Was Hegel right about Kant's infinite progress? Is it true that a philosophy that is oriented toward the radical openness of the future must logically collapse into Spinozistic holism? Is this really a 'spurious' infinity (a limit that constantly recurs) that must be supplanted by the 'genuine' infinity of indifference (a limit that is no limit)? Or did he get it all completely backwards?
>>25341774In what sense does Kant's philosophy entail infinite progress or a radical openness of the future?
>>25341774You faggots look exactly like I imagined you would.
>>25341788Not a picture of anyone here actually, though it is how I imagine the idealists looking as well which is why I picked it.>>25341786It's central to his practical philosophy; we're constantly driven towards an 'ought' that is never actually fulfilled so we're moving through time into the future. Hegel of course understands as well that we are moving through time but he thinks the temporally bound life of the individual is secondary to the society at large and its economy. He thinks this entire perspective of the individual moral agent isn't logically tenable, it breaks apart into various contradictions and can't be primary.
>>25341774>Was Hegel rightNo.
>>25341774>Transcendental Dialectic, pure notions of the understanding exceeding their proper use, and engaging in apophantic regress, without reference to anything actual— dialectical chimeras On target with moral intensions and ethical thought having synthetic a priori character, however nothing is settled between Original Sin and human memory; Human progress takes no linear, ratcheted permanent ascent, as though it were a question of climbing a millenarian mountain, or putting distance between us and Cain, or Babel, or Atlantis. 'Spinozism' - Being in isolation - the ALL of ENDLESS Totality is the snake eating its own tail, not the Orphic Egg 'Indeterminate' Dyad IS-not. This is The False Infinite of the Demiurge, the interminable churn of Hyle ny Kronos. The structure of Thought, the Categories & Pure Notions of possible experience is recapitulated metaphysically— Becoming is of Necessity in a real sense experienced by transcendent divinity, Nous, which temporally bounds the procession of Being (or Creation) in its myriad configurations of possibility Apeiron To unlock The Book of Life ahead of the denouement, is not a matter of cipher breaking— hyle ALLterities' 'in-themselves' are void, as determinately negated aggregates— they are For US, not themselves: past a point there is no grasping their causal intensum without a truly Monadic knowledge of the All, and this fluxion's moment of participation within thereof. We as Absolute Finite singularities, real presences in the world, stand in sharp relief against alien Chaos of seething bare matter— Spinoza's God is the God of this world (and unknowable, capricious). Kant was perhaps too restrictive with would could positively, alethically said with speculative metaphysics— Futurity is within our possible experience domain to explore, as active participants in Creation as an/The Event.
>>25341801>He thinks this entire perspective of the individual moral agent isn't logically tenable, it breaks apart into various contradictions and can't be primaryWe create our own Environment.
>>25341774You're making a number of assumptions and most of them aren't helping you. It's worth mentioning that Hegel's system isn't user friendly on this. Hegel does praise Spinoza, he even said something to the effect you aren't even doing philosophy unless you know Spinoza's works. The similarities are there, there is overlap. Hegel's methods can incorporate Spinoza's system, so just knowing Spinoza and Spinoza alone doesn't keep Hegel out. The issue eventually becomes one where Hegel uses negation as a basis instead of infinite substance, Hegel recognizes difference, Spinoza theoretically can't or maybe won't for current purposes. This subtle difference means Hegel can hang onto epistemological immanence but he can also use multiple concepts and use transformation. In english I've read 'strict presence' but in German the wording can also be translated as excellent presence but it might be better to look at it as idiomatically a standard of excellence. For Hegel this means alot, for anyone else it basically means universal equity regardless, so Hegel gets rational equity even if the other parties are deriving from will. Hegel claimed this is all encompassing, he had some notable points on this that are hard to ignore, but regardless of whether you agree with him his methods are 'better' or not isn't relevant. This is also why there is worldwide interest in Hegel and any culture that can produce a Hegel has also experienced this same effect. >tldr it doesn't matter whether you think it's backwards or not. If you can't refute you didn't do anything.
>>25344273>You're making a number of assumptions and most of them aren't helping you. It's worth mentioning that Hegel's system isn't user friendly on this. Hegel does praise Spinoza, he even said something to the effect you aren't even doing philosophy unless you know Spinoza's works. The similarities are there, there is overlap. Hegel's methods can incorporate Spinoza's system, so just knowing Spinoza and Spinoza alone doesn't keep Hegel out. The issue eventually becomes one where Hegel uses negation as a basis instead of infinite substance, Hegel recognizes difference, Spinoza theoretically can't or maybe won't for current purposes. This subtle difference means Hegel can hang onto epistemological immanence but he can also use multiple concepts and use transformation.What about the op makes you think I didn’t know any of this? But I’m glad to talk to someone who does know Hegel.> For Hegel this means alot, for anyone else it basically means universal equity regardless, so Hegel gets rational equity even if the other parties are deriving from will. Hegel claimed this is all encompassingExactly, he transcends the individual subject because he can’t make sense of it. He sees these insuperable tensions that can’t be thought through but for Kant, Fichte, Kierkegaard, these tensions need to be preserved, they are true in all their incoherence.>he had some notable points on this that are hard to ignoreYes he does, his stance on this is basically skeptical and skepticism is irrefutable. The triplet I mention above rely on faith (in different ways) to get through it, Hegel just reasons his way into a modern blob world. Hegel is a monist like Spinoza, Kant Fichte and Kierkegaard are all comfortable with dualism.>but regardless of whether you agree with him his methods are 'better' or not isn't relevantCome on man. Give me a break.> This is also why there is worldwide interest in Hegel and any culture that can produce a Hegel has also experienced this same effect.Agreed, we are living through the logical consequences of Hegel. He really was something of a prophet he just didn’t realize that he was a prophet of doom and unfortunately neither do you. It’s baffling that he couldn’t see the dialectic of modernity, that he couldn’t see how the dialectic of enlightenment would just repeat itself on a larger scale. What’s different between now and Robespierre really? A more republican form of government? No it’s capitalism which Hegel thought would be heckin’ wunderbar. And it’s his