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?

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?

Hegel tried to bring contradiction into a non-dual unity where there is no room left for contradiction. — Gregory

Why does Hegel try to avoid contradiction and dualism? Are contradiction and dualism unacceptable faults in philosophy?

The point I was making regards standards of citation. — Paine

Yes, I agree. Detailed and accurate source info for the quotations and citations are important and critical in the postings. Without them, some readers might accuse you for plagiarism.

What does "reality" mean in Hegel? Is the dualism for the world(s), or between body and mind like the Cartesians?

We create the world (philosophy), and the world thru atoms make us (science) — Gregory

Do we create the world? How do we do that?

Are you questioning that Hegel is an idealist? Most scholars say he was. The world is universals and we are Idea. — Gregory

What about we as matter and bodies?

Of course. Hegel claimed Aristotle as his own, — Gregory

Rosen says it is impossible to understand Hegel without understanding Plato and Aristotle. Do you agree? Why is it the case?

My Hegel books.

Ok, good idea. Will update soon.

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? — Paine

I have Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, Phenomenology of Spirit and some other books too. I need to get back to reading them. I did read a couple of introductory books on Hegel long time ago, so most of them are faded away from my memory. Need to refresh searching and looking for the books somewhere in the cupboards. This is not a Hegel thread, so maybe if someone starts one on Hegel, I would follow. I am only a learner, hence would be for studying mostly reading and asking if any questions arise.

After getting better at reading his works, it felt as if i could predict what each next paragraph would be about. — Gregory

I feel Hegel is an important and significant philosopher, and was planning to read his original texts sometime. His metaphysics, and philosophy of religion were interesting. But Science of Logic sounds interesting too. Look forward to discussing on Hegel sometime in the near future with you and others who are interested in Hegel too.

Reason, in Kant, is a generalizations of the various powers of judgment which ultimately want truth. — Moliere

In Logic Lecture book, it says logic is derived from reason. and is is a doctrine, it provides rules / it is a demonstrated theory. It contains the ground for passing judgements as to whether something is true or false. -pp.432

Have you read one of Hegel's books? — Gregory

I did read some commentary books on Hegel. I did not read any of his original works.

I've Phenomenology of the Mind about 7 times, and his "encyclopaedia' a few times. Sometimes there can be synchronisity in life — Gregory

Cool. You must be very much familiar with Hegel's system. :up:

No.

There's a lot of lingo there that can be interpreted in various ways. But "No", I think, is the true answer to all of your questions above. — Moliere

Ok, fair enough. I was wondering if reason and logic are the same or separate faculties in Kant. If they are the separate faculties, then they might create possible contradictory situations in their operations. That was my point to Mww. For the word "faculties", Kant uses the word often in his Lecture on "LOGIC" for meaning divisions.

"Faculty" is a fun word from the early modern period. It doesn't specify much other than thought-furniture/functions in the imaginations of the early moderns. — Moliere

We can see the word "faculty" often in the Logic Lecture book of Kant. For example "Reason is the faculty of the derivation of the particular from the universal or cognition a priori." - pp.442

No reason to believe otherwise, unless willing to believe in the impossible. — Fire Ologist

Believing in certainty and high possibility would be trust. Isn't believing in impossibility faith?

Eternal oblivion is a poetic way of simply saying “not here anymore.” — Fire Ologist

Where is the place for the religious belief or faith in life after death?

Where does purpose come from? We don't know but it's there. — Gregory

Purpose for what? Isn't purpose from your psychology?

And yes, Hedeigger was a finitist Hegelian lol, imo — Gregory

Under what evidence is it the case? Gadamer was into Hegel stuff for mainly on hermeneutics, but not sure if Heidegger was.

First of all, nowhere in the statement that made no sense to me was the concept of reality to be found, — Mww

The second statement, in response, in the form of a secondary conditional query, the conception of reality is found, so that statement makes sense to me. — Mww

Now I can say, reality does not hold contradiction, that being the purview of pure a priori logic manifest in critical thought, so even though the statement makes sense, it is theoretically invalid. — Mww

Your writings are ambiguous in what it is trying to say. My point was clear. If reason is based on logic, then they are likely to conflict on their judgements. Moreover it sounds a redundant statement to say that reason is based on logic.

Which is why I said “commonly, but loosely, called”, insofar as the human intellectual faculties do not use symbols or language; — Mww

When there are the official definition of formal logic, describing logic in commonly and loosely was a bit odd. We do use symbols extensively in all sciences, mathematics, arts, and communications too. Ignoring the symbols would be ignoring intelligence.

….reason says true on X, but the logic says false on X at the same time…..
— Corvus

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. — Mww

How could a case of contradiction which is possible in the reality and also in logical thinking not make sense to you?

All this is too obvious. Beneath the surface of things there is a paralogical bi-reality. — Gregory

What do you mean by a paralogical bi-reality? Could you elaborate on that please?

We have matter first. We are matter, we are extended so we are extension. — Gregory

We are not just matter.

People think saying matter is extension is too Cartesian but look: that car there is extended that way, pushes off to the side there, ect. It's extended. It's not the principle of extension maybe, but what does that even mean? — Gregory

Isn't extended or extension a property of matter? That is obvious. If not, indeed what do you mean?

