General philosophy Kant vs Hegel

[Cubey]

Alright so starting things off with speculative philosophy:

Why did Kant say philosophy is speculative in his Critique of Pure Reason? He was stressing the limits of human knowledge. And this isn’t some lofty idea to grasp. It’s fairly simple in its assertion: the human mind is finite and cannot see or comprehend anything beyond its subjective boundaries. Which is to say, I cannot possess the perspective of say @Ral because that is outside of my mental state. To understand ral’s perspective, I would have to become Ral and that would allow me to view things through the lens of his mind, if that makes sense. Now this is not to say it can’t be done, but only if the other party is willing, which we’ll get to when I discuss Hegel.

So that’s Kant on the limits of knowledge and why metaphysics is thusly grounded in speculation.

I’ll continue with more updates.

 

[Cubey]

And I should probably add that one of the elements or causes or what have you that leads to the limit of human knowledge is the subjective nature of the mind - that is to say, interpretation. You read a book. You can interpret the themes one way, another interprets them completely differently and this is because we cannot escape the subjective nature of the human mind which is caused by two things: our ideals (that in which we carry faith) and our experiences.

 

[Cubey]

I could go more in-depth about speculative philosophy but I think that’d be beating a dead horse at this point so moving on:

Kant puts forth the notion of a “thing-in-itself”. What does this mean? It means: an object, whether physical or otherwise, that is unknowable in its nature because it is unobserved by the human senses and unaffected by phenomena. One could argue that the thing-in-itself implies a deeper purpose for every object than what is known in the mundane. Things-in-themselves are also known as noumena, opposing phenomena. Phenomena are observable, noumena are veiled behind a shadow cast by the light of insight.

 

[Cubey]

The big question: if noumena are unknowable, and if the assertion “unless you know everything, you don’t know anything” is valid, then that leads us back to speculation and the limits of knowledge. For example, when you dream you enter a new world. When you wake up, you re-enter the world of everyday life. Who is to say which of the two hold more truth than the other.

Noumena point beyond the mundane and carry a purpose beyond mere representation, where once they are understood they validate the insight of individual to whom it belongs. One could say that dismissing phenomena as “ordinary” rather than the extraordinary display of the magnitude of existence is a socially constructed distraction. Noumena lead to the Kantian sublime … not sure if I’ll talk about that itt

 

[Cubey]

So the cliffnotes on Kant’s the thing-in-itself (noumenon)

Phenomena: appearance
Noumena: actuality

 

[Cubey]

I’ll be getting to this but here’s a great article on Kant to hold readers over until then:

The Antinomy of Pure Reason: Kant on Philosophy

Why are we here? What is out there? What is existence? Philosophical questions like these, provoked by our very being, belong to metaphysics, the study of the nature of reality, of what there is in…

neologikonblog.wordpress.com

(Please do not feel obligated to constantly like every post Trinity)

 

[Cubey]

An antinomy according to Kant is a dialectical assertion and its negation simultaneously positing themselves as truth. In other words, a contradiction in which both sides make equally valid points. This results in exhaustion and a stalemate, where inertia becomes the major player, unless one-side becomes outweighed by the other. For example, the proposition “God exists” and “God does not exist” are antinomians because they cannot both be true at once.

Kant gives us four major antinomies:

The universe is finite or the universe is infinite
Things are reducible or they are irreducible
There is either freedom or determinism
God exists or God does not exist

The first two are called the mathematical antinomies and the latter two - dynamic.

So to defeat the inertia caused by contradiction, Kant says “neither… nor.” The meaning of “the universe is neither finite nor infinite” and that “things are neither reducible nor irreducible” means what? They are indefinite.

I will address the dynamic antinomies in a bit.

 

[Cubey]

The first dynamical antinomy is the contradiction between free will and determinism. In a sentence, the antinomy is that we either have free will and have the ability to act however we want or determinism rules over time and circumstance through causality. So the implication then becomes: determinism -> causality is the law; free will is the law -> causality is an illusion.

To resolve this Kant puts forth the theory of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the reversal of the causal hypothetical imperative (do this to achieve that). The categorical imperative makes the will the law of causality so that, teleologically speaking, the end goal is sovereignty. To be free from the bondage of the world one must listen only to their own will while maintaining a high moral standard - dignity.

 

[Cubey]

Kant’s final antinomy is this: either God exists or he does not exist. Now this is a fairly simple antimony primarily, because, regardless of the complications of negations and logic-chopping, God himself is simple in nature. Meaning that, although there are arguments both ways that constantly undo the prior counterargument, God is an example of the ultimate noumenon, where the human mind cannot grasp solid evidence of him, or perceive him with the intelligent mind. This means that it is not logic, but a matter of morality, and subsequently faith, of whether not the individual accepts his existence.

 

[Cubey]

The analytic-synthetic distinction:

Kant defines as analytic that proposition which contains no more information in the predicate of any given subject than is readily available or apparent in the definition of said subject. For example we have the subject “God”: the predicates omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and creative are what are typically assigned to that subject. Since they contain no more information about God than we already know, rather they are the terms that, together, give the term “God” its denotation, it follows then that the definition is recursive and analytical. Now if I was to say God is a dignified and subtle troll, well that would be, according to Kant, the synthetic proposition because it holds more information than is apparent in the meanings of the three omni’s.

 

[Cubey]

Right alongside the synthetic and analytic propositions, Kant gives us two more propositions. These are a priori and a posteriori propositions.

A priori propositions: propositions whose basis is deduced through sheer logic instead of experience. For example, we say “you were born” when a child is old enough to understand what that means in conventional language. She will ask what happened before I was born? And thus we launch into a series of causes, each of which is both cause [of something] and effect [of another]. Eventually she will reach the point where she realizes that everything has a cause, but since every cause terminates by becoming an effect and every effect terminates by becoming a cause, she will deduce that for the temporal chain of causes itself to terminate, there has to be a cause that is its own effect.

That is one example of a priori reasoning because it deduces by logic and without pre-established notions.

 

[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]

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]

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.

 

[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]

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.