So there might be a point that the paradox breaks-down as you move from physics to maths. An infinite geometric series in maths is inapplicable to a physically real distance. — Nemo2124

Isn't this an example where the false premises lead to wrong conclusions? Even if the argument appears valid in the form, it cannot reflect the true reality of the world.

Whether will is truly free with or without Reason is a good debate. — Gregory

The fact that we can perform actions driven by will means that will could combine with reasoning.
When reason and will combine, they become motivated actions.

But there are wills which operate in the bodily level seeking pleasures, comforts and life.

Schopenhauer's "Will" was without direction, ultimately free. Hegel says there is Fate founded on Reason. They are both right in a way — Gregory

It sounds like Will is some sort of agent or force with no principle on its operation. Is it something that is contrary to rationality or intelligence? All biological creatures seem to have will to life. For example, a spider will run for its life, when it is about to be stepped on, or vacuumed off from the floor.

Sun flowers keep turning to the direction of the Sun lights. All for their survival and growth i.e. will to life.
Could it be life force prior to intelligence or reasoning founded under the bio structured all living bodies?
Or could it be even one of the principles for the existence of the universe and world?

Or maybe will doesn't exist at all. It could be an illusion believing in the existence of will? Would it be rather intentions or motivations for the actions performed by the intelligent beings? There are reasoned actions as well as willed actions.

I recall reading that Schopenhauer criticised Hegel a lot. What was the main point of the criticism?

I never said I was better than anyone.  Maybe that's what you feel for some strange reasons. My postings are not about claiming one is better than the other.  They are about the different ideas on the topics from what I read from the other sources.

If you cannot accept that, then you can stop reading my postings.  I already have been staying away from your postings.

OK, good citing from Science of Logic. It is amazing to realise how Hegel's philosophy is largely based on the critique of Kant. That little edition of "Science of Logic" printed by Amazon is quite nice actually. Very concise and clearly translated.

When he performed that experiment, he discovered he could not make metaphysics a science in the same manner as the established sciences, — Mww

Doesn't Kant acknowledge that Metaphysics is not the same type of Science as the other Sciences?
To start, Metaphysics doesn't use experiments, observations, testing, measurements for its methodology. The methodology for Metaphysics is reasoning and logical thinking with the categorial a priori concepts.

So….what are those boundaries? Therein lay the key. — Mww

The full detail is in Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.

even if it was my opinion, by recognizing the subjective natural of it, I’d keep it to myself. — Mww

I only mentioned it only as a response. A regrettable point not initiated by me. However, I welcome all arguments purely on the philosophical point of views supported by reasoning, logic and evidence on the topics and relating to the topics.

We don’t care that metaphysics works as a science just fine with respect to possible experience; we’d be in trouble if it didn’t. — Mww

It is not so much of our issue at this time of history whether metaphysics works as science or not.
We know what science and metaphysics are, and their shortcomings and capabilities too.

But you must be aware of the situation when Kant was alive. At the time physical science was taking over, revolutionizing the world, making the dominant subject metaphysics uncertain for its future.

Kant thought he could make metaphysics a legitimate science as physics or chemistry, by establishing its boundaries and domains where our reasoning can be applied like the other sciences, hence he wrote CPR.

Ehhhhh…..that’s a subjective judgement, better known as mere opinion, to which of course you are entitled. I don’t see it, — Mww

Of course you don't see it because you are not named in his scornful posts, and he treats you with respect for your condoning his nonsense. :D

It is not necessary to scorn and belittle others in the posting as he does. It is not the first time, and many folks noticed his problematic posts in that way in the past, and expressed their anger and frustration about the nonsense, but he still seems doing it.

I wouldn't have time to mention his name, if he didn't on mine. But he keeps doing it, hence just pointing it out hoping that he would stop self harming himself wasting his own time. If I find someone's posts poor quality and full posing with no substance in them, I would just walk away stop engaging rather than making any sort of personal comment on the poster. Life is too short for that sort of nonsense.

As usual Janus posts are filled with scorn, anger and hatred towards others, rather than anything philosophical. I was only giving the best answer to Paine, when he asked as if he were a school master interrogating his pupils.

We have had many discussions on CPR itself citing the original texts in CPR for months and months with @RussellA and yourself, if you recall. But the outcome was not very clear, at which point forced me switch to reading the academic commentaries on Kant.

In Kainz (GWF Hegel), spirit is divided into,

1) Subjective
2) Objective
3) Absolute

Which spirit has the esoteric aspects?

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

It was a natural inference on your question. Not a matter of effort.

