/lit/ - Literature

So Kant is a nominalist and Hegel is a Platonist? So that's basically it? Old game, new players?

>>21615751
>Kant's influence comes from creating a problem that needed to be solved, not from asserting a positive doctrine that had any characteristics of the Good.

Exactly. You need to understand the problem(s) in order to have the context within which only the solutions have their significance. And Kant goes into the most precise presentation of the problem.

>I would mention that in this work [Science of Logic]I frequently refer to the Kantian philosophy (which to many may seem superfluous) because whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the STARTING POINT of recent German philosophy and that its merit remains unaffected by whatever faults may be found in it. The reason too why reference must often be made to it in the objective logic is that it enters into detailed consideration of important, more specific aspects of logic, whereas later philosophical works have paid little attention to these and in some instances have only displayed a crude — not unavenged — contempt for them. The philosophising which is most widespread among us does not go beyond the Kantian results, that Reason cannot acquire knowledge of any true content or subject matter and in regard to absolute truth must be directed to faith. But what with Kant is a result, forms the immediate starting-point in this philosophising, so that the preceding exposition from which that result issued and which is a philosophical cognition, is cut away beforehand. The Kantian philosophy thus serves as a cushion for intellectual indolence which soothes itself with the conviction that everything is already proved and settled. Consequently for genuine knowledge, for a specific content of thought which is not to be found in such barren and arid complacency, one must turn to that preceding exposition.

>>21614748
Como pueden competir los latinos con la suprema eminencia de los alemanes? Por favor. No hay comparación. Dime, donde esta el Kant latino? Donde esta el Hegel latino? Pro tip: no existe.

Kant oder Hegel? Wer war richtig?

>>21532043
Kant
>If, by the term noumenon, we understand a thing so far as it is not an object of our sensuous intuition, thus making abstraction of our mode of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the negative sense of the word. But if we understand by it an object of a non-sensuous intuition, we in this case assume a peculiar mode of intuition, an intellectual intuition, to wit, which does not, however, belong to us, of the very possibility of which we have no notion—and this is a noumenon in the positive sense.

Hegel
>This stage of ‘appearance’ however — the phenomenal world — is not the terminus of thought: there is another and a higher region. But that region was to the Kantian philosophy an inaccessible ‘other world’.

Hegel affirmed what Kant denied. Read more faggot.

So how did universities get money to run back in Kant and Hegels day?

>>21463983
>Someone with "philosophical training" has no advantage in this regard. In fact, there is not even such a thing as "philosophical training".

Hegel:

>In teaching philosophy in the gymnasium the abstract form is, in the first instance, straightaway the chief concern. The young must first die to sight and hearing, must be torn away from concrete representations, must be withdrawn into the night of the soul and so learn to see on this new level, to hold fast and distinguish determinations.

>>To learn to think speculatively, which is specified in the directive as the chief purpose of preparatory philosophical instruction, is thus surely to be seen as the necessary goal. Preparation for it is first abstract thinking and then dialectical thinking, and beyond that consists in attaining representations of speculative content.

>abstract thinking

John Locke defined abstraction in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

'So words are used to stand as outward marks of our internal ideas, which are taken from particular things; but if every particular idea that we take in had its own special name, there would be no end to names. To prevent this, the mind makes particular ideas received from particular things become general; which it does by considering them as they are in the mind—mental appearances—separate from all other existences, and from the circumstances of real existence, such as time, place, and so on. This procedure is called abstraction. In it, an idea taken from a particular thing becomes a general representative of all of the same kind, and its name becomes a general name that is applicable to any existing thing that fits that abstract idea.' (2.11.9)

Simply put: Scientists cant META.

That's why their dislike of metaphysics is nothing but very salient case of sour grapes.

More clearly expressed: Scientists seethe and cope

Kant shows you the problem; Hegel solves it. Kant takes you to the threshold, and Hegel kicks the door in

How smart was Hegel in comparison to other idealists?, and to the Greeks?

Who had the more complex ideas? Kant or Hegel? (Not referring to the obscurity of their writing)