Fantastic to hear! I wish you clarity of mind and speed of fingers in writing your novel. The site will likely be in its new location when you finish, we'll see you over there.

Thank you for all of the debate.

Fare forward.

I wish you good luck with your novel. May it be popular and translated into many languages, including my native language.

I think it is inapt to say we don't know anything about things in themselves, because the idea of a thing in itself is nothing more than an abstraction. — Janus

I agree. Things in themselves sounds like contradiction. If we don't know anything about it, we couldn't even name it or talk about it. The fact that it has the name, and can be talked about implies, we know something about them, if not it is possible to know something about them in other ways.

So, we don't know anything exhaustively. — Janus

What does knowing something exhaustively mean? Does it mean there are degrees of knowing something? Any examples?

Thank you for letting us know. Enjoy your time writing the novel. I hope and trust you will be back here soon for more interesting philosophical topics and discussions. :pray:

I think all readers can agree that Hegel does not put forward the humility of Kant. That means we should be extra careful about how to compare their language. — Paine

Does Hegel say time is just subjective perception? Or does he talk about time as some external entity in the material world?

Things in themselves sounds like contradiction. If we don't anything about it, we couldn't even name it or talk about it. — Corvus

At risk of us running into a circular arena again, that does seem to be the case. We don't. And we can't (on that view, anyway. I'm at least partially skeptical, but lean toward it being unavoidable) talk about objects beyond our sensory perception. I don't think anything is missing from that account - but as with a situation where you see a shadow, but have no access to its causal object, we can say not much. Perhaps speculation is allowable as a matter of curiosity..

What does knowing something exhaustively mean? Does it mean there are degrees of knowing something? Any examples? — Corvus

It just means we don't know everything about anything. There is always more to know about things and different ways to know them than those which are possible for us...due to the existence of different scales and perceptual systems.

Does Hegel say time is just subjective perception? Or does he talk about time as some external entity in the material world? — Corvus

In Hegel, the life of an individual human being happens in the context of an unfolding over time of the potential for freedom to actually come into concrete existence:

Spirit, on the contrary, may be defined as that which has its centre in itself. It has not a unity outside itself, but has already found it; it exists in and with itself. Matter has its essence out of itself ; Spirit is self-contained existence (Bei-sich-selbst-seyn). Now this is Freedom, exactly. For if I am dependent, my being is referred to something else which I am not; I cannot exist independently of something external. I am free, on the contrary, when my existence depends upon myself. This self-contained existence of Spirit is none other than self-consciousness — consciousness of one's own being. Two things must be distinguished in consciousness; first, the fact that I know; secondly, what I know. In self consciousness these are merged in one; for Spirit knows itself. It involves an appreciation of its own nature, as also an energy enabling it to realize itself; to make itself actually that which it is potentially. According to this abstract definition it may be said of Universal History, that it is the exhibition of Spirit in the process of working out the knowledge of hat which it is potentially. And as the germ bears in itself the whole nature of the tree, and the taste and form of its fruits, so do the first traces of Spirit virtually contain the whole of that History. — Hegel, Philosophy of History, translated by J. Sibree, page 27

Hegel's Phenomenology of Geist details how this happened through stages of human history. Hegel recognized the harsh aspect of this process on the lives of particular individuals.

The notion, too, is extremely hard, because it is itself just this very identity. But the actual substance as such, the cause, which in its exclusiveness resists all invasion, is ipso facto subjected to necessity or the destiny of passing into dependency: and it is this subjection rather where the chief hardness lies. To think necessity, on the contrary, rather tends to melt that hardness. For thinking means that, in the other, one meets with one's self.—It means a liberation, which is not the flight of abstraction, but consists in that which is actual having itself not as something else, but as its own being and creation, in the other actuality with which it is bound up by the force of necessity. As existing in an individual form, this liberation is called I: as developed to its totality, it is free Spirit; as feeling, it is Love; and as enjoyment, it is Blessedness.—The great vision of substance in Spinoza is only a potential liberation from finite exclusiveness and egoism: but the notion itself realises for its own both the power of necessity and actual freedom. — Hegel's Logic: Being Part One of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (pp. 309-310

As you can see, this is pretty far away from the question of mind-independence from the workings of a single tiny skull.

but as with a situation where you see a shadow, but have no access to its causal object, we can say not much. Perhaps speculation is allowable as a matter of curiosity.. — AmadeusD

You are seeing something physical which is entering your sensory organ - the shadow. Of course you can talk about it. Where there is no cause for the shadow, you can launch investigation for the cause.

But think of the case where you don't have any sensory perception such as God, but people keep talking about it. What can you say more about God apart from what you heard from other folks talking about it?

It just means we don't know everything about anything. — Janus

Fair enough.

In Hegel, the life of an individual human being happens in the context of an unfolding over time of the potential for freedom to actually come into concrete existence: — Paine

From what I read, it seems Hegel had totally different idea on time from Kant's idea of time - Time is intrinsic to each and every existence as part of the concept of existence, which cannot be subjectively imposed on them, likes from Kant's idea i.e. time as the pure form of sensibility.

He certainly does not treat the things in themselves as a mysterious region behind the veil of appearance: — Paine

Right, and I agree; I think such an idea can be nothing more than that, an idea. Where I don't agree with Hegel is in his thought that actuality is ideal; that is I don't agree with "the Rational is the Real".

Good luck with your writing project; such things are more important than wasting time on here in argy bargy land. For me it is nothing more than a diversion―interesting at times, and at other times frustrating and a source of distraction.

Do you see "what you have read" in the portions I have quoted from Hegel?

I don't understand

which cannot be subjectively imposed on them — Corvus

Hmm. A couple of things to sort out there...The first seems the strongest to me, but is also, you should note, a clarification on the example - not really an argument against you.

A shadow is arguably not a physical object ( i would say it isn't, but a realise that's not all there is to say). In either case, this leapfrogs the crux of the issue. I may be seeing something different to the object which stimulated my sense organs. I'm not claiming that's the case, but it is absolutely open.

Yes, you can launch an investigation into the cause. But that is because (you do go into this, so bear with me teaching you suck eggs) we are already aware that the cause (to the best of our knowledge) must be restricted to something we can access through our senses. That's fine. The example was one where we have no hope of finding the cause - it's an analogy only.

I think the God one is a bad example (despite my agreeing with you!!) because plenty of people claim to have sensory perception of God constantly. That, in fact, seems to be the basis for on-a-dime conversions. Suffice to say I reject those claims :P

Do you see "what you have read" in the portions I have quoted from Hegel? — Paine

I didn't see anything directly relating to Hegel's idea on time from your quote, hence wrote what I read on Hegel's time in the reply. From my memory, most of Hegel's writings on time is in his Encyclopaedia II and III.

I don't understand

which cannot be subjectively imposed on them — Paine

It sounds like you haven't read Kant's CPR.

We can talk something about shadows and God, because we have some ideas on them from what we heard, seen (the shadow case) and read about them, even if enough sensory data lacking.

However, if I asked you what am I seeing in front of me now? You have no idea at all, and cannot say anything because of total lack of sensory data on your part on what I am seeing now. This is the real unknowable, which one cannot talk or know about. But is it thing in itself?

Not usually what people complain about when they complain about me.

Your statement sounds like a particular reading of Kant, I suppose.