/HEG/ - Hegel General

[Anonymous No.19802913]

I'm being filtered by Hegel.

I read carefully through his long paragraphs but it seems impossible for me to really grasp all of it.

[Anonymous No.19802916]

>>19802913
Windbeutelei

[Anonymous No.19802935]

>>19802913
I'm a little more than halfway through the PoS, and it's getting easier to grasp. I've had to re-read a decent amount of it, but it is what it is.

Tbh I'm kind of surprised by how much people dwell on the difficulty of Hegel's writing. It makes me wonder what people come to philosophy for. If they really want to radically re-think the way they see things, then why would they expect it to be easy?

[Anonymous No.19803603]

How come no one has tried retranslating it?

[Anonymous No.19803697]

>>19802935
radically re-think the way we see things...
that is exactly what Hegel failed to do...
that is exactly why Hegel is a waste of time...
that is exactly why Hegel is for retards...
radically re-think the way we see things...
read Kant... he was the last one that managed to do it...

[Anonymous No.19803706]

>>19802913
>reality is what is really out there mixed with your senses and prior beliefs.

There done saved you reading all of this fraudulent bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19805159]

bump

[Anonymous No.19805164]

>>19802913
I'd never waste my time with this shit.

[Anonymous No.19805169]

>>19802913
Life is too short to read Hegel

[Anonymous No.19805446]

If you're getting filtered, I'll give you two advices.

1) Dont read Hegel unless you've read the major works of Plato, Aristotle, Boehme, Spinoza, Leibniz, Rousseau (and some selections of Montesquieu), Kant, Fichte and LOTS of Schelling.
I know this is advice is estremely boring and demoralizing, but it's still a fact that Hegel did not write for autodidacts: he takes for granted that his readers will have a basic level of philosophical erudition, and if you don't, well, to put it bluntly. these books are not to you. Go back to reading the classics.
2) If you instead have already done your homework, then my advice is to follow the Rosenzweig's method of reading. This short medium article summarizes it very well, using Wittgenstein's Tractatus as an example. In general, when it comes to Hegel books, expect to understand them either when you'll finish them, or when you will reread them.

Also, one little note: the second part of the PoS is somewhat easier, since it deals woth things you might be interested about, like history, politics, art and religion (while the first mostly deals with obscure topics, like Leibniz' and Schelling's philosophies of Nature, Jacobi's epistemological theories, theories of recognition, etc.) For the same reason you shoudnt let the section on Force and Understanding and the one on Observating Reason demoralize you

And if you dont want to read other philosophers but y9u still want to read Hegel, drop the PoS and pick one of his Lectures instead

[Anonymous No.19805454]

>>19805169
Life being short justifies reading Hegel, youre not going to come up with all that shit without him
>>19803603
Retranslations never work in philosophy. You couldnt even retranslate Hume without launching massive controversies on how to interpret Hume

[Anonymous No.19805591]

>>19805446
Will reading The Republic, Aristotle and Spinoza’s Ethics, The Critique of Pure Reason, and some summaries of everything else be enough to read the Phenomenology of the Spirit?

[Anonymous No.19805628]

>>19805591
No, my advice is to postpone Hegel for years, if you still have to do your homeworks. It's like trying to jump right into Quantum Mechanics without having ever studied even something as basic as Calculus 1. If your goal is really to read the PoS, my advice is to dedicate your next 3 to 5 years to the study of the classics. Notice, this will be helpful regardless of wether you'll end up reading Hegel. All the authors I have mentioned were all actual geniuses, and they all deserve to be read in their own rights: their works are keystones in the history of philosophical thought, and they will for sure enrichen immensely your philosophical reflections, and even your general outlook on life.

But again, if you still really want to read Hegel, my advice is to pick a set of Lectures instead. The introductions are usually really complex, but the rest of those books are extremely accessible (18yo freshmen students could follow them, and they liked them enough to make Hegel the most famous lecturer of his time).

[Anonymous No.19805718]

>>19802913
Look, Hegel wasn't exactly a great wrighter and used convuluted sentences. First of all, you have to be familiar with the philosophical base he build upon, and have a complementary secondary lit with you while reading it. Trust me it will help. And also take notes if possible

[Anonymous No.19805755]

Let it flow through you. The first time I read Pheno it was as if it was pulsating through me for about a year. It's a mystical experience that materializes into actual knowledge later on. That's unless you're a bonehead, like that petty little gnome Popper.

