Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: Kant and Hegel, Take One
Read Kant/ Hegel: The Emergence of History pp. 58-67.
Post: Define a priori, List major points of each philosopher - challenge and question and respond to each other, too.
Priories are the building blocks that people are born with a general understanding of, like time and space, a baseline of attributes common to all men. The goal of a Philosopher would be to break everything about the universe and in the universe down into Priories, at least in my opinion.
Hume Lock asked how people could prove that results of the same effect will always be the same, and theoretically the future/present is not confined to the past.
Thomas Hobbes Related cause and effect in science to Euclidean proofs in geometry. I really understood this, because when I first learned about proofs it felt like a science to me, and it just made sense and worked.
Immanuel Kant focused on Priories mostly. Sort of like how Dylan asked on the forums yesterday, at what point do no more questions need to be asked, Kant answered that in a way that reflects my first day in geometry as a freshman when Evelina told us the definition of a line. There is no proof for a line, and it was easy to accept because a not having one didn’t throw us teeny freshman off course because we have a basic understanding of it. I relate this to how Kant’s point on page 61 left of how the knower and the known form a natural bond.
And lastly, Friedrich Hegel. His philosophy for the most part mad sense to me, but maybe that is because he was inspired in part by Kant. He also described a unity between the knower and the known, but he took the next step of explaining that connection as coming together and creating knowledge in itself.
Hegel also talked about the concept of “I think, therefore I am” (I don’t know who actually said that, if anyone knows please share!) and discussed how our knowledge of reality is what creates our reality, and one cannot exist without the other. A very Matrix-ish theme.
Hegel also defined history as “the great transformer’ which I totally agree with. My definition of history up until now has pretty consistently contained something about the past affecting the present, which Hegel would agree with. He just words it better than I do. History really does transform the world, because it is the events that shape society.
I do have a question! Did anyone understand what Hegel was talking about on page 63 left side about the “thing-in-itself”?
I think that a priori is a basic framework. It is basic concepts without which we cannot operate.
Hobbs thought that every cause had an effect and that the same cause would always have the same effect, no matter how many times it happened.
Hume agreed with Hobbs that cause has an effect but he disagreed by saying that the same cause does not always have the same effect. He thought that a cause happening again what we perceive as the same effect is actually just our expectation of what we think should happen.
Locke disagreed with Hume. He thought that experience is always real, it can never be in our minds.
Kant agreed with Hume on the basic principle that some connections are only based on our experience and our expectations. He also explored the idea that there are connections that rise above experience. He believed that things in nature could not operate without a priori (like time and space).
Hegel believed that the connection formed by man and what he knows is a combination of opposites with merge as the thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis.
a priori are the things in life we accept automatically without the use of experience. we accept but don't know why. it's kinda like that lyric "fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly..." it reminds me of that scene in love an death where diane keaton tries to kill napolean because she thinks there's no reason not to as far as godly punishment (for she is aethiest) but she still can'ta nd she doesn't know why. anyway...
i coldn't help but obsess with heigel because i share very similar ideas with him and i kept underlining many of the things he was saying. i agree with kinaide that most of what he said made perfect sense to me. i liked his idea that we creat eour own reality and reality has created us, it's like a ballance, which is found in almost everything. also his belief that there is nothin in and of itself. there's not just a thing, the person percieving it obviously has a link to it. also his ideas that a society is represented by it's heros or something like that. also his belief that the line between the seer and the thing to be seen is thinner than ever in the past. anougher ballance quote "the real is the rational and teh rational is the real"
also there's the quote from kant where the synthesises : "I there some framework on which experiemce is founded, and without which the mind cannot grasp the external world at all?"
i also noticed that these theories about what is real and what is not real and how far our perception of the worl can go and weather it's a real thing we are seeing or just what we are creating actually never disproves an existance of God, infact it makes it possibility again which i find very interesting for they are all scientists and i haven't met many of those who would believe in such a thing. just a little thing i was thinking about during class.
The-thing-itself bit confused me too. As far as I can gather, Kant believed that reality shaped thought and thought shaped reality, a give and take type deal. He also thought " that there is a a reality which is independent of men; behind the thing that is known, there is what Kant called a thing-in-itself." (pg 63 3rd paragraph left) I think he's referring to the parts of reality that mankind can't influence by knowing.
