'Up until twenty years ago Hegel was a marginal thinker....people jumped from Kant to Frege'. That's only if you consider this mathematical theory called analytic 'philosophy' to be philosophy proper. Plenty of philosophers took Hegel very seriously from his death up until now. Marx, Stirner, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau Ponty, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, Giorgio Agamben. and so on. Hegel wasn't swept under the rug by neo Kantianism. It was by orthodox Marxists who misunderstood him.
Marx said one can't be communist if he didn't read hegel. I believe the way Marx has emphasized hegel no one else had but he said Hegel's philosophy was upside down I have just put it in right way.
existence of god is as certain as gravity. each is a force of which you can experience the effects of. though describing and defining god may be impossible
A Jim Fan Because a scene of fart sniffers who claimed to understand him while accusing their fellow fart sniffers of misinterpreting him became well paid academics due to his popularity. Oddly he’s a foundational philosopher to two of the most maniacal governmental systems ever conceived Communism and Fascism, whether the opaqueness of his writing or the fallaciousness of his aphorisms is to blame is debatable.
It would be a mistake to find causality in the material world...everything in the material world is just action and reaction... How Islamic philosophers explain causality is to give an example if you give existence to something in your mind....if you create a one-legged man in your mind you are the cause of the man...its entire existence depends on you...we are dependent in our existence in this manner to our cause...
@@danielraftery3688 True. The material world plays a formative role in the process of imagination of this one-legged man but the actual cause and effect are in the mind in this example.
@@danielraftery3688 If the one-legged man were the cause, you would get the same effect if you placed it in one front of a stone. It is only a preparing cause something that is necessary for the effect to come into being ...
Hegel is an interesting midway name to dialetic marxism, no doubt. But Kant did by far a better homework - a brilliant homework. Hegel failed to anticiptate the maxi.universe inside each one of us, somewhat exceeds the collective universe of the so called "masses", an uncertain and floating concept . Hegel composed the first Bolero of Ravel. Kant composed what Hindemith expressed in his strings chamberc music called. And that is that - Hegel, Engels and Marx are pieces of museum. End of story.
@@VVeltanschauung187 If you sail through such (aparently) linear clean and crystal waters, you incur into a small and humble question - what came first- to life the chicken or the egg ? Hegel had a brlliant mind indeed but was H-U-M-A-N. And a Human brain has its mandatory boiundaries, fact that seems to me quite elementary, isn´t it?
@@josealexandre6632 i can tell, you have not even tried to read hegel and moreover marx. Here is answer for your egg and chicken question. If you mean egg in general of course it was first than chicken. Even dinosaurs used egg to reproduce so concept of egg existed in the universe before chicken. But if you say no i mean exactly chicken egg or chicken than you should know that nothing is static in the universe. There was a creature millions of years ago and step by step through evolution become what we call a chicken and her egg. DNA of that creature changed little by little and the egg she laid also changed, than laid egg could have mutated also and gave birth to a changed creatur. So its feedback loop from both sides from chicken to egg and egg to chiken and over long period of time it took a form of something that we generalize as chicken and her egg. If you think about it you can see that itself evolution is hegelian dialectic between organism and surrounding through overcoming contradictions.
@@levankhocholava7726 Really? How interesting embroidering of concepts from your side. If I am pointed out not to have read Hegel and Marx (did I not? let me check the editions and publisher...), I keep the sacred vows of respecting third party´s opinion. So shall be heard so shall be done. Of course, I´m afraid not to find any point of concurrence with your reasoning. You keep digressing in big circles, a little bit like Ravel´s Bolero. We could entertain ourselves with long exchanges of points of view, but honestly TEMPUS FUGIT. So, honnit soit qui mal y pense et ouvre sa raison. I leave you in your efforts to review in brave spirits the eggs of amibas, shall we? Ave Khocholava pantienturos te salutant.
Kant is my new fascination. Love his theories on transcendental idealism, good will, moral principle and especially....racial differences. A true western thinker and European.
Boba - You said it "he trusted his own instincts. And what is the "instinct"? An extra feeling erupting from the mind apparently groundless of a strict rationality? Maybe.so. But then, dear Boba yiu enter into a wide dangerius kingdom - all animals, great,m small, unicellular, viruses, all in general share such gift, correct? Don´t you thing your philosopher went too far and is self comtained in a cul-de-sac? Kant did not incur in such trap.
I'm sure they'll let you, that sensual experience that forms knowledge of knowing the spirit in suspension of engagement and ignition of awareness...while thee spirit appears instead of engaging with it in belief formation is a discharge, so you can say no I don't believe in God.
