Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:50 pm Post subject: Kant and Hegel
Cause and Effect:
Thomas Hobbes thinks that every effect has its material cause, same cause makes the same effect, effects flows out from the cause logically. Necessity is natural. Then David Hume said that, cause of the effect is familiar, so it seems necessary. Our mind decide part of the sequences. The connection between cause and effect is empirical and not necessary. Move to Kant, he found there are some necessary relations in nature. Sometimes the thing is different, our mind changed the way of seeing it. So the connection between cause and effect are in our minds not on object itself.
The knower and the Known
The knower knows what influence on another, he is creative and active. The known is what noticed and understand by people. Nothing is in itself. NO reality until we know it. We know the world exist is not because the world exist by itself and we notice that the world exist. “It creates it, being is thought.”
Question:
It looks a lot like Aristotle and Plato’s thoughts, like an object is defined by itself or by people. So why doesn’t the article mention Aristotle and Plato then?
The main conflict between Thomas Hobbes's, David Hume's and Kant's views on cause and effect is how much of cause and effect is inherent and how much is perceived. I think these ideas relate to Aristotle's ideas of inherent purpose in a way. Does each cause have a inborn effect that naturally follows and conversely does every effect come from its natural cause? Furthermore, and this is basically Hume's argument, but what effects come from the cause we attribute it to and what are in fact unrelated events we learn to expect in conjunction. Kant's idea that some things must be set and natural in order for us to understand the world somewhat confused me, but I think it is an interesting mixing of the two ideas.
The relationship between the knower and the known had a lot of material, but I agree with Zhuoran (and sorry if I am mis-interpreting you) that the main concept is that the knower and the known both affect each other. What we know changes the world around us and what is known changes how we see new information.
My big question is about the perception of history and future as important: I am curious how much science and technological advancement affect perceptions of the importance of time. The culture we currently live in seems almost obsessed with the future and the past because so much about the way we live is changing so fast, how does that play into the views of the middle ages?
Thomas Hobbes believed that every effect had a material cause and that cause and effect was logical. Hume believed that cause and effect was not necessary and that we only think that because of custom based on our past experiences. Kant believed that in nature there was necessity. He believed that some of the ways in which nature worked were a priori and that they were what we needed to build any empirical thoughts. He though that nature conformed to causality and that “causality is the only way we can grasp her inner workings.” (p.62) He believed that the cause of mans behavior is the priori of nature, and that without this necessity mans behavior would be meaningless. Hegel agreed with Kant in that some of natures behavior was necessary. Hegel believed that the cause of mans behavior was mans past behavior and therefore the effect of mans behavior was future mans behavior.
The knower and the known:
To Kant the relationship between the knower and what he knows has to do with how man and nature interact. To Kant “the knower and what he knows had moved closer and were felt to be in natural accord.” (p.61)Kant believed that some of the knowledge that man knows is a priori and this makes learning all other knowledge possible. Hegel and Kant both believed that there was a unity between the knower and what is know. Hegel though that this unity was a unity of opposites, this was the dialectic method. Here the thesis is man seeks to know, the antithesis is nature, “the impersonal world resists the knower” (p.62) when the two fuse; “the knower and what is known generate a higher synthesis-generate knowledge itself” (p.63)
My question is, Hegel saw all history as progress, he saw wars as progress that eventually give man more knowledge. Yet there have been times in history when it seems as thought we are not progressing but rather regressing and the world will not gain anything from these events. Do you believe that all events in history do lead to progress such as hegel or that some events backtrack our progress?
To respond to Emma's question I think that while Hegal thought that reality was all in our minds, I think that does not mean that everybody's reality is the same. I think that each persons individual experience's and observations effect their view of reality. Going back to Galileo when he said that our senses only exist in our heads because our senses are the clashing of particles and the instruments in our body necessary to perceive them. So I think that what is already in somebody head when clashed with experiences is what builds a persons individual reality.
Last edited by Eve Frankel on Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cause and Effect
Hobbes believed that every effect had a cause, and that those causes always had the same effect. He didn't believe that people needed experience, just logic. Hume believed that "the connection between cause and effect is empirical and not necessity," (p.59). He believed in experience instead of logic, unlike Hobbes. Hegel believed that reality was all in the mind, that reality existed because we thought it did.
Knowledge
Kant believed in some necessities, and that knowledge was a must to understand anything. He believed that if one wanted to understand the universe they must have knowledge. He also believed that the knower and the knowledge were connected. Hegel, like Kant, believed that there has to be a connection between the knower and what they know, and that knowledge would be impossible without that connection.
My question is about how Hegel thought of reality. Hegel believed that reality was all in the mind, but if that is so, then is everyone around the world thinking the same thing? Are we all in our heads, but together? Or are we all alone? Does the entire world only exist in our brains?
