|
|
Post by millwright on Jan 11, 2018 21:13:01 GMT
Do you prefer the Hegelian idea that reality can be known or the Kantian idea that it is hidden (noumena is unreachable)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 11, 2018 21:24:41 GMT
I guess a mixture of both. I don't necessarily feel like I want to know everything but I also don't like the idea of something being unreachable if I want to know it.
|
|
ZeroInteruppt
Junior Member
I still beleive in fairy tales. I really do.
Posts: 72 
Likes: 57
Country: USA
Region: California
Ancestry: Marine Corps.
Politics: I refuse to classify
Hero: People who live deliberately
Age: Old soul
|
Post by ZeroInteruppt on Jan 11, 2018 22:45:11 GMT
I've always disliked both honestly. While they approach thought processes in a very rational idea, their dismissal of emotive qualities has always struck me as a bit unrealistic. True, while in many ways you can quantify the emotional aspect as merely a subset to rational behavior, their outright dismissal of it has always left me lacking any sort of "holistic" approach.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 6:37:31 GMT
Kant and Hegel have introduced confusion into philosophy; they were sophists. That Kant has been ranked next to Plato and Goethe is proof that philosophy has gone downhill. Even the Nazi philosopher Rosenberg erred in this regard. It is true that Kant has made his contributions against dogmatic tyranny, but the damage he did to philosophy supersedes his merit. Nietzsche called him the "most deformed concept-cripple of all time" and this is fully justified. Schopenhauer exposed some of Kant's philosophy as theological arguments (i.e. showing kindness to animals as practice for relations to humans). Kant was held back by his theological upbringing and environment, he was denied the opportunity to develop his philosophy into a nobler form.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 7:37:29 GMT
Do you prefer the Hegelian idea that reality can be known or the Kantian idea that it is hidden (noumena is unreachable)? Kantian, cause it is build on solid deductive apparatus. And Kant didn't insist on unknowning of reality - it's known that somebody blamed him for his agnosticism and scepticism, but Kant declined those objections - 'd rather he told that there appeared some contradictions in our minds when we trying to solve transcendental problems. He knew that he didn't build a philosophical system, but just a project of it. Hegel, on the other hand, build a huge strong system, but the arguments he used were not stronger than Kant's because ambitionong wholeness of system weaked its epistemological power. |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 7:45:21 GMT
I've always disliked both honestly. While they approach thought processes in a very rational idea, their dismissal of emotive qualities has always struck me as a bit unrealistic. True, while in many ways you can quantify the emotional aspect as merely a subset to rational behavior, their outright dismissal of it has always left me lacking any sort of "holistic" approach. Yeah, this is truth. Moreover, they were senseless and heartless 'rats' in life. Kant didn't love nor his sisters, nor his brother and always been unconcerned to his servant Lampe. Hegel were the same. He'd been always indifferent to feelings his second sister (cousin); she loved him, but he didn't care about it. |
|
