My lawyer once gave me his copy of Kant's _Metaphysics on Morals_ he had since law school. Intuitively, I don't trust Kant -- but as a writer Kant was exquisite, good enough to satisfy a King. I got a copy of Russell's _Icarus_ on my lap. I recall laughing when I first read Hume. This is not my domain -- I just want to write but I want it to be sound without attribution to Freud. Mercy. Maybe I should just start a short story first. hahahah.
The senses we are born with are the same if not better than the ones we have as an adult. So we experience the world the same, the only difference is the adult has knowledge. The babies perception is pure, its experience is pure. It just feels feeling, it just sees colours, it just hears sound, but it doesn’t have any concept of them. Imagine being born with adult concepts and knowledge. The pain and trauma. You would probably need counselling and sue your parents because you didn’t ask to be born. It is the meaning and concepts that turn experience into pain. There’s a need for us to be a caterpillar before we become a butterfly
There is something i don't get from this explanation: hegel sais that senses are not a "true" mean to knowledge, because everything around is constantly changing... how come that knowing that everything around is constantly changing is not considered knowledge? and HOW ELSE would you arrive to that kwnoledge (of constante change) IF NOT by senses??? i found that part extremly contradictory.
i think that Heraclits constant state of flux has been misinterpreted by Hegel. I dont think that Heraclit meant that we are some amorf thing that can shift is purest esence from one generation to the other. I dont think that he was speaking of "the short term", despite his river and fire metaphore. I think he meant that the universe itself, IN THE LONG TERM is undubtly in constant change, but doesnt mean that tomorrow we will wake up thinking the opposite of today, or that we will be transformed into an aligator. That twist of Heraclit view of the universe to incorporate human behaviur is a silly simplification. And dont forget: Heraclito didnt know biology (it did not exist as a science), wich implies that those certain "constants" from one generation to the other were invisible for him. Hegel lived in a much more advanced time (sciencewise), so he had other tools to deal with human behaviour, wich he chose to ignore.
Rodrigo, i had the exact same attitude. It seems in a way that Hegel claims to be Anti-Empiricist, means that he deems senses as unreliable tools of information processing and gaining a certain knowledge about the world because the world is instantaneously morphing from one form to another. But then again, through his so called dialectic process concept, he claims that things ( mainly our consciousness ) are in a instantaneous restless evolution towards more complex and advanced settings or what he calls Das Absolute ( End of History ) through the ''confrontation'' and ''recognition'' of contradictions in things ( Antithesis ) as well as that they only make sense due to their difference to other things ( Structuralism ) and of being a part in a larger whole he calls Geist/Spirit ( Holism/Emergence). So my question is, how in the world is it possible to ''confront'' and ''recognize'' these contradictions in things without senses ? how come that the process of transition from Thesis-Antithesis clash to Synthesis is even possible without senses ? Isn't these contradictions part of the so called Geist as well ? So that they are ALSO morphing instantaneously and ever changing to the point that our senses lose the track of what's going on ? Hegel is in a way Bayesian, that's the case because the Bayesian framework is identical to the Dialectic process; it's centered about this iterative algorithm of updating a priori state of knowledge to a posteriori state of knowledge in the light of evidence and data, which means that Bayesianism is actually empirical ( Bayesian probability is even denoted Empirical probability sometimes ) and retrospective in looking at knowledge and the whole epistemology which is the idea that ''everything is impossible until it happens'' which means that things are only understood backwards and cannot be certainly anticipated, and this Hegel agrees with of course through his teaching lesson of ''looking back at History and learning from it''. I do think in a way Hegel is self-contradictory and recursively denying his own philosophy, but i might be wrong. It depends on what he means by gaining ''experience'' of contradictions about the world, the ''how'' is missing.
"how come that knowing that everything around is constantly changing is not considered knowledge?" There's no absolution concept of knowledge because information itself is dialectical in that there are always things to further understand based on what we've learned. You kind of have to think of the concept of things broadly, spanning a) known about the things in question, and b) what will be known about them. Take quantum entanglement: you can't make absolute statements on the state of the particle, but you can make statements about the possible states of it under certain conditions.
Keep up the good work my friend !
My lawyer once gave me his copy of Kant's _Metaphysics on Morals_ he had since law school.
Intuitively, I don't trust Kant -- but as a writer Kant was exquisite, good enough to satisfy a King.
