There is no 'thing in itself'. 'A world of the unknown' is contradictory because how can we know of such a 'world' and in what way would something posited as absolutely unknown, constitute a world? — Tobias

There is a passage in Logic that describes that as the problem of the 'knower' determining the conditions of cognition independently of the attempts to know:

This thought, which is proposed as the instrument of philosophic knowledge, itself calls for further explanation. We must understand in what way it possesses necessity or cogency: and when it claims to be equal to the task of apprehending the absolute objects (God, Spirit, Freedom), that claim must be substantiated. Such an explanation, however, is itself a lesson in philosophy, and properly falls within the scope of the science itself. A preliminary attempt to make matters plain would only be unphilosophical, and consist of a tissue of assumptions, assertions, and inferential pros and cons, i.e. of dogmatism without cogency, as against which there would be an equal right of counter-dogmatism.

A main line of argument in the Critical Philosophy bids us pause before proceeding to inquire into God or into the true being of things, and tells us first of all to examine the faculty of cognition and see whether it is equal to such an effort. We ought, says Kant, to become acquainted with the instrument, before we undertake the work for which it is to be employed; for if the instrument be insufficient, all our trouble will be spent in vain. The plausibility of this suggestion has won for it general assent and admiration; the result of which has been to withdraw cognition from an interest in its objects and absorption in the study of them, and to direct it back upon itself; and so turn it to a question of form. Unless we wish to be deceived by words, it is easy to see what this amounts to. In the case of other instruments, we can try and criticize them in other ways than by setting about the special work for which they are destined. But the examination of knowledge can only be carried out by an act of knowledge. To examine this so-called instrument is the same thing as to know it. But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim.

Reinhold saw the confusion with which this style of commencement is chargeable, and tried to get out of the difficulty by starting with a hypothetical and problematical stage of philosophizing. In this way he supposed that it would be possible, nobody can tell how, to get along, until we found ourselves, further on, arrived at the primary truth of truths. His method, when closely looked into, will be seen to be identical with a very common practice. It starts from a substratum of experiential fact, or from a provisional assumption which has been brought into a definition; and then proceeds to analyse this starting-point. We can detect in Reinhold’s argument a perception of the truth, that the usual course which proceeds by assumptions and anticipations is no better than a hypothetical and problematical mode of procedure. But his perceiving this does not alter the character of this method; it only makes clear its imperfections. — Hegel's Logic, Being Part One of the Encyclopaedia of The Philosophical Sciences, page 116

Learning to swim while in the water is to become aware of the movement in which 'subject' and 'object' occur in life experiences:

With self-consciousness, then, we have therefore entered the realm of truth. We have now to see how the shape of self-consciousness first makes its appearance. If we consider this new shape of knowing, the knowing of itself, in relation to that which preceded, viz. the knowing of another, the knowing of an other, then we see that though this other has vanished, its moments have at the same time no less been preserved, and the loss consists in this, that here they are present as they are in themselves. The [mere] being of what is merely 'meant', the singleness and universality opposed to it of perception, as also empty inner being of the Understanding, these are no longer essences, but are moments of self-consciousness, i.e. abstraction or distinctions which at the same time have no reality for consciousness itself, and are purely vanishing essences. Thus it seems that only the principal moment itself has been lost, viz. the simple self-subsistent existence for consciousness. But in point of fact self-consciousness is the reflection out of the being of the world of sense and perception, and is essentially the return from otherness. — Phenomenology of Spirit, B. Self-Consciousness, IV. The Truth of Self-Certainty, 167, translated by Miller

The way the Phenomenology passage nestles the 'objects' referred to in Logic prompts me to qualify your statement:

Yes, Hegel goes beyond those limits. — Tobias

The "simple self-subsistent existence" is what was being sought "outside the water" by Kant. For Hegel, however, the isolated ego is no longer juxtaposed by 'true' objects.