[Anonymous No.19805758]

> I'm being filtered by Hegel.
Exactly what a filthy Hegelian would say

[Anonymous No.19805760]

>>19805718

Luckily, you happen to be the perfect REEDER, am I rite?

[Anonymous No.19805789]

>>19802913
Skip to the section on phrenology if you want to see the actual caliber of Hegel's mind on clear display. It'll really make you question the strength of his thought elsewhere, or at least as far as the PoS is concerned.

[Anonymous No.19805844]

>>19802913
I'm currently trying to read chapter 3 of the Phenomology of Spirit and I could use some help. I have difficulties understanding what Hegel means by "force"

[Anonymous No.19806538]

>>19803706
Unironically got me interested to learn more. I need more one sentence summaries to sell me, for the love of God help me out here anons.

[Anonymous No.19806558]

>I'm having difficulty understanding Hegel
>do I make an individual thread on /lit/ asking specific questions and trying to wrap my head around specific points?
>nah, I'll start a general in the vaguest possible terms and hope other people do my thinking for me
>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.19807278]

>>19805760
This post was made directly after I woke up, leave me alone man.

[Anonymous No.19808218]

>>19805446
>>19805628
There is no background reading required to understand the PoS. Of course, it can be helpful, but the PoS was written to be a self-contained whole. In other words, the entire argument is immanent to itself.

[Anonymous No.19808245]

Hegel should not/can no be restrained by a dirty general

[Anonymous No.19808251]

>>19803603
>>19803697
>>19803706
>>19805159
>>19805164
>>19805169
>>19805446
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19808265]

>>19805755
this
maybe gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.19808266]

>>19803697
Schopenhauer ?

[Anonymous No.19808282]

>>19805446
>Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant
Have read

>he takes for granted that his readers will have a basic level of philosophical erudition, and if you don't, well, to put it bluntly. these books are not to you. Go back to reading the classics.
So does Schopenhauer

>And if you dont want to read other philosophers but y9u still want to read Hegel, drop the PoS and pick one of his Lectures instead
I’ve never attempted Hegel, reading Aristotle was exhausting enough, much less Kant. What is the benefit to finally doing it and not just re-reading or completing ones I’ve listed. You’ve read all of Kant, Plato, Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.19808337]

>>19805446
I'm in a German uni class discussing this exact work and none of these guys are required readings. Sure it can help to compare and contextualize, but it's not central to understanding this book.
>>19808218
This

[Anonymous No.19808423]

>>19805446
>you cannot read x unless you've slogged through a dozen other primary works first
autism. rigor for its own sake, horrible advice. the stepping stone approach is always a waste of time - you can't ever recreate somebodys literary diet for yourself and even if you could you'd be reading in a different context, idiosyncratic intepretations, etc. PoS one of the most studied works in history, abundance of secondary lit that'll place the context in a much more relevant manner than you'd get from a hodgepodge of primary texts.

[Anonymous No.19808434]

SET HEGEL FREE DELETE THIS GENERAL

[Anonymous No.19808439]

>>19802916
Basiert, Bernd.

>>19802913
/HEG/ is probably one of the best ideas this board has had since the last time it realized making generals about questions is pretty efficient, rather than asking individual and might be confused questions.

[Anonymous No.19808465]

can someone explain what did he mean in understanding and force. i followed him just fine trough sense certainty and perception, but after that he just stops making sense to me.

[Anonymous No.19809822]

>>19808465
Read the whole chapter again.

[Anonymous No.19810675]

bump

[Anonymous No.19812272]

>>19805789
The section where hegel makes fun of phrenology and then still manages to glean a kernel of truth from it (spirit is a bone)? the one with the "the only way to argue with a phrenologist is to bash his head in with a club" line? that section is great, fuck you.

[Anonymous No.19812304]

>>19812272
bumps in the head as indicator of pressure on the cerebral matter and individual brain regions? How can this no\t be impactful on ones psyche

[Anonymous No.19812405]

>>19808218
Without that background you wont even understand the basic terms Hegel is using, let alone all the arguments he is implicitly quoting. To put it bluntly: without that background your understanding will be less than basic.