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

It doesn't matter what you believe in my reading of CPR. It is not a philosophical issue.
It is also not matter how many times one read CPR, if one doesn't understand it correctly, or misunderstand the whole point and picture of it, then it would be blind and empty claims.
CPR is not the only work by Kant. Kant had written many other original texts.

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

The point is that it is not a claim that can be supported by quoting a few recondite sentences in CPR. You must read the whole lot of authors involved in the system at the time, and understand the whole picture to be able to understand the claim.

I found often it is meaningless to cite CPR in few sentences where the writings are vague and ambiguous due to the old translations. It would be far better reading the academic commentaries such as, Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth Century: 341 (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 341), and Kant’s Cosmology: From the Pre-Critical System to the Antinomy of Pure Reason: 12 (European Studies in Philosophy of Science, 12).

Anyhow, if you are genuinely interested in the topic, you must also do some your own hard work trying to find out about it by your own researches and reasonings, and share the resources and your own arguments on the topic with others, rather than trying to get easy solutions just asking around to other folks. That wouldn't be much meaningful exercise to your own philosophizing.

Yes, by all means present your own arguments citing all the authors and CPR and the other Kant's original texts too supporting your points, and we will take it from there.

I agree. But to know a word is to use it, and to us either is to know it. — Banno

We have a part agreement here, which is a rare event.

...but nor does it mean that they do not! — Banno

Actually it is difficult for me to imagine what colour blind would be like without being one myself, hence the point was purely from inference. You could be right. Please carry on.

Well if your are to convince me of this I'd first have to be convinced that you understood Wittgenstein. — Banno

If one says one can use words without knowing its meanings, then he is wrong, whoever he is.

... and so on. If I ask for the red pen, and they hand me the red pen, that's not metaphorical, nor is it merely rhetorically, and it certainly isn't idiomatic. It's pretty much literal and extensional. — Banno

They must have been acquainted with something other than "red" to be able to do that by habit or guessing. That doesn't mean they know what "red" is. Their use of "red" could be based on the high chance of fluke guessing.

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

You really need to read much more than just CPR to understand what Kant was up to at the time. Read Leibniz, Wolff, and Baumgarten, then Hume and Newton, and many the other Kant's writings apart from CPR in order to grasp the full picture of what Kant was up to when writing CPR. Possible experience is what Kant regards as the domain of efficacy in our reasoning, where metaphysics is possible as a science.

Not that I’m aware. Metaphysics in Kant does not, in itself, deal with experience or its objects. It deals with how it is possible to know about them, which means, it deals with us and the proper use of our intelligence. — Mww

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? Physics cannot deal with any of these issues. Metaphysics can, and that is what Kant laid out in CPR as the principle of Metaphysics as Science.

Think on it some more. — Banno

... and Red herring, red meat of course.

So what. — Banno

Wittgenstein was wrong.

Colour blind folk do use the word "red" correctly - how can that be? — Banno

They could be using the word red metaphorically, rhetorically or idiomatically to mean something other than the colour red such as red tape, redline, red-light district.

Not everyone agrees with Wittgenstein. If you don't know what red means, how could you use the word "red"? If you are a colour blind, how could you tell red objects? For you being able to use the word red means that you know what you mean by red from your experience of seeing red via your perception, and folks describing red objects as red.

What is the difference between learning the meaning of a word and learning to use the word? — Banno

Meaning of a word is in conceptual level. Using a word is in application level. They are different.

Turns out, metaphysics cannot be a proper science given the empirical criteria of Newtonian materialism, nor can it be a science given the Kantian rational criteria of pure synthetic a priori principles, insofar as, first, Newtonian materialism already refers to the science of physics thus to attribute to it metaphysics at the same time is self-contradictory, and second, those principles belong to reason alone, and science cannot be justified by any domain the only objects for which are transcendental ideas. — Mww

Didn't Kant say that Metaphysics is possible as Science as long as it deals with the objects in our experience? For instance we can think and discuss about ideas, matters, logic and reasoning from metaphysical point of views. Physics cannot deal with these concepts. Metaphysics can. They are different types of Science.

Yep - The meanings of words are learned by using them... — Banno

The inference of the meanings are not the meanings themselves, are they?

If that were so, no one would ever learn the meaning of a word. — Banno

Nonsense. Meanings can be learnt via inferences from observations on the real world and how others use the words in social situations.

I'm wondering what the ISBN of that book is in your picture? I want to look it up and see what the difference is. — Moliere

Sure.