Independent beings are seen through a process of living. the sections from 168 to 173 of the Phenomenology lay out how this Life generates our experience. In 170, Individuals are described as:

The independent members are for themselves; but this being-for-itself is really no less immediately their reflection into the unity than this unity is the splitting-up into independent shapes. The unity is divided within itself because it is an absolutely negative or infinite unity; and because it is what subsists, the difference, too, has independence only in it. — ibid. 170

The limits to knowledge for an individual are depicted as floating in a larger sea:

Life in the universal fluid medium, a passive separating-out of the shapes becomes, just by doing so, a movement of those shapes or becomes Life as a process. The simple universal fluid is the in-itself, and the difference of the shapes is the other. But this fluid this fluid medium itself becomes the other through this difference; for now it is for the difference which exists in and for itself, and consequentially is the ceaseless movement by which this passive medium is consumed: Life as a living thing. — ibid. 171

I don't understand when people don't understand this. :wink: — Tom Storm

I realize, belatedly, that my remark could be taken as dismissive. I have not had that particular experience.

Why not? I ask myself. There certainly were plenty of times when the Reaper could have collected you/me for a train squashed penny.

When the material hit my fan, I wanted another life. Sometimes, they seemed interchangeable.

Yes, that has caused me to think it is a parody.

I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian. — NOS4A2

So, what does the name mean to you? There are your posts about denying a "social contract".

I understand the decision to leave when suffering displaces all the good things about living.

I don't understand what it means to imagine that one does not exist or wish that one was not born. Those are activities that I have had no part in. I prefer to imagine events within I do participate.

You repeat the same stories and when they are challenged in detail, you retreat until you can proffer them again.

You support a self-described authoritarian whose exercise of a "unitarian Executive" contradicts your claim to being a Libertarian who views all of government to be an infringement upon your freedom.

You often point to the corruption of the global system of transactions but never acknowledge your team's role in that regard.

You copy and paste X tweets like you were working for the man.

It is market research.

You can't "trigger the Libs" unless you know what sets them off. Back in the heyday of Breitbart and Red State, participants would boast of visiting other sites to do that sort of thing. They have become more careful since then.

If I am right, it is much easier to point out to Republicans how their government is not moving toward their goals. — AmadeusD

How do you see this observation in the context of Land's essay?

Has anyone here had any sort of success, and what did they do and how did they do it? — tim wood

New York City ran him out of town by stopping doing business with him. It took a bit of time because of the lawsuits and the game of playing competing contractors against one another. The last banks gave up on him and he left town.

The same process will happen again.

The presumption that I seek only easy answers and have not read a lot is a low effort response on your part.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you have actually read the Critique of Pure Reason.

I was asking you to support your claims by quoting CPR.

I am familiar with those authors' participation in the conversation.

Shall I take your answer to be no in regard to the text of the CPR?

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? — Corvus

Is there a place in the CPR where "experience" has a self-evident role such as you describe?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Nothing NOS4A2 says is worthwhile to engage in. It's uncritical Trump worship. — Benkei

I don't think it is worship. His one consistent goal has been to normalize outrageous and immoral statements and behavior. The product is not aligned to a policy agenda outside of what the Trumpster specifically promotes. Such an articulation would run afoul of his view of the state as something an individual is conned into believing. The fortress of solipsism can never be assailed.

My proposal is that listening to people is powerful. Sanders will not be running for President again. Everybody knows that.

Let me put the matter in a different register. The Agricultural Industry voted for Trump by a large margin. They are and will be receiving direct damage from the new policies. They backed a player who does not even understand their situation. Realizing that is more important than advancing any policy.

He has done it before. I don't understand your observation as a counter to mine.

The Bernie move needs to be seen in the context of the GOP being afraid to talk to the electorate that put them in office. The actions being taken by the present administration are so detrimental to the well-being of citizens that people want to talk about it. It does not mean that these people will suddenly want a form of polity that Sanders has championed during his career.

