[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 231 KB, 667x1024, f56a91f00bb33e95ea2eca78e57e5ec7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17548039 No.17548039 [Reply] [Original]

Can I ask you guys here if I understand Hegel’s objection to Kant?

So, Kant thought that we couldn’t experience the world-in-itself because our mind messes with our senses. Hegel agreed with this idea, but he (and many others before him) noticed that Kant made a mistake by thinking that our mind doesn’t mess with the way we view our minds. This meant that we could not think of our minds in a vacuum but as a part of the world. Absolute knowledge was not, as Kant thought, freeing the mind from the world, but actually realising that the mind and the "world" are one.

Did I understand anything? DO NOT BE MEAN

>> No.17548049

>>17548039
There's already a thread about this same topic >>17547498

>> No.17548051

>>17548039
Kant's entire body of work is based on the assumption that God exists. This assumption no longer rests on solid ground, and he can therefore be discarded.

>> No.17548072
File: 42 KB, 318x351, 1607367470401.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17548072

>>17548051
>Kant's entire body of work is based on the assumption that God exists. This assumption no longer rests on solid ground, and he can therefore be discarded.
Keep your shit to your dumb thread, you stupid nigger.

>> No.17548079

>>17548049
that thread is pretty shite though

>> No.17548090

>>17548079
>that thread is pretty shite though
This thread is no better.

>> No.17548094

>>17548072
Do you want to sit here and argue that Kant's work is NOT based on the presence of a transcendent element? Because I think I can win that argument.

>> No.17548106

>>17548094
>win
You need to be 18 years or older to post on this page

>> No.17548121

>>17548090
I guess you are right, but only because no one actually answered my post

>> No.17548144

>>17548106
You started with the demeaning tone. Please tell me how Kant's work is NOT based on the presence of a transcendent element, and holds up well in its absence.