/lit/ - Literature

I ask, is the proposition, this or that thing (which I am admitting to be possible) exists, an analytical or a synthetical proposition? If the former, there is no addition made to the subject of your thought by the affirmation of its existence; but then THE CONCEPT IN YOUR MIND IS IDENTICAL WITH THE THING ITSELF, or you have supposed the existence of a thing to be possible, and then inferred its existence from its internal possibility—which is but a miserable tautology.
- CPR SECTION IV. Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God.

>>23058005
>he would studied mathematics and incorporated its new concepts of change and continuity (i.e. the calculus)
You didn't actually Hegel anon. Read Science of Logic NOW. And also you didn't read Kant since this idea of the incompatibility of the method of mathematics with philosophy actually starts with him in the First Critique's Doctrine of Method. Read more.

No no one has actually defeated Kant.

Yes Hegel was actually a spiritist and spooky wizard

everything else is cope

>>22856734
>To appeal to common sense, when insight and science fail, and no sooner-this is one of the subtle discoveries of modern times, by means of which the most superficial ranter can safely enter the lists with the most thorough thinker, and hold his own. But as long as a particle of insight remains, no one would think of having recourse to this subterfuge. For what is it but an appeal to the opinion of the multitude, of whose applause the philosopher is ashamed, while the popular charlatan glories and confides in it?
-Kant

>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.
-Hegel

>>I would mention that in [the 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.

>>22754274
>in defense of Kantposter (I just assumed the read along was him could be wrong)
wasn't me. I know better.

>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste

>>22570604
>I didnt finish CPR, because its such a slog
ngmi

>>I would mention that in [the 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.

The 2 most important men in history. Discuss.

>>22550950
for me it's picrel

>>22548620
>alleged hero of idealism
imagine believing this

>>22525112
>you rather take your life advice
from neither

>>22485535
*forgot obligatory Kant and Hegel picrel

>>22468363
Hegel and Kant are #1

>>22430727
>assumes a neat little history of logic that doesn't include a book literally entitled the Science of Logic by the most famous philosopher of modern times that revolutionized logic and that may or may not already have addressed topics of later logicians using different terminology and possibly sublimated them into his system, but wouldn't know because he didn't read Hegel because-- BECAUSE IT'S JUST BULLSHIT OK.
>doesn't know direct intuition of supersensible reality supervenes on propositional knowledge through dialectic because, again, he didn't read Hegel
ngmi

HEGEL WAS A KANTIAN

Kant:
>as objectively considered there can only be one human Reason, so there cannot be many Philosophies; in other words, there is ONLY ONE TRUE SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY founded upon principles, however variously and however contradictorily men may have philosophized over one and the same proposition.

Hegel:
>The different systems which the history of philosophy presents are therefore not irreconcilable with unity.

>We may either say, that it is one philosophy at different degrees of maturity: or that the particular principle, which is the groundwork of each system, is but a branch of one and the same universe of thought.

>>22296989
>>the conceptual apparatus, which is drawn entirely from empirical intuition
your Schopensneed post doesn't refute this at all. There are innate formal concepts, both Kant and Schope agree. They just disagree there are innate material concepts per your quote, which got absolutely btfo by the German Idealists. Notice Schopenfag rarely actually quotes the German Idealists let alone refutes them, no, he mostly just throws seething ad hominem copes at them. And the midwits give him their retarded applause

>>22290131
>metaphysicians of the past whose background or credentials may be no more than just a rando priest.
imagine believing this

Intellektuelle Anschauung edition

Hegel:
>If the expression 'objectifying act of the ego' suggests other products of spirit, e.g. fantasy, it is to be observed that we are speaking of a determining of an object in so far as the elements of its content do not belong to feeling and intuition. Such an object is a thought, and to determine it means partly, first to produce it, partly, in so far as it is something presupposed, to have further thoughts about it, to develop it further by thought.

Kanr:
>it is as necessary for the mind to make its conceptions sensuous (that is, to join to them the object in intuition), as to make its intuitions intelligible (that is, to bring them under conceptions).

>there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor aesthetical origin)

>A pure conception, in so far as it has its origin in the understanding alone, and is not the conception of a pure sensuous image, is called notio. A conception formed from notions, which transcends the possibility of experience, is an idea, or a conception of reason.

>>22076020
great book

Lord Hegel on the first critique:
>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.

>I would mention that in this work 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.

Only ignoramuses attempt to read Hegel without first having read Kant. Then they complain that Hegel doesn't make sense.

Who needs a gf when you can just read Kant and Hegel amir?

Can anyone explain to me in moderate detail what relation Kant and Hegel’s works had on Marxism and laterNeo-Marxist scribblers like Marcuse and Gramsci?
They make is sound like Kant and Hegel’s writings are basically the origin of the Postmodern Neo-Marxist mind virus.
And before any of you say “hur dur you can’t be a postmodern Neo-Marxist”: yes, yes you can. It is a very real thing.