When it comes to Kant I end up thinking of the example about perception and reality being two black and white worlds, where you can only have one at a time. I think Kant took that model, and added a big gray sploch in the middle. There are still some definite perceptions, and some definite realities, but there's more wiggle room in the middle. The definite realities would be "the-things themselves" maybe
The way I understood it a proiri is what makes up a discipline. We haven't established a concrete definition of that yet, but to me it is simply a way of approaching the world (kind of like a philosophical system). You can approach something mathematically, scientifically, historically, etc.
Prioris are the "building blocks" (to quote Knaide) of a particular way of thinking about the world.
My question...are prioris always true? We've been thinking a lot about truth and I was just curious about how this fits in...
I also really identified with Hegel's ideas. I think this was because Hegel's ideas struck me as very poetic. His idea that "Life is not merely being, and death is not merely non-being; the essential step of progress is the synthesis of the two-is becoming. " (pg. 63) really caught the attention of the poet in me. I think because Philosophy, when you think about it is kind of poetic. I'll have to keep thinking about this because I'm having trouble articulating why. Anyone else see any parallels? Aaah all the disciplines are melding into one!
On a different note, to totally embarras Bree (sorry Bree!), when we were talking after class she said that sometimes when she was reading what the philosphers she just wanted to say "duh!" because they're overexplaining some very basic ideas. I have definitely felt that a bit when reading, but it got me thinking that these philosphers are the reason we can say "duh!" They did the hard work for us, so that now these ideas seem second nature to us. Just a sidenote.
What people have said so far about what a priori is definitely resonates with my own working definition. I think it's a basic framework that is "inborn" in us that we use to examine truths and theories we encounter. both Kant and Hegel seem to believe that inborn knowledge is related to morality; "some rational a priori knowledge of morality is also inborn..."-kant and "...a man's morality appeared as an instrument inborn in man, which needed no guide but it's own dignity"-hegel (61).
This idea of "dignity" really got me thinking- it seems like it can also be a discipline because Hegel makes it sound like it's what drives us and keeps us motivated. I'm not totally sure what our definition of a discipline is though, I feel a little unclear about that one still.
Tess I like what you said about the black/white/gray splotch worlds, and the definite realities being the "things" themselves. I agree- the tangible objects or substances such as dogs or buckets or hands that tickle fall into the reality section, and our individual experience of connecting with these objects fall into the perception/gray splotch part because I believe we don't all experience being touched the same way even if it's by the same object, which means I disagree with Aristotle on that I guess...but how can we have the same experience of being touched when we all have such different ideas about what truth is and how to define history and science?
just a disclaimer to start: i couldnt process any information by the time i got to the last three pages, so if any of the questions i ask were explained there i probably missed the answers.
Hume: "The connection between cause and effect is empirical and not necessary." (59) This quote really summarized the main idea of Hume for me. It seemed like he threw some Galileo stuff in there, believing experience has to be lived, and cannot be imagined. (59)
Kant: "Kant argued that there are moral necessities in nature as well as scientific ones." (61) I really liked Knaides connection between priories and Kant. I agree that he was really interested in them. I guess this would also be a good time for my definition of a priori. My definition is really similar to the question i asked yesterday, about when we can stop asking why, and just accept something to be true. To me, a priori is something we accept to be true, because it is our nature. (Aristotle-ish) Anyway, back to Kant. My guess, or what I got out of the reading, is that Kant tried to break down and explain priories so there were as few as possible.
Hegel: He confused me a lot more. "Hegel thought of this as a unity of opposites, and the force of his method lies in his insistence that such opposities must be united at each step in human progress." (62) This seemed like the thesis of Hegel's thinking. I had a lot of trouble understanding of opposites, but it seemed like he was trying to balance the world, and that nothing could exist without an equal force to prevent it from going wild. Again, I agree with Knaide and her idea of, "I think, therefore I am." "To Hegel, there is no reality until we know it." (63) I think that quote from the reading basically confirms that idea. To bring back the idea of equal but opposing forces, "Hegel claimed, 'the opposition between being and knowing' is ended. The knower and what he knows, thesis and antithesis, are fused in a single synthesis of experience." (63) It was this idea of a fusion of experience that have me the balance idea, in addition to the idea that we, the knower, generate knowledge ourselves. (63)
To answer Kate's question, I think the main idea of priories is that they are always true. That is, until we find a way to explain them. I feel like if we know how to explain something, we should be able to find a way to prove it wrong, or at least find an "antithesis".
I don't really have any questions, but if anyone could respond to any part of my post that would be great because I made lots of guesses at definitions and theories and I'm curious about people's reactions.