I got a copy of Russell's _Icarus_ on my lap. I recall laughing when I first read Hume.
This is not my domain -- I just want to write but I want it to be sound without attribution to Freud.
Mercy. Maybe I should just start a short story first. hahahah.
The senses we are born with are the same if not better than the ones we have as an adult. So we experience the world the same, the only difference is the adult has knowledge. The babies perception is pure, its experience is pure. It just feels feeling, it just sees colours, it just hears sound, but it doesn’t have any concept of them. Imagine being born with adult concepts and knowledge. The pain and trauma. You would probably need counselling and sue your parents because you didn’t ask to be born. It is the meaning and concepts that turn experience into pain.
There’s a need for us to be a caterpillar before we become a butterfly
There is something i don't get from this explanation: hegel sais that senses are not a "true" mean to knowledge, because everything around is constantly changing... how come that knowing that everything around is constantly changing is not considered knowledge? and HOW ELSE would you arrive to that kwnoledge (of constante change) IF NOT by senses??? i found that part extremly contradictory.
i think that Heraclits constant state of flux has been misinterpreted by Hegel. I dont think that Heraclit meant that we are some amorf thing that can shift is purest esence from one generation to the other. I dont think that he was speaking of "the short term", despite his river and fire metaphore. I think he meant that the universe itself, IN THE LONG TERM is undubtly in constant change, but doesnt mean that tomorrow we will wake up thinking the opposite of today, or that we will be transformed into an aligator. That twist of Heraclit view of the universe to incorporate human behaviur is a silly simplification. And dont forget: Heraclito didnt know biology (it did not exist as a science), wich implies that those certain "constants" from one generation to the other were invisible for him. Hegel lived in a much more advanced time (sciencewise), so he had other tools to deal with human behaviour, wich he chose to ignore.
@@user-yt5ot9ex9n and then came cubism to solve the problem hahaha thanx for the answer, really interesting mate!
Rodrigo, i had the exact same attitude. It seems in a way that Hegel claims to be Anti-Empiricist, means that he deems senses as unreliable tools of information processing and gaining a certain knowledge about the world because the world is instantaneously morphing from one form to another. But then again, through his so called dialectic process concept, he claims that things ( mainly our consciousness ) are in a instantaneous restless evolution towards more complex and advanced settings or what he calls Das Absolute ( End of History ) through the ''confrontation'' and ''recognition'' of contradictions in things ( Antithesis ) as well as that they only make sense due to their difference to other things ( Structuralism ) and of being a part in a larger whole he calls Geist/Spirit ( Holism/Emergence). So my question is, how in the world is it possible to ''confront'' and ''recognize'' these contradictions in things without senses ? how come that the process of transition from Thesis-Antithesis clash to Synthesis is even possible without senses ? Isn't these contradictions part of the so called Geist as well ? So that they are ALSO morphing instantaneously and ever changing to the point that our senses lose the track of what's going on ?
Hegel is in a way Bayesian, that's the case because the Bayesian framework is identical to the Dialectic process; it's centered about this iterative algorithm of updating a priori state of knowledge to a posteriori state of knowledge in the light of evidence and data, which means that Bayesianism is actually empirical ( Bayesian probability is even denoted Empirical probability sometimes ) and retrospective in looking at knowledge and the whole epistemology which is the idea that ''everything is impossible until it happens'' which means that things are only understood backwards and cannot be certainly anticipated, and this Hegel agrees with of course through his teaching lesson of ''looking back at History and learning from it''.
I do think in a way Hegel is self-contradictory and recursively denying his own philosophy, but i might be wrong. It depends on what he means by gaining ''experience'' of contradictions about the world, the ''how'' is missing.
"how come that knowing that everything around is constantly changing is not considered knowledge?"
There's no absolution concept of knowledge because information itself is dialectical in that there are always things to further understand based on what we've learned. You kind of have to think of the concept of things broadly, spanning a) known about the things in question, and b) what will be known about them. Take quantum entanglement: you can't make absolute statements on the state of the particle, but you can make statements about the possible states of it under certain conditions.
Monism, at its most complicated. Not that it is a bad thing, necessarily.
every pilosophy major from any country has probably cursed Hegel in their own respective languages 😅
This is nuts how old are you
lol
13
A/S/L
Oh boy, Kant is getting more difficult to understand. I best leave his episodes for last 😉.
So if an art theory is a list of particulars, adding to the list just endlessly redefines art of the past.