Great summary :up: however a few points ...

Logic employed by the understanding is commonly, albeit loosely, called formal, — Mww

Formal logic means the type of logic which uses symbols and formal languages for analysing the statements and propositions for validity i.e. propositional logic, predicate logic and modal logic.
In mathematical logic it also means the logic which can be computable via the intelligent machines.

Reason, on the other hand, employs transcendental logic, which has congruent subject/predicate form, but different origin of conceptions contained therein. — Mww

Reason itself is a faculty which analyses and finds truths, but if it is to employ transcendental logic for its operation, then does it not duplicate itself with another faculty of truth telling system? Does it imply that reason says true on X, but the logic says false on X at the same time? If both of them says true, then why does reason need the logic, and why logic needs reason?

Are they not rather actually the same faculty expressed in different terms?

On the other hand we have Descartes arguments for soul. There is nothing about pure abstraction that speaks of an entended organ. This feels strange to write because i feel my own brain and know i am just a body on a material, dangerous planet. However, he has a point that spiritual experiences are perceived as going beyond matter. — Gregory

Cartesian idea of body and soul is rejected by many contemporaries as an outdated and invalid theory for the fact, that body and mind dualism cannot be proven and makes no sense.

Do you believe in the dualism? Do we have souls? Could you prove the existence of souls? Do souls supposed to survive the bodily deaths? If they are separate substances, souls suppose to survive bodily deaths. If not, then where do they go, or what happen to the souls after death?

Could it be said that Kant was not Hegelian, but was he an absurdist? — Gregory

Kant lived in the earlier times than Hegel. How could Kant have had been a Hegelian? Could Plato have had been Heideggerian? :D

Dialetheism is associated usually with Hegel, — Gregory

For Hegel contradiction is the essential element in the changes and progress of the world.

Kant, who was very interested in formal logic, — Gregory

Kant's logic was not formal logic. It was transcendental logic i.e. he thought transcendental idealism works under the principle of the logic.

has his mental "antimonies" in his system. So my question is: was contradiction a necessary part of logic and/or reality in the worldview of Kant? If we can only see two sides of an idea, how do we know they unite at a highet level? — Gregory

Antinomies were what our reasons face when dealing with God, world, freedom and souls. Reason was supposed to know truth on everything. But when it comes to these objects, reason doesn't know what they are. For Kant, that was antinomy of reason, which is also the limitation of reason.

Memories, for instance -- where might they fall on the "willful" spectrum? — J

Memories seem to play a part in dreams, but they are not exactly correct memories of the past. You might just see something you have had experience with in real life, but in a totally different context. There would be no thoughts or reasonings happening in dreams. You get what is unfolding in your dreaming without your choice in totally unpredictable manner.

Even if you get to see the images and in some cases the situations happening albeit without any context, reason or history, you still have feelings and willful motivations which make you angry, sad, or joyous, and you might even act to defend yourself if you feel you were in danger even in your dreams. It tells us even when we are asleep, some part of our mind is semi conscious, and a lot might be happening in there.

I don't believe it is a causal relationship between dreaming and actions while in sleep, but more likely contingent or random reactions due to the mental activities happening during sleep, because there is no constant regularity or necessity between the contents of dreaming and the reactions during dreaming. And it doesn't affect the majority of folks in the same way, but looks to be some random and contingent reactions to the dreams in some folks.

Ok, good point. Another reason that it is not causal reaction is that, when you say X is caused by Y. Y must cause on all instances of X i.e. if the dream caused your kicking, it must cause kicking to all other folks who has the same dream or similar dream kicking. But it doesn't. Maybe it does to some folks, but definitely not to all the folks. Hence it is not causal event. It is random or contingent event or reaction during the sleep.

You mentioned also on supervenience i.e. Kicking was based on dreaming. It seems also not convincing, because when an action is based on something i.e. the dreaming, there must be also thought processes or willful motivations which must accompany the action Kicking. During sleep, your thought and willful motivations wouldn't be present for your Kicking to be based on the thoughts process or willful motivation on the dreaming.

As is now apparent, this is a little microcosm of the whole mental-causation problem. But I offer it because it’s curiously amenable to analysis, and makes me wonder whether any sleep researchers have actually used brain scans to look into this. — J

Isn't it just contingent or random events or responses? To say X is caused by Y, Y must be possible to repeat for more observations to see if X will happen.

In human dreams, possibility of exactly same dream can happen is very low, if not impossible. And the contents of dreams are not something which can be controlled by external conditioning or by the dreamer himself.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. This means that knowledge about an objective reality cannot be separated from our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Are you not confounding knowledge about an objective reality with mind-independent world here?

Impossible for the mind to describe a mind-independent world. — RussellA

There seem to be two options.
1) Mind-independent world doesn't exist. It is a figment of our imagination like flying horse or golden mountain or mermaid.

2) It could be the countries or places which are known to exist, but we have never been in it such as Australia (for me, I have never been in the country). I read about it, watched youtube videos about it, and heard about it, so I imagine it is a vast land with great weather, and lots of wild bush land and many kangurus jumping around all over the place.

I believe it exists, but I have no idea who are living in there, and what is happening in there. I have no direct perception on the country at all. In that sense, it is a mind-independent world for me.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Could you describe what mind-independent world could be?