>>19808282
>So does Schopenhauer
Nah, for Schopenhauer Kant's first critique (and maybe a few summaries for Plato) is sufficient. He's a much clearer writer than Hegel (mostly because he has far fewer things to say)
>I’ve never attempted Hegel, reading Aristotle was exhausting enough, much less Kant. What is the benefit to finally doing it and not just re-reading or completing ones I’ve listed. You’ve read all of Kant, Plato, Aristotle?
I miss some minor works from these authors (like, I have never read the Menexenus, or Parts of Animals) , but I have read all their relevant works. Of course my advice wasnt to read literally everything written from these authors. You'll be fine even if you wont read every set of lectures by Kant (but you should absolutely read the 3 critiques, the metaphysical foundations of natural sciences, his philosophy of right, his metaphysics of morals, etc).
>>19808337
You're in an undergrad class. My advice is for people who want to understand Hegel, not for people who want to pass a grade. Furthermore, having a teacher there to guide you and to fill the blanks is a privilege OP doesnt have.
>>19808423
The standards of secondary lit are very low, especially in the English language (where genuine idiots like Pippin, Pinkard and Houlgate are often suggested to first time readers).
I'll also add (and this is pretty ironic imho) that there is nothing more anti-Hegelian than studying philosophy ahistorically.

In general, I'd advise the OP to regard as absolute retards (who probably haven't even read the text) all those people who say that the PoS does not require extensive background. They dont know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.19812478]

>>19802913
just a read a critique or a summary. you generally don't need to read the source material to get a good grasp of the key ideas. you also gotta remember a lot of these philosophers came up with some total bullshit so stick to the ideas that withstood the test of time.

[Anonymous No.19812509]

>>19812405
>Without that background you wont even understand the basic terms Hegel is using, let alone all the arguments he is implicitly quoting. To put it bluntly: without that background your understanding will be less than basic.
While it's obvious that reading less will yield fewer results, you can't deny the genius of Phenomenology of Spirit in it being able to be read as a self-contained whole. It starts with the absolute most basic premise that requires no previous knowledge or mental gymnastics "the things in front of me as I see and feel it is real and complete, there's nothing more to it", and ends with absolute knowledge which could be tied back to sense certainty. I absolutely adore that, even more than Kant's surprisingly clear and helpful introduction in the first Critique.
The problem with understanding PoS while reading it alone and as a self-contained whole is that it's also the most complex book ever written about the most complex philosophical system, but that's another thing.

[Anonymous No.19812522]

Someone give me the elevator pitch of what Hegel is about

[Anonymous No.19812529]

>>19803603
>>19802913
Hegelei. a.k.a Hegelry, a.k.a. bollocks.

[Anonymous No.19812532]

>>19812509
Dude, I honestly believe that there are entire sections in the PoS that are literally unintelligible if you lack some background. Like, the section on Observing Reason is nonsense if you have not seriously studied Schelling's Philosophy of Nature. Hell, even the section on Sense-Certainity is nonsense if you dont know that Hegel is specifically responding to Jacobi (he's not just making a boring point about epistemology, as idiots like Brandom and Pippin would like you to believe, he's attacking an entire philosophical form).
Furthermore, you call the PoS a self-contained work, but even Hegel disagrees with this point, since he specifically claims in the section on Absolute Knowing that world-history and the history of philosophy offer all the contents of the phenomenology and of philosophical science. Even Hegel disagrees with this ahistorical reading of his works.
>The problem with understanding PoS while reading it alone and as a self-contained whole is that it's also the most complex book ever written about the most complex philosophical system, but that's another thing.
No, the problem is that you're reading it wrong. Hegel is not just making shit up, following his inspirations. Rather, literally every section of the PoS is a specific response to a specific set of philosophers. He had their works in mind when he was writing those sections, and so should their readers. Being aware of the authors I have mentioned (to whom we could add Bruno, Jacobi and Scheliermacher, and maybe even some basic writings by Luther) will make the PoS far more accessible.
By advising novices to just jump into the PoS is to set them for an impossible task, which they will 100% fail,and which will demoralised them. Imho it is better to direct these people to a more comprehensive study of the history of philosophy (which is useful by itself, regardless of whether one wants to read Hegel or not).

I'll finish by saying that this is an advice that I would give to people who specifically wanted to read Hegel. I wouldn't give it if they wanted to read, say, Kant, or Spinoza, or Hume, who are all authors who can be studied with very little background. Unfortunately Hegel explicitly wrote his big books for an audience of erudites

[Anonymous No.19812574]

I don't have a problem understanding the concepts Hegel is talking about in the PoS, I specifically have a problem with his nonsensical vocabulary.
At least with Spinoza all you needed was understanding the Cartesian substance/attribute/essence terminology, Hegel filters me because his vocabulary is so massively dense that it's incomprehensible.
Secondly it seems so demotivating to read Kant and Hegel especially since they have been critiqued and further developed into irrelevancy.
Honestly it's probably just me throwing a tantrum because I'm dumb.