Hume believed that we only understood the cause and effect relationship between to things after we had observed and experienced them over time. This was contrary to past beliefs that cause and effect in nature was explained through logic- in other words, it just simply was. Kant put a bit of a twist on this, theorizing that we understand cause and effect because we have a basework of given facts- priori- and we place our personal observations on top of these given facts to fully understand the cause and effect we observe. In some ways, if I'm understanding this right, it reminds me of a proof in geometry or logic, where you have assumptions and then work with those assumptions to prove your observations. Hegel's ideas stated that there was an opposite to every action- not necessarily a cause and effect. He used the words "thesis" and "antithesis" to describe this relationship, and argued that these two combined to create a synthesis that was greater than either of the parts.
Kant thought of the knower and the known as much more of a one-sided relationship. The knower was part of the known, yes, but the known did not react or change in response to the knower knowing it. Hegel thought differently, and argued that "the knower and what he knows influence each other" (page 63), in some sense, making things real because we observe them. This is not too different from schrodinger's cat, it seems.
A question I have from this reading: I understand how history influences the present, but how does it influence the future?
Joined: 01 Apr 2014 Posts: 8 Location: United States
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:03 pm Post subject:
Hobbes thought cause and effect was logical and he considered logic to be truth. Hume argued that logic only comes from experience and he did not consider experience to be reliable and left people thinking that no patterns or connections could exist within nature. Kant said that there are patterns based on the rules of space and time because he could not imagine these rules being any different. Hegel thought how we perceive the world affects the truth.
To Hegel, the knower and the known came together to form knowledge, which might be similar to truth. Kant thought that nature must bend to the human mind because the human mind was built to understand nature. He used "causality is the only way in which the mind can grasp (Nature's) workings" to prove his thoughts on cause and effect (60). Both Kant and Hegel thought that "what is known is impart imposed by the knower" (63).
My questions are: Does how we perceive the world affect the (T/t)ruth? Is truth possible without knowledge? Is fact?
I agree with Eve that Hegel did not think everyone's reality is the same. I am also wondering if Hegel's interpretation of reality meant something does not exist until it is discovered by humans, and if it is forgotten about, or is not being thought about or observed, does it stop existing? I sort of think it is not that literal, but it is more about definition or classification. Sort of like an old version of Schrödinger's cat logic.
Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9 Location: United States
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:30 pm Post subject:
The three philosophers viewed cause and effect quite differently. I think that Hume sort of opened this debate by saying that cause and effect are not necessarily connected and that each is not dependent on the other. Kant, however, thought that there must be some connection because without some framework our experience would be impossible.
Both Kant and Hegel agreed that there must be some connection between the knowledge and the knower. I agree with Julia and Zhouran when they say that knowledge and the knower can influence one another and that the knower is therefore active and creative. Hegel took this idea even further suggesting “there is no reality until we know it.” (63) That we exist only by knowing the world and the world only exists because of our knowing it.
Question: Hegel says, “War has a deep meaning that by it the ethical health of the nations is preserved and their finite aims uprooted. And as the winds which sweep over the ocean prevent decay that would result from perpetual calmness, so war protects people from the corruption which an everlasting peace would bing upon it.” Do you believe this is true? Is this still relevant to our society even now? Is war a necessary evil?
The idea of cause and effect was looked at a few different ways, the first being that cause and effect are two totally separate things and the second being cause and effect have to be connected. I think it's interesting to think about. I could agree with Hume and say that things are not necessarily connected, like maybe one outcome could have two different causes. On the other hand I think agreeing with Kant is easier because everything in nature has some reason for doing what it does. I'll have to think more and probably edit this post later.
Hegel brought up a very strange idea that I things are not really "real" until we experience them. If I close my eyes is anything still there? Of course that sounds crazy but it's an idea I don't see looked at very often. What is real and what isn't. The idea that the knower, or person searching for knowledge, and the environment they live in must work together to create a knowledge is very appealing to me. Different people can experience the same thing but take it in very different ways.
My question I thought up while reading this is about what really matters in the world. Why do people do what they do? Does a teacher teach to help improve another person's life? If so what does that person who has been taught do? Pass it on to the next person? It seems like each person individually is on Earth for a short time and everything they do for themselves stays internal, but as a larger entity of "the human race" we focus on how to improve future thought and future life.
Hume seems to imply that causality does not exist - or, at least, that it cannot be discerned to exist in an objective reality through pure reason.
Quote:
There is nothing in these objects, abstractly considered, and independent of experience, which leads me to form any such conclusion... the powers, by which bodies operate, are entirely unknown.
