tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4445333086185408288.post8994361385112971805..comments2023-10-10T08:45:49.273-04:00Comments on Dinner on the Molly: German Idealism REDUXjoshua francishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12939243620043873018noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4445333086185408288.post-80141043992274241412008-05-07T14:11:00.000-04:002008-05-07T14:11:00.000-04:00"For" and "In" are most notable for the use by Heg..."For" and "In" are most notable for the use by Hegel when he differentiates between "being-in-itself" and "being-for-itself"...very roughly, the former is what something essentially is while the latter is something which, basically, is self-conscious, or is for its own sake. This turns out to be the Absolute, or total reality, and things in themselves, like the chair you're sitting on, are merely aggregates of manifestations that appear within the space that is ultimate self-consciousness. So, Hegel's thinking exists "in truth" because there is no outside, i.e. exteriority can only be understood once it becomes interiority, therefore it is utterly meaningless to posit or infer an effective exterior. Kant's, on the other hand, does posit an exteriority, about which we can only have glimpses, that is, the Good. The rational agent, separated from her base (i.e. humanly) desires and drives, has privileged access to this Good. In this sense, Kant exists for truth because Truth possesses an autonomy that is explicitly apart from and prior to subjectivity, or the rational agent, while Hegel believes truth is and can only be inherent, or is merely subjectivity fully objectified.Ambiguous Q. Thunderwinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11004880284398224299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4445333086185408288.post-3315087675871195872008-05-06T23:03:00.000-04:002008-05-06T23:03:00.000-04:00"Hegel’s Romantic grandiosity exists in truth, whi..."Hegel’s Romantic grandiosity exists in truth, while Kant’s certainty-driven epistemology exists for truth."<BR/>I'm interested in the difference between existing "for truth" and "in truth". I might just be mixing up words but I'm confused there.dave kutzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617624903534641233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4445333086185408288.post-32705363256467615772008-05-05T17:37:00.000-04:002008-05-05T17:37:00.000-04:00It would not be completely wrong to say that that ...It would not be completely wrong to say that that question is the essence of Kierkegaard's project (if he has one). I would say that that's the point, however you can then view that in two lights - the atemporal and the temporal. When in the atemporal light, it tends to engender the revulsion towards faith we find in science, or at least its insistence to be apart and different from it. In the temporal light, we find theology in the vein of Augustine and Kierkegaard - the belief in answers to ultimate questions that are fundamentally unanswerable in the sense that the scientific criteria that must be met in order for an answer to be considered an adequate or final answer are not able to met by an answer to a question such as "What is Being?" Clearly, faith in a question is ironic, because a question is a suspension, not a conclusion (in a traditional Western way of looking at knowledge). Ontologically speaking, faith is primary for it brings us to ask over and over the fundamental metaphysical questions without worrying we can't know answers to them as certainly as 2+2=4. Science is merely an ontological mode that enables us to know, thus control, objective reality. This is the real shift that occured with the Copernican Revolution; aside from the theological shift, or the apotheosis of Man or cogito, the nature of the questions being asked by philosophy and science changed from What to How. "How does such-and-such work" as opposed to "What is it" or "Why is it". such-and-such.Ambiguous Q. Thunderwinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11004880284398224299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4445333086185408288.post-15995930205255312842008-05-05T10:44:00.000-04:002008-05-05T10:44:00.000-04:00If the wall of faith is the ALL and the ALL consis...If the wall of faith is the ALL and the ALL consists in irony, is faith inherently ironic?joshua francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12939243620043873018noreply@blogger.com