free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

esumner · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 16

Hi guys, I thought I'd start this board for us to discuss preparing for the seminar style discussion tomorrow.

Here's the stuff from mycsw...

Topic: “If Kant is not an historian, why is he so important to history? If Hegel is not a scientist, why is he so important to science?”

In order to discuss this question, you’ll need to draw specifically on the text about Kant and Hegel (pp. 29-38 ) as well as any other texts that we have examined. In order to prepare for the seminar, review your reading and notes and develop an answer to the question. Please find text and specific references that support your answer and be ready to share them in class.

Some questions or items that might help get you started in considering the topic:
• How are you defining “science” and “history” (of course)?
• How are/would these thinkers define “science” and “history”? How have others defined them? How do others compare with Kant and Hegel?
• What are the roles of cause and effect for Kant and Hegel? Who else considers cause and effect? How do others compare with Kant and Hegel on these topics?
• Are Kant and Hegel, each, thinking within a discipline, or are they somehow beyond a single discipline’s boundaries? Do they reshape or refuse boundaries? If so, how? If not, why not?
• Do Kant and Hegel seem to be continuations of the modes of thought that we have explored thus far, or do they appear to be something new or in and of themselves?

We recommend that you make an outline or detailed notes with specific textual references in order to be fully prepared for our discussion. Furthermore, you will be writing a paper on the discussion topic, so please consider how you can use the collective thinking of the class to help you flesh out your individual ideas.

Good luck!

esumner · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 16

Here are some quotes I find helpful when trying to answer the main question...

- "History in the sense of Hegel's is not merely a record of the past. It is a progress, an evolution." -Pg 65

- A similar quote to the last one.. "Hegel, for the first time saw all progress, whether in the history of man or in the evolution of life, as a succession of revolutionary steps." Pg 63

- "History for Hegel is above all an account of the development of states. In both developments, the struggle for survival has been a shaping force." Pg 65

- "[Kant thought] Man's reason appeared as an instrument in tone with the workings of the universe." Pg 61

- "[Kant]... there was no mention of God." pg 61

- "Kant argued that there are [b]moral necessities in nature as well as scientific ones." pg 61

Also, I found the thing about the knower and what he knows (mentioned by Kant) that Marilyn wanted us to discuss a in class today, the text can be found on page 61. It says "To Kant, man and nature were no longer separate; so that philosophy seemed to his contemporaries to give a new status to man. The knower and what he knows has moved closer, and were felt to be natural accord."

Fredg · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 9

Before I actually make an attempt to contribute, I have to ask something: Did Hegel acknowledge a world, universe, reality etc. outside of perception? I know he said that reality only exists because we observe it (P. 63 and P. 64), but does that mean there is nothing outside of our perception or that it only has a nature once we observe it.

hrossen · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 27

I don't know if I can answer Fred's question, but I found some really good quotes linking Hegel to Aristotle, who is (obviously) widely considered a scientist. These were:

• “History to him is the great transformer, the great mover; she is the justification for every accident of existence; she is the working out, the physical realization of the spirit of all men.” (64, right hand side)

• “The knower and what he knows, thesis and antithesis, are fused into a single synthesis of experience. This is a bold conception. It asserts the importance of the individual even more forcefully than Kant did.” (63-64)

Free Forum