A priori is a fact we accept, because in Kant's philosophy, there has to be some givens in order to prove knowledge, as it builds on itself and the truth has to start somewhere.
I was wondering what were people's thoughts on what nature meant to Kant and Hegel. The longer I am in this class, the more definitions I feel I need to know, and the more I feel definitions in dictionaries tell a tiny story behind each word, (but, I digress like Herodotus).
In response to Kate, I believe prioris will always be true if your definition of truth includes that truth is related to the present and knowledge in the present. Prioris will always be true when in the context of the present at which they were used. Assuming that at the time they were correct. I went into writing this confidently and proceeded to become very, very confused. I would love to see this elaborated on.
Is anyone else really struggling with using words such as knowledge, when they don't truly(there I did it again) know what it means?
The-thing-itself bit confused me too. As far as I can gather, Kant believed that reality shaped thought and thought shaped reality, a give and take type deal. He also thought " that there is a a reality which is independent of men; behind the thing that is known, there is what Kant called a thing-in-itself." (pg 63 3rd paragraph left) I think he's referring to the parts of reality that mankind can't influence by knowing.
When it comes to Kant I end up thinking of the example about perception and reality being two black and white worlds, where you can only have one at a time. I think Kant took that model, and added a big gray sploch in the middle. There are still some definite perceptions, and some definite realities, but there's more wiggle room in the middle. The definite realities would be "the-things themselves" maybe
Thanks Tess! that is very helpful.
In comparison with what you said about reality being two black and white worlds, and I hate to keep making Matrix references but I am going to anyway, is like being in the matrix and out. But once you left and you go back in, that would be the grey area, because you can choose which reality is real to you since you know both.
on another note, I would like to know if you say 2 different realities because you feel there could only be two or for the sake of simply explaining. I feel like there could be infinite realities based on the reading.
Like most people have already said, I think a priori is a basic framework that allows for theoretical deduction and which lays the foundation for empirical observation and then enables us to base our knowledge off of experience.
Thomas Hobbes approached science with the principle of cause and effect. He thought that that “effects flow from their causes logically” (p. 5. This main idea is what inspired Kant to try and understand more about science.
David Hume (not completely sure on this one..) challenged Hobbes’s idea by saying that we expect the flow from cause to effect to always be the same because it is familiar, when in fact it can change.
I couldn’t find much on John Locke except at the top of page 59… From what I gathered, he was like Aristotle in that he thought that knowledge came from empirical experience.
Kant took what Hume and others had said about connections in nature but pursued it in a less extreme way. Kant talked about and based much of his opinions off of a priories, and dealt with what relations in nature are completely necessary and their underlying frameworks (a priori).
The paragraph on page 60 starting with “Nevertheless…” was a bit confusing to me.
I really understood Hegel’s methods more than the rest. I’m not sure if it was just the way it was explained or what but anyways… On page 62 with the “unity of opposites” and combining thesis and antithesis through synthesis… made the idea of knowledge make much more sense to me. And on page 63, I connected some of what Hegel was saying to Aristotle… being, nonbeing, and becoming.
Hegel’s ideas like how “man is history” and that “only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself” (p. 64) and looking at history as a movement; something that is unfolding and shifting forwards. And to understand the present we have to understand the past (65).
I sort of lost it after that… if anyone can nicely sum up the last page or so…
a priori seems like a concept that is generally understood. as a lot of people have already said, it is a basic framework that is just known, like time and space. it seems like there are a number of different types of priories. "...are given to the mind a priori.." "such categories as substance itself must be, in Kant's view, a priori." ect
I completely agree with Peter with having the feeling of needing definitions for everything. I feel like even if I think I understand something, there is some meaning underneath that I am missing and therefore not fully grasping the concept of what I'm reading. So I'm going to second Peter's question of what Kant and Hegel's thoughts on nature was? It seems like most of the time in this reading, priories and nature come hand-in-hand, so I'm having a hard time getting my head around everything without being clear of what they mean when they talk about nature.
Also, I found the bit about experience very interesting. The whole explanation about experience not being like formulated knowledge because it can't be built up like science. That experience isn't developed through logic and has to be lived (pg 59). The question that really stayed with me was that is there a priori necessary to have experience? Because if priories are an understood framework, when he asks if there is a "...framework on which experience is founded and without which the mind cannot grasp the external world at all" does that imply that without a priori one cannot experience or understand the outside world? Is that possible? If knowledge comes from experience- which is what we've been studying- how could it be that there is a prerequisite knowledge needed to be experienced?