But I don't understand how that makes causality meaningless. Just because it's not "objective"? We can't "prove" causality, but we can infer it from experience and pattern. Through experience, we can infer causality, and through causality, we can do science. After all, we could whittle science down to either "when X, then Y happens" or "Y happens because X" - explicitly a study of causality. If causality is meaningless, then how can we do science?
I guess that's the point that Kant tries to address. He agrees that causality is inherently only based on experience, but he argues that there is something fundamental and objective that underlies experience itself. To Kant, causality is necessary because it is "the only way in which the mind can grasp her workings". If it's true that there's no real empirical evidence for causality, then there must be something underlying experience that makes causality "objective". Therefore, we can't only rely on experience to do science.
Hegel's philosophy on the knower and the known is fascinating. If Descartes says, "I think, therefore I am", then Hegel says, "I think, therefore it is". As a bunch of other people in the thread said, the knower and known are reliant on each other to make knowledge. The knower needs an object to know, and the known needs to be the subject of the knower. Oof.
A few people earlier [Julia, Eve] were getting at the concept of "progress". The thing I'm confused about: why is progress "good"? I mean, I personally think that progress is good, but is there some underlying objective evidence that it is "good"? What explicitly makes "more complexity, integration, greater fullness" good? Of course, "good" is subjective, and yet it seems that the concept of "progress = good" is ubiquitous among these philosophers...
I am not going to pretend to have totally understood most of the philosophies put forward in that reading; my mind isn't really cut out for that level of abstraction. But I'll try:
Cause and effect are not, according to Kant, intrinsically tied together. Unlike certain truths that depend solely on logic (such as geometric proofs), instances of cause and effect are less able to be undeniably ascertained as absolute and eternal, because they are dependent on human experience.
However, Kant and Hegel, the latter building off of the former's work, insisted upon breaking down the barrier between the knower and the known. In effect, as I very loosely understood it, nothing can exist perceptibly without being perceived.
My question is: are these two stances (human perception is not absolute, and nothing exists without being perceived) not at odds?
Or am I just misunderstanding them?
If I posted all that I thought about Hegel and Kant (but mostly Hegel) I'd probably crash the forum//my brain. This is hugely condensed, so it's rather like trying to cram a swimming pool through a kitchen funnel:
Kant described ideas as inherent to man, and in a sense followed Aristotle's sentiment of natural cause. However, the main discrepancy between the two ideas is that Aristotle's allows for continual growth, whereas Kant believes that as a result of a priori knowledge, man is limited to certain boundaries of interpretation. What I mean by this is that where Aristotle's classic acorn following its path into a full-fledged tree allows for that new product, the tree, to have a new path - perhaps into a log, or a decomposition into new fertile soil. In contrast, because of the limits of a priori knowledge (and, my biggest issue with Kant, the lack of being able to describe a priori knowledge without using the term within the definition - that is, if in order to know anything we need a priori understanding, we must have infinite a priori comprehension to realize we have this knowledge, and thus Kant creates a paradox), man can only internalize the world through an innate moral code and an inborn alignment with the world's workings. Therefore, anything that is understood is taken in through these limited filters, and thus man can only reach so many understandings. In this sense, Kant describes cause and effect as predestined and nearly robotic. Similarly, his ideas of what is known and its relationship to the knower are rather contradictory: while Kant says that humans are born with innate sets of a priori "assumptions" of the world, which treats observation with a rather intuitive twist, his ideas of internalizing the world were constructed off of Euclidean space and Newtonian time. These are detached and formulaic approaches to the world - not the ideas themselves, but the fact that the world is simmered down into rigid calculations and rules - yet somehow Kant expected that these impersonal proofs would inform a quite intuitive sense of the world.
Hegel does take into account some of Kant's ideas - particularly the notion that through human existence we have a collective experience (which Kant embodies as the innate knowledge), which Hegel addressed as a way to internalize others through observation in order to recognize the self. In other words, by validating the shared experience of humanity with other humans, who will have arrived there through their own unique path, one validates that one is human, and by extension one's own unique path. Hegel approaches this idea in his discussion of the knower and what is known, which I won't dare to paraphrase because the quote was so beautiful: "the knower and what is to be known generate a higher synthesis - generate knowledge itself" (63). In essence, the aforementioned shared experience becomes valid because it creates a new cause to continue justifying one's own existence, to use Kant's terminology, rather than using cause or purpose to reason existence as Kant argues. In the same vein as cause and effect, Hegel treats the creation of history as both cause and effect, seeing as history in and of itself is a process. This is a theme that I tried (and honestly likely failed) to address in our Herodotus/Thucydides readings - "man is his history; and that only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself" (64). Because history is a popular creation, its true cause/events are only known to those who are existent during that time; the effect is the understanding of the self (which is mitigated by the author of the history), galvanized by those who Hegel terms as heros. (The author of our text takes issue with this, citing Hitler as an example. There's no excuse for Hitler, but to the people of his time - of his history - he was a hero; it's kind of hypocritical that soon after, the author names Hegel a historical figure, when Hegel believed in heros himself - this is what [/i]makes Hegel's history).