[Anonymous No.19812699]

>>19812574
>Kant and Hegel especially since they have been critiqued and further developed into irrelevancy
?????

[Anonymous No.19812944]

>>19812405
>My advice is for people who want to understand Hegel
But anon, I do want to understand Hegel too. I'm not studying philosophy for the meme degree. And for understanding PoS you most definitely do not need to read a big stack of other works first.

[Anonymous No.19812964]

[Anonymous No.19812976]

>>19812478
>>19808337
Wo sitzt du im Hauptseminar?

[Anonymous No.19812984]

>>19812272
Yes, that section, because his "refutation" of it is so incredibly stupid and boils down to, "people with criminal features aren't always committing crimes, therefore criminal features don't exist." It's retarded, and clearly a desperate attempt to escape the reality of physiognomy (thankfully for him, anti-essentialism did the job for him so we no longer directly consider phrenology a field - it is outsourced to AI so we don't have to think about it).

[Anonymous No.19813001]

>>19812984
retarded take

[Anonymous No.19813008]

>>19813001
That's why I pointed it out. I was boggled when I read that section and found out just how stupid it all was. And he managed to hide it behind around 20 pages of verbose bullshittery, which all boiled down to the same point.

[Anonymous No.19813025]

I for my part have devoted a good deal of time to the understanding of the Hegelian philosophy, I believe also that I understand it tolerably well, but when in spite of the trouble I have taken there are certain passages I cannot understand, I am foolhardy enough to think that he himself has not been quite clear.

[Anonymous No.19813590]

>>19802913
dont worry, marx got filtered by hegel too. repeatedly. he got filtered so hard by hegel he made a shitty political ideology to try and counter the literal half-book he read.

[Anonymous No.19814202]

>>19812574
It’s no one’s fault that you have a shitty skull shape.

[Anonymous No.19814225]

>>19812574
>I don't have a problem understanding the concepts Hegel is talking about
I'm pretty sure you do if his vocabulary filters you.
>Secondly it seems so demotivating to read Kant and Hegel especially since they have been critiqued and further developed into irrelevancy
I'd like to know which McPhilosophers have debunked Hegel and Kant epic style into irrelevancy.

[Anonymous No.19814241]

>>19803706
Schopenhauer wasn't a realist.

[Anonymous No.19814489]

>>19813025
Can you give a tldr.

[Anonymous No.19814561]

>>19805789
>>19812304
>>19812984
You’re missing the point of Hegel’s entire argument. He concedes that there might be some situations where there’s a relationship between the shape of someone’s skull and their mental faculties, but his point is that phrenology is unable to consistently correlate skull shape with either the inner being of a person or their behavior. And as it turns out, he was right.

Btw, you do realize that you’re implicitly defending a widely debunked pseudoscience from over 200 years ago, right?

[Anonymous No.19815570]

>>19812699
>>19814225
Kant has been thoroughly discredited on his metaphysics, the transcendental aesthetic is just not feasible with our understanding of space-time and every other German idealist has their own way of chewing out the concept of the Noumenon which is the pillar of Kantian metaphysics.
Kantian ethics is also outdated, it's still important to learn but I feel like our system of ethics has evolved past it.
Hegel is hard for me to talk about, the biggest critique is from the Analytical wing but those guys are heavily biased and even failed in their own ambitions.
Hell, I don't know, I guess at this point I'm just exhausted like from reading Locke, Rosseau or Hobbes when they are completely irrelevant in politics because everything in the last 150 years has been a footnote to Marx and his critique of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19815756]

>>19812522
the core of Hegelian thought is that the EU is the highest form of government possible

[Anonymous No.19815778]

>>19812532
so you believe that struggling with Hegel will demoralise novices, but telling them to first read "the major works of Plato, Aristotle, Boehme, Spinoza, Leibniz, Rousseau (and some selections of Montesquieu), Kant, Fichte and LOTS of Schelling [...] Bruno, Jacobi and Scheliermacher, and maybe even some basic writings by Luther" somehow won't demoralise them?

I agree with you that diving straight in to PoS is not very productive, but your advice is asinine

[Anonymous No.19815803]

why did schopenhauer hate hegel? now that the dust has settled, who was in the right???

[Anonymous No.19815831]

>>19814561
>Btw, you do realize that you’re implicitly defending a widely debunked pseudoscience from over 200 years ago, right?
This is modern /lit/.