Other politicians are thinking of holding similar events. I hope they don't get too promotional.

I have read two of those and a portion of another.

The point I was making regards standards of citation. If, for instance, you want to cite from The Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Miller, you could say that, and people would be able to find pages on that basis. If it is a less known book, one can find either a vendor or free text version to point to.

For example, here is the above-mentioned book at a vendor.

I see Science of Logic on your pile. That is quite a different book from Logic, Being Part One of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences I have owned the latter book for decades and have had only brief glimpses of the other.

/rant on the value of good citations.

I am not arguing for his system. I left that long ago.

But I can argue what is an accurate account of it.

Kant kind of just rests on morality and says "let's 1) be moral, 2) do science to figure out the assumed (critique of judgment) to be designed world. — Gregory

I sense that you do get the scope of conscience in the Protestant rejection of authority outside the voice of reason or faith. Kant advocates for a specific code of conduct as difficult as many others that have been proposed.

But we were talking about Kant versus Hegel and their differences. Is that not worthy of clarification?

Hegel tries to create thought spaces where we can satisfy our desires for complete systamization — Gregory

My general impression of Hegel, as a psychologist (him, not me), is that all this stuff we think about is directly related to our experiences while being people.

That is not to deny a desire for complete understating but Hegel's approach in Lordship and Bondage is a sharp departure from Kant preaching universal peace.

You are asking two questions there. And you are assuming that they are necessarily just one.

So, I could pursue each one of them. But how is it my job to separate what you claim as a thesis to be what stands together? Why should I think that is true?

I, too, am only a learner.

In asking for clear references, I am not questioning your experience of a text but asking for a means to accurately share it. Otherwise, our swift ostensive gestures leave us talking to ourselves.

Which Hegelian text are you referring to? There are at least three your description could be pointing to.

How about quoting some text so that the context can be appreciated?

I support your effort to become persnickity in the use of terms.

Kant is pretty darn specific in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic regarding what he supports and objects to in Hume.

My observation applies more to comparisons made afterwards.

I'd compare "Faculty" to "Category" in Kant, though -- not so much that reason itself is a faculty but faculties (categories) are a part of Reason. — Moliere

I read Kant's insistence upon the intuitions as not a claim upon the limits of knowledge but acceptance of a structure we always use. The objection to Hume is about the range of options being entertained, a luxury not available to all.

Perhaps so.

I will leave you be.

Unlike Plato?

Edit to add: Here we are, repeating the discussion of four years ago.

That leaves out the "if at all" which consumed much of that discussion.

What was his (Plato's) view on it? — Corvus

A close reading of the Phaedo is a start. There is a discussion put forward by Fooloso4 that frames the different reactions to the text made here and elsewhere. All the opinions expressed 4 years ago are regularly repeated here since then.

I do not want to revive any of that in this discussion because that would hijack this OP.

Bernie is showing how it is done with the withdrawal of the GOP from its people.

Are you saying there is no means to compare actions by nations because they all get wrapped in political messaging?

I have objected to crappy things the U.S. has done as well as many other nations. If there is no other measure than messaging and agenda, there does not seem to be a point to judgement at all.

After considering the essay as a whole, the argument assumes all consent is manufactured and that there are only two producers of that sort of thing in the market.

That argument does not touch the common "enlightenment" value of seeking a less cruel environment. The invitation to abnegate the commons for the sake of preventing cruelty is being measured by what the thesis proposes does not exist.

It is a brilliant bit of sophistry.

A "no" from what?

The claims made by the Administration?

No, it isn't. Are you American? — frank

It is rare to have a position argued so forcibly.

I see the claims but not the documents supporting them. You know, the sort that Congress would demand.

All of his cuts are available for anyone to see yet no one can choose one that was a bad idea to remove. — NOS4A2

Where is all this information sharing happening?

Plato addressed that better than I can.