I think Kant is a dualist because there is the "I think therefore I am" thinking person, and the thing in itself that is unknowable. Kant fails to get rid of the thing in itself. He wants to know more, but can't. Kant can't. Poor Kant — Gregory

Kant was not interested in dualism or transcendental idealism.  His main aim was to prove that metaphysics was possible as a science.  In order to do that, he was arguing that reason has its limits to the boundary where experience is possible.  Within the boundaries of reason and experience, metaphysics as science is possible.  Objects belonging to outer boundaries of reason and experience are not legitimate objects of science or metaphysics.

That is not a proper foundation for dualism.  Remember he wrote  different versions of CPR.  Brining in some minor unclear remarks on dualism in CPR doesn't mean he was a dualist. He also wrote many other original texts apart from CPR, and his academic life gets divided into different stages during his life.

His ideas and thoughts have gone through different forms and beliefs. It would be too simple and naive to claim Kant was a dualist or idealist or realist just by citing a few ambiguous quotes from CPR.

  Kant was very much into Newtonian Physics too.  Believing in two different worlds for Kant would have been impossible for his academic interest and beliefs.

I read the books, not the commentary on them. Skip the middle-man, donchaknow. Translators being subject to peer-review critique, so out of my cognitive jurisdiction. — Mww

I try reading them both, but try to come to my own interpretation from my own reasoning which may or may not be correct. But if it is not resonating with my own reasoning, then I just move on.

If you say so. — Mww

That is just my view which might not be 100% correct. I invite counter arguments on it as always. :)

Of course not. He’s dead. — Mww

It seems daft view to say there are two worlds. I don't believe Kant would have said it.
There were miriad of Kant commentators who were making unfounded interpretations on Kant's ideas.

It boils down to a simple common sensical logic that just because we see the world in two i.e. the known and unknown, the world itself is two is not the case.

If we do it, then it would be because of the faults in our perception or the limit of our reasoning which gives us that illusion. The world is one, and there is only one world and one universe. I believe this is what Kant meant.

Now we have already declared ourselves for this transcendental idealism from the outset. Thus our doctrinea removes all reservations about assuming the existence of matter…”
(A370, Guyer/Wood, 1998) — Mww

It would help if you could define what dualism is in philosophical sense, and elaborate under what account / sense Kant was a dualist.

“…The transcendental idealist, on the other hand, may be an empirical realist, or, as he is called, a dualist, that is, he may admit the existence of matter (…) — Mww

“…. The transcendental idealist, on the contrary, can be an empirical realist, hence, as he is called, a dualist, i.e., he can concede the existence of matter (…) — Mww

Are they direct claims of Kant? Or are they interpretations of the commentaries? Anyhow, they both sound unclear and ambiguous on their claims.

Just because someone admits the existence of matter doesn't entail that he is a dualist, does it?

Kant’s worldview is a dualism. — Mww

Why would it be the case?

He admitted to being a dualist, — Mww

What was his exact words?

I keep seeing a need for "meaning" in order to give a convincing account of how intension works. — J

One cannot use words without knowing the meanings.

I am reading the thin book with tiny printing "Science of Logic" - it hurts eyes due to the small prints in the pages but makes the book cheap, thin and light. This book has no information on the book apart from it says "Science of Logic by Georg Hegel, Printed by Amazon". For the commentaries, Rosen and Painz books seem good.

It will be very slow progress due to my intermittent and sporadic reading on them because I am also reading on some other subjects for my works which is ongoing. The Hegel books were dug out from the cupboard because of this thread just to see what Hegel books I got. I forgot even I had them, but nice to know I still got them. :)

Yes. You should know some of Kant before reading Hegel — Gregory

In that case, I am not sure if Hegel was understanding Kant properly. Because from my view, it is not clear that Kant's world view was dualism. What Kant said was that our knowledge can only give us understanding to the point of our experience, and that is the limit our reason.

It was rather setting the limit of our reason in dealing with the world, rather than claiming that the world is divided into two different worlds. That is no contradiction. Hence it appears to be misunderstanding on Kant to say that Kant was a dualist, and his world view has a contradiction.

The dualism between mind and body is real in Hegel, but at the completion of Spirit all is One, as it always was. — Gregory

The concept "spirit" is too abstract if not unclear and esoteric in Hegel. Does it contain both mind and body? Or is it some disembodied entity? Or is it something which instantiates when body dies?

This result, grasped in its positive aspect, is nothing else but the inner negativity of the determinations as their self-moving soul, the principle of all natural and spiritual life." Science of Logic, Introduction — Gregory

"self-moving soul, the principle of all natural and spiritual life" needs explanation for its meaning and ontological and metaphysical nature. Does Science of Logic do that?