[Anonymous No.19815916]

>>19815756
most intelligent post itt

[Anonymous No.19815924]

>>19815570
>is just not feasible with our understanding of space-time
did any neo kantian ever tried to accomodate trascendental aesthetics to the new quantum paradigm?

[Anonymous No.19815936]

>>19815570
who has thoroughly discredited Kantian metaphysics? Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.19816026]

>>19815756
>the core of Hegelian thought is that the EU is the highest form of government possible
Seriously?
In its current state or theoretical?

[Anonymous No.19816049]

>>19816026
What Hegel thought the ultimate and best political system was is ambiguous but he basically favoured constitutional states with a monarch (the monarch has a key function in his system at least as he presented it) and a relatively autonomous civil society. He seems to have wanted a plurality of such states, not one super-state.

[Anonymous No.19816055]

>>19803706

but is causallity part of what is really out there or part of the subjectivity?

[Anonymous No.19816058]

>>19816049
Neat. Thank you for saving me thousands of hours

[Anonymous No.19816062]

>>19815936
herder and fichte already did some pretty powerful critics against his system

[Anonymous No.19816211]

>>19812976
Welches Hauptseminar? Es gibt nur eins. Und ich sitze immer unterschiedlich

[Anonymous No.19816265]

>>19816211
follate a tu madre

[Anonymous No.19816266]

>>19816211
An welcher Uni du Nacken, ich schreibe gerade über die Wesenslogik.

[Anonymous No.19816344]

>>19816026
I was making a joke about Kojeve, look him up

[Anonymous No.19816355]

>>19816266
Goethe Uni

[Anonymous No.19817804]

bump

[Anonymous No.19818403]

>>19814225
>I'd like to know which McPhilosophers have debunked Hegel and Kant epic style into irrelevancy.

Rene Guenon

[Anonymous No.19819108]

>>19815778
>so you believe that struggling with Hegel will demoralise novices, but telling them to first read "the major works of Plato, Aristotle, Boehme, Spinoza, Leibniz, Rousseau (and some selections of Montesquieu), Kant, Fichte and LOTS of Schelling [...] Bruno, Jacobi and Scheliermacher, and maybe even some basic writings by Luther" somehow won't demoralise them?
No, since anyone who has any serious interest in philosophy should read those authors. Do I demoralize math students when I tell them that they should study Calculus, Algebra, Topology, Set Theory, etc?
And as I have pointed out, those authors are interesting in their own right. Once you'll start reading them you will stop complaining.
>I agree with you that diving straight in to PoS is not very productive, but your advice is asinine
I think it is infinitely more asinine to study philosophy without studying the history of philosophy (and without studying some primary sources). It makes sense only if you strictly want to work with certain branches analytic philosophy.
>>19816049
Hegel explicitly states at the beginning of the Philosophy of Right that a) there is no ultimate political system, and that b) philosophy cannot even tell you what the next political form will be. Hegel is fully open to the future, history is not made by philosophers (at best they can understand parts of history after they've happened).

[Anonymous No.19819212]

>>19805591
Yes. Anon is talking out of his ass. I wrote my MA on Hegel with only having read Kant, Schelling, Fichte, Spinoza, Plato and Aristotle, all over the course of my study. Once Hegel has become accessible to you and it’s no longer a struggle to understand and put the parts of the Logic, for example, into relation you may then read Hegel. The best way for understanding Hegel is to just read him.
You only need these previous thinkers insofar as to understand words, notions and the issue Hegel tries to tackle.

[Anonymous No.19819232]

>>19802913
Read Wissenschaft der Logik first.

[Anonymous No.19819240]

>>19819212
>only having read Kant, Schelling, Fichte, Spinoza, Plato and Aristotle
>only
That's like 90% of the reading list I have given, all the other authors I have mentioned (Boehme, Leibniz, Rousseau, sections of Montesquieeu, Bruno, Jacobi and Schleiermacher) could easily be covered in a few weeks.

[Anonymous No.19819372]

>>19819232
That is just one of the hardest and most complex works of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19819377]

>>19816355
Hast du Lust auf interfakultativen Austausch?

[Anonymous No.19819401]

>>19815916
>>19815756
Not at all lol.

[Anonymous No.19819452]

>>19816355
Das bei Saar?

[Anonymous No.19819468]

>>19819452
Menke
>>19819377
ehhh nicht unbedingt

[Anonymous No.19820200]

>>19819468
Schade brudi, ich habe nämlich ein voll elitäres Hauptseminar zu Hegels Logik am Start. Aber seis drum

Welche Texte besprecht ihr?

