True, Kant's expositions in the antimonies of pure reason, when closely examined as they will be at length in the course of this work, do not indeed deserve any great praise; but the general idea on which he based his expositions and which he vindicated, is the objectivity of the illusion and the necessity of the contradiction which belongs to the nature of thought determinations: — Gregory

Would it be the criticism on Kant from Hegel's point of view?

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?

The Science of Logic is very difficult. I love it but I have yet to finish it lol. And Ive never read a commentary on Hegel so I can't recommend one. You should read the Phenomenology of Mind [Spirit] however. I have not found anything in Hegel that doesn't make sense to me. No contradictions. It does take a lot of reading and also a lot of mental work to start to get what he is saying because he doesn't spell his whole philosophy out right away. Only those willing to run with him will win his prize

Would it be the criticism on Kant from Hegel's point of view? — Corvus

Yes. You should know some of Kant before reading Hegel

Fair enough...I remain unconvinced, but I acknowledge that a fact of the matter regarding the question cannot be established, so...it's going to come down to personal opinion or taste.

I remain unconvinced…. — Janus

My fault for not putting up a convincing argument; nevertheless….

We visualize what we are reasoning about…. — Janus

….we agree on that.

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.

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. :)

Because from my view, it is not clear that Kant's world view was dualism. — Corvus

Kant’s worldview is a dualism. Clarity comes with the fact there cannot be a view, that isn’t itself a judgement, that is, some determined relation between the world and an understanding of it. The dualism resides in world on the one hand (as it is given), and judgement on the other (representing how the given is understood).

Hence it appears to be misunderstanding on Kant to say that Kant was a dualist, and his world view has a contradiction. — Corvus

He admitted to being a dualist, so it isn’t a misunderstanding to say he was. But it does not follow from his being an admitted dualist, that his worldview has a contradiction, although misunderstood, hence mistaken, worldviews are certainly possible.

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?

He admitted to being a dualist,
— Mww
What was his exact words? — Corvus

“…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 (…) From the start, we have declared ourselves to be in favor of this transcendental idealism; and our doctrine removes all difficulty in the way of accepting the existence of matter….”
(A370, in Kemp Smith, 1929)

“…. 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 (…) 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)

“…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?

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.

Are they direct claims of Kant? — Corvus

Of course not. He’s dead.

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.

There were miriad of Kant commentators who were making unfounded interpretations. — Corvus

If you say so.

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.

If you say so. — Mww

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

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.

That is just my view which might not be 100% correct. — Corvus

Same with any of us, I should think.

It does seem daft that Kant said there were two worlds, although he did say there is no purely logical condition under which a noumenal world is impossible. But saying such a thing is not impossible is not tacit affirmation of its reality.

….try to come to my own interpretation from my own reasoning…. — Corvus

As do I, and everyone else. One person’s lack of comprehension is not necessarily another’s ambiguity or lack of clarity.

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 — Corvus

Lol i have that copy too. It doesn't even have page numbers

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

I don't think your quotes from Kant on matter fully establish dualism. Substance is part of the categories and the only thing we know phenomenally is matter. The unknowability of noumena in this life is what makes his philosophy dualistic. Oddly

I don't think your quotes from Kant on matter fully establish dualism. — Gregory

They weren't supposed to. They serve only to affirm, that because he favored transcendental idealism, by implication he considered himself a dualist. He does explain what he means by being a dualist, which would establish at least what he means by dualism itself.

Noumena have nothing whatsoever to do with his philosophic dualism; as a general conception, it is merely an inevitable consequence of a faculty professed to be legitimately capable of thinking whatever it wants, which just means any of us is capable of thinking whatever he wants.

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.

Neither the matter nor the noumena establish something for dualism? I dont get your point



Wow i had a revelation. If the thing in itself doesnt cause phenomena, because casuality is in phenomena, then the thing in itself is just within the phenomena and is that which we can't psychologically get to. Kants sounds like a materialist then.

Rather confusione

I own a copy of Science of Logic by Hegel, but it's huge. It's the A. V. Miller translation.

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.

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. — Corvus

And @Mww

I don't believe that Hegel cared to understand Kant in the "proper" sense --i.e. in the sense that he'd count as a Kantian -- he only riffs on Kantian ideas to do his own thing.

But whether or not Kant was a dualist I think is still a matter up for debate because it sounds like the question of whether or not Kant was a one-world or two-world theorist. (Theorist isn't the right word -- these are two competing interpretations in the literature): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TwoAspInt

Neither the matter nor the noumena establish something for dualism? — Gregory

You asserted your idea of what made his philosophy dualistic, but this question only relates conceptions to each other, both of them….matter and noumena….implied as being real things, hence not establishing anything for dualism per se. Matter being necessarily real stuff we can experience, noumena being not-impossibly real stuff we cannot.
————-

….he only riffs on Kantian ideas to do his own thing. — Moliere

Only those on top of the heap are worth the trouble of removing; posterity says whether and how much the trouble was worth.

But whether or not Kant was a dualist I think is still a matter up for debate because it sounds like the question of whether or not Kant was a one-world or two-world theorist. — Moliere

I’d be surprised if you were not with the familiar 1783 passage regarding “dogmatic slumbers”. THAT….is the root of Kantian dualism, the unity of rational vs empirical doctrines prevalent in his time. The two-world or two-aspect-of-one world confabulation was the illegitimate, red-headed stepchild of a veritable PLETHORA of successors, except Schopenhauer, methinks to be the foremost immediate peer that actually understood wtf the noise was all about.

Noise. Including, but not limited to….whether or not that which can be treated as a science, actually is one.

I’d be surprised if you were not with the familiar 1783 passage regarding “dogmatic slumbers”. THAT….is the root of Kantian dualism, the unity of rational vs empirical doctrines prevalent in his time. The two-world or two-aspect-of-one world confabulation was the illegitimate, red-headed stepchild of a veritable PLETHORA of successors, except Schopenhauer, methinks to be the foremost immediate peer that actually understood wtf the noise was all about.

Noise. Including, but not limited to….whether or not that which can be treated as a science, actually is one. — Mww

Heh, fair. I'm familiar, but undecided on the right way to read.

My preference is actually for the one-world interpretation, though it may only be a prejudice extending from my way of reading Pluhar's translation.

I think it gets along with the anti-metaphysics Kant espouses -- if there were two worlds then we could say there is a noumenal and phenomenal world, which looks a lot like a knowledge claim to me. Rather than two-worlds I think the two-aspect view gets along with the notion that we cannot know the noumenal -- it could be a second world, but it could also just be the things we can't know about the world we are in. Only God knows.

And, also, I may be lost in the noise.