Thomas Hobbes: “every “every effect has a material cause and every cause always has the same effect” (pg. 5
He also argued that (as we have axioms in geometry) there are some aspects of the natural world that are just accepted, no questions asked. Like Knaide explained about lines and how we have no proof for them, just accept them.
David Hume: Argued that the reason certain things are accepted is not because of logic but rather because we’ve grown accustomed to these occurrences and have never had any reason to question them. We’re conditioned to believe that cause and effect is necessary only because it is familiar and we’ve never experienced anything else (59). In fact its illogical to assume these occurrences will repeat themselves without any proof besides custom.
Kant:
The way I understand it, each of these philosophers has one-upped another, and each is trying to explain the most basic level of human understanding. Hobbes said we just accept certain ideas without explanation, Hume said we only do this because of experience, and then we come to Kant. Kant argues that on an even more innate level than experience is a priori, ideas that are basic and ingrained in every human being. That certain things in our world (like space and time but also some moral tendencies) are part of being human and inseparable from our experiences. We can’t truly conceptualize time or space or (unspecified) moral values being different.
I would challenge those people who used the word “building blocks” to describe a priori as I think building blocks tends to infer that a priori is sort of separate or rearrange-able, when Kant’s point is that a priori is an inseparable part of being human. A framework I think, as its kind of a way to view everything else in life, rather than an idea that gets added to or built upon or maneuvered.
I’m really interested in what Naya brought up about dignity. Kant’s philosophy gave authority to people in that suddenly our (**well actually’ only men’s) thoughts could be connected to nature, and seen as fundamentally true. Morality lost a certain about of subjectivity, as it was seen to be a priori, a given. Morality in this context is definitely something I want to talk about after I’ve had more time to digest this.
I’m like 100% with Dylan, by the time I got to the end of the reading I stopped being able to process anything. I’m taking one out of Galileo’s book and admitting I don’t understand Hegel. Hopefully that'll change after class tomorrow...
Thomas Hobbs’s fundamental understanding of science is that every effect has its assigned cause. Like two beads tied in each end of a string, cause and effect are bounded by necessity. We often see, however, that some events occur by different cause, such as there are a lot of reasons of not finishing homework, so we can easily find the invalidation of Hobbs’s account.
Kant utilized the concept of ‘priori’ which I found uneasy to comprehend. From the extend of my understanding, Kant thinks that events occur as climbing the ladder, step by step in assigned time. But we know that we can reach, say, fifth step, by jumping up there, climbing step by step, or pass the fifth step and come back down.
Hegel, the one who I keep call Heigel, provided very interesting explanation of mind and world. The ‘internal world’ should be individual’s mind, what I think which can be never shared. External world is the world we conceive, which includes things we already knew and things we do not know. Things we do not know do not exist in internal world. It is really convincing, because Daphne Du Maurier does not exist in the minds of ones who does not know her and will consider her as a made-up-character if I try to explain about her. "We exist by virtue of knowing the outside world - but the world also exist only by virtue of our knowing it" (63) is such a intriguing quote that explains the relationship of us with external world and internal world.
I agree with Dylan that a priori is something we accept to be true. It is also knowledge gained not from experience, but from acceptance of other people’s opinions as fact.
David Hume "pointed out that the sequence from cause to effect seems necessary to us only because it is familiar"(p.474) Hume proved that cause and effect are not conjoined by logical need.
John Locke's assertions were the base of Hume's theories. Locke thought that all knowledge was "built up empirically."(59) He also believed that "experience has to be lived, it cannot be imagined." (59)
Thomas Hobbs thought, "Every effect has a material cause." (p.5 Hobbes believed strongly in the power of logic over experience.
Immanuel Kant asked if "there [were] not some connections in nature which are necessary because they underlie experience." He also thought "nature must conform to causality, because causality is the only way in which the mind can grasp her workings." (p.60) His original contribution to science was his theory of the planets being condensed from a mass of gas.
Friedrich Hegel felt that "there must be a profound unity between the knower and what he knows, and that knowledge would be impossible without such unity." Hegel applied his ideas to the concrete realities of life. Hegel also had an interesting view on evolution because he saw it as a "succession of revolutionary steps." It is only fitting that Hegel draws us back to our discussion on authority. Hegel was fascinated by violent authority and "in his most mystical moments longed to be dominated by it."
I'm wondering if we did not have a framework on which experience is founded how would we gain knowledge?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. This main idea is what inspired Kant to try and understand more about science.