[Anonymous No.19820269]

>>19820200
könnte ich fragen an welche uni du gehst?
hast du vielleicht etwas zu der qualität der vorlesungen an der uni hamburg gehört?
spiele mit dem gedanken vielleicht philosophie zu studieren, aber die auswahl einer uni fällt mir schwer

[Anonymous No.19820329]

>>19815924
It doesn't affect Kant's philosophy at all (and I'm a physicist, so I do know what general relativity is about).

[Anonymous No.19820537]

>>19820200
Wir besprechen gerade PdG Schritt für Schritt. Allerdings werden wir gerade mal ans Ende des 4. Kapitels gelangen. Ist zwar schade, aber irgendwie verständlich bei diesem Buch, wir kauen gefühlt jeden Absatz 3 Mal durch. Finde ich ehrlich gesagt auch sinnvoller als einfach die Seiten durchzulesen ohne Hegels argumentativen Methoden wirklich zu verstehen. Ich werde mal schauen, ob ich mit ein paar anderen Kommilitonen das Ding in den Ferien zu Ende lesen kann.

Besprecht ihr mehrere Werke in einem Semester? Das kommt mir irgendwie chaotisch vor.
>>19820269
Recherchiere einfach etwas über die bekannten Alumni und Dozenten an der jeweiligen Uni. Kenne mich mit Hamburg nicht aus, aber hier in Frankfurt ist offensichtlich der Einfluss der Frankfurter Schule weltbekannt, das ist auch ein Grund warum ich hier hingegangen bin. Ich denke, technische Universitäten solltest du vielleicht eher meiden, weil sie, soviel ich weiß, die Geistes - und Sozialwissenschaften finanziell vernachlässigen und die Räume gefüllt sind mit Bugmen und Techbros, die sich nur ein paar extra CP's holen wollen oder so. Eine Uni die für ihre Geisteswissenschaften bekannt ist dürfte da für dich attraktiver sein.

[Anonymous No.19821638]

plumb

[Anonymous No.19822523]

>>19820329

didn't advances in physics proved that time on itsefl exist in the world? that is time having an existence outside of the subject

[Anonymous No.19822564]

>>19820329
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/significance_GR_geometry/Einstein_on_Kant.html

>"Until some time ago, it could be regarded as possible that Kant’s system of a priori concepts and norms really could withstand the test of time. This was defensible as long as the content of later science held to be confirmed*) did not violate those norms. This case occurred indisputably only with the theory of relativity. However, if one does not want to assert that relativity theory goes against reason, one cannot retain the a priori concepts and norms of Kant’s system.

what do you think about this? do you think einstein has a point?

[Anonymous No.19823337]

>>19805446
>have to learn integral calculus just to understand hegel
jfc

[Anonymous No.19824887]

good morning sirs

[Anonymous No.19825119]

>>19824887
morning
comfy philosophy threads are rare

[Anonymous No.19825129]

>>19822523
Au contraire, relativity has demonstrated that time is absolutely relative to the subject; that time can differ "objectively" depending on relative motions (ie, one can observe someone acting more slowly at high, relativistic speeds), but that the presupposition of this fact is that time is always experienced the same for one given observer.

[Anonymous No.19826328]

>>19822523
Physics doesn't (and cannot) prove anything with regards to ontological (metaphysical) statements.
When poeple say that relativity "proves time itself exists in the world" they allude the aspect of relativity that prescribes how masses (i.e. "physical objects" [which, in the end however, is nothing but energy and thus not as real as one would think]) influence the passage of "objective" time. But this is just a figure of speech to intuitively grasp the math. Just because we can conventiently predict physical phenomena by a certain formalism doesn't say anything about ontology (beyond giving a mere wink/hint to philosophy). Time is still simply a parameter that describes things move or events following each other.
This problem is pretty much what Hegel is talking about in PoS in the section of force and understanding if I remember correctly.

>>19822564
What is the argument of the article? (your link only contains the first page)
I've already read article that talk about Kant in contrast to scientific andvancements and everytime I already realized after reading the first pages that the authors don't understand how scientific theories and Kant's philosophy operate in entirely different spheres. I can go into more detail if you post the full article or summarize the main argument.

[Anonymous No.19826346]

>>19826328
>Time is still simply a parameter that describes things move or events following each other.
The "time" that is used as a name for that parameter in physical theories/mathematical formalisms I mean (just to clarify)