>That Logic has advanced in this sure course, even from the earliest times, is apparent from the fact that, since Aristotle, it has been unable to advance a step and, thus, to all appearance has reached its completion.
Kant and Aristotle are kin because of common enemies. Both try to find a middle ground between schizo-retardo rationalism and fedora empiricism. In Hegel they become one. But Kant barely read Aristotle, that’s what makes the development so interesting, the convergence of these two perfectly independent projects. Kant’s transcendental apperception comes together with Aristotle’s agent intellect in Hegel, Fichte serves as a bridge or even an end with his I=I, apperception as telos.
mathematicians gigaiqempiricists midwits
>>24923937All that quote shows is an incredible ignorance on the part of kant. The Hellenistic period saw a lot of developments, Aristotle was not even regarded as a top logician at that time.
>>24924007Yes, and of the Middle Ages, also what Kant takes as Aristotle’s logic is just trash he picked up in manuals. There are no individuals in Aristotle’s, no problematic or disjunctive syllogisms, no assertoric mood, in Kant’s sense, etc. Kant was a bit of a namedropper, he namedrops Hume, Leibniz, Berkeley too despite barely knowing their work.
