Hegel versus Kant

[Ben Iscatus]

This new article by Robert Pippin is interesting.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-return-of-m ... _auid=2020

[AshvinP]

This new article by Robert Pippin is interesting.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-return-of-m ... _auid=2020

I generally agree with the author, but it gets unnecessarily complex (as Hegel's own formulations do). Another way to put Hegel's critique of Kant is, logical thinking always leads back to its own reality. Consider two statements:

1) The Cosmos is universal Will.

2) I think the Cosmos is universal Will.

There is no real semantic difference here. Even if I leave out "I think" from #1, it is implicit in the sentence. All logically reasoned assertions point back to the reality of the Thinking which thinks the assertions. Hegel perceived how that is true, not only in philosophical assertions, but in the entire unfolding of human history. That entire history is an image of Thinking awakening to itself, moving from implicit to explicit (in a dialectical fashion), through mythology, philosophy, socioeconomics, politics, science, and aesthetics.

[Ben Iscatus]

Ash, I agree that the article is somewhat convoluted -not as clear as it could be.

Having said that, thinking itself is convoluted. Do I feel the Cosmos is Universal Will, reason it, intuit it, imagine it or dream it? Or all at once? Heaven knows.

[AshvinP]

Ash, I agree that the article is somewhat convoluted -not as clear as it could be.

Having said that, thinking itself is convoluted. Do I feel the Cosmos is Universal Will, reason it, intuit it, imagine it or dream it? Or all at once? Heaven knows.

The point here is much more simple, as is our intuitive thinking. The latter is implicit in what you wrote above. I think whether "I feel the Cosmos is Universal Will, reason it, intuit it, imagine it or dream it?"

Consider this:

The peculiar nature of thinking lies just in this, that it is an activity which is directed solely upon the observed object and not on the thinking personality. This is apparent even from the way in which we express our thoughts about an object, as distinct from our feelings or acts of will. When I see an object and recognize it as a table, I do not as a rule say, “I am thinking of a table,” but, “this is a table.” On the other hand, I do say, “I am pleased with the table.” In the former case, I am not at all interested in stating that I have entered into a relation with the table; whereas in the latter case, it is just this relation that matters. In saying, “I am thinking of a table,” I already enter the exceptional state characterized above, in which something that is always contained — though not as an observed object — within our spiritual activity, is itself made into an object of observation.

This is just the peculiar nature of thinking, that the thinker forgets his thinking while actually engaged in it. What occupies his attention is not his thinking, but the object of his thinking, which he is observing.

[Cardenio]

This new article by Robert Pippin is interesting.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-return-of-m ... _auid=2020

I generally agree with the author, but it gets unnecessarily complex (as Hegel's own formulations do). Another way to put Hegel's critique of Kant is, logical thinking always leads back to its own reality. Consider two statements:

1) The Cosmos is universal Will.

2) I think the Cosmos is universal Will.

There is no real semantic difference here. Even if I leave out "I think" from #1, it is implicit in the sentence. All logically reasoned assertions point back to the reality of the Thinking which thinks the assertions. Hegel perceived how that is true, not only in philosophical assertions, but in the entire unfolding of human history. That entire history is an image of Thinking awakening to itself, moving from implicit to explicit (in a dialectical fashion), through mythology, philosophy, socioeconomics, politics, science, and aesthetics.

To build on this: it would make no sense to ask someone whether it will snow tomorrow and if he answers "yes," to continue to inquire "but do you think it will snow tomorrow?" That's because, like you noted, Ashvin, thinking is inherently "intentionalized," or ordered towards being. In fact, "thinking" and "being" are abstractions since neither of them makes sense in isolation from the other. People often try to get at truth by way of abstract propositions but that's like "trying to get to the milk by way of the cheese." Instead, truth can be understood as the topology through which our thinking moves and hence is identical with being insofar as it is known.