I was inspired by this reading to ask: Can we be independent of cause? Are we already?
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:02 pm Post subject: reply to noah's question
"My question I thought up while reading this is about what really matters in the world. Why do people do what they do? Does a teacher teach to help improve another person's life?"
I'm tempted to say that because Hegel believes in the navigation of the spirit toward what is necessary for self development - and by extension the betterment of an individual within the human community - that anything and everything has purpose. I still half-believe this, but I'm caught short by things like sexual assault or organ trafficking - I'm pretty sure that's not the exact angle you were getting at, and I don't normally think in such polar extremities, but maybe we have to consider the black-and-white before we dissect the grey. Originally, I'd say that on a positive side, anything that the soul desires is clearly meant to develop your intrinsic being, and is thus significant to your own growth (which often helps others in the long run). My hesitation, as I mentioned, comes with violence; Hegel discussed violence as necessary for the process of spiritual growth, but I think this is simply due to the fact that he believed violence was inherently human - that was what he observed, to be fair. Violence, in place of suppressing the spirit, theoretically makes sense relative to its alternative. But then what of the spirit that is harmed? Does it grow from that interaction? I thought a lot in the reading about the idea of cause "transferring" its information (like a code being sent to the recipient) in order to produce a certain effect, and maybe that interaction alters the effect the same way that a harmed spirit is perhaps altered in the knowledge it seeks, and maybe grows doubly in return. But I think that's a bit too idealistic.
I really like this question, maybe because I feel like it's turned my thinking process into molasses, I can barely sift through my thoughts. Sorry if this is incoherent; at any rate, I do think both blanket statements and specific answers apply to this question.
*Cause and Effect: Kant believed that cause and effect and empirical understanding in nature must operate within the framework of space and time. In order for causality to exist he believed this a priori structure to be a necessity. Just as he saw space and time to exist in nature, he saw an inherent morality to exist in man. Hegel felt much the same way on this topic, seeing free will as the underlying factor of man and necessity as the underlying factor of nature.
*The Knower and the Known: Hegel introduces the knower and the known as "a unity of opposites" (62), but soon reveals that he doesn't believe this notion to be entirely true, rather, these two ideas fuse into a singular progress, one only existing because of the other and back again.
Question: Does the discipline of History impede its own course? By nature History has some dependence on humans and their personal truths, and this reliance causes us to lose much of what has occurred. How then can we ever see a true progression? And if we agree with Hegel, how then can man ever "understand himself" (64)?
I don't really know how to put my thoughts on this into paragraph form so I will share the notes I took on the reading, based on the questions:
Kant:
Thought some connections have a reaction from experience but not all of them do
He believed there are some things that are completely necessary like space and time
Nature must conform to causality
There are also moral necessities
Free will
Unity between knower and what he knows - natural accord
reality is independent of men
behind what is known is the thing itself
Hegel:
THought there was unity between the knower and what was known (built off Kant) even more so
Dialectic methodology -
1)thesis (idea)
2)antithesis (opposing idea)
3) synthesis (joining of the two)
This process is not only in our thoughts, but in everything in life He denied any reality that is unknown, nothing happens until we know it
Being is thought
Everything changes and everything changes for the better
I tried to solve the number thing for so long but im still working on it
my question: we know from the reading what Hegels views are on History, what do you think Kants views are?
It is clear that Kant and Hegel understood cause and effect differently. For example Kant’s sense of causality was extremely rigid like a mathematical proof. He believed that one cause always led to the same effect and that it was driven by an internal mechanism. Hobbes also believed in a similar system, thinking that cause and effect was driven by an inner necessity. However, both Hume and Hegel were not tied to the idea of an inner necessity. Hegel believed that reality was personal and constantly evolving through his Hegelian Dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Cause and effect were continuous and part of a whole.
Kant’s a priori morality was developed through his sense that humans were part of nature. He believed that human thought or knowledge and nature were interwoven. One could not be separated from the other. In contrast, Hegel thought that outside human thought reality did not exist. Therefore, Hegel proposed that humans create reality. He theorized that thinking is being, and thinking creates reality. For example, we create our understanding of time and space through thought. The ideas of Kant and Hegel fit nicely into the Hegelian dialectic because Kant’s inner morality (thesis), combined with Hegel’s sense that there is no reality outside thought (antithesis), create a more accurate reality (synthesis).
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
