sacrificing innocent lives viciously in the process. No, Hegel is obviously not to be taken seriously when he says that man is the pinnacle of nature. There is no imagination in this kind of ideology, as, those of us who grew up watching Disney films such as Tarzan, and the jungle book, know that with imagination nature is a harmonious place that is the basis of our existence. Man claims to be the reason nature can ascend to God, yet depends upon it for sustenance. The air you breathe, the water you drink, and the ground you walk on… that’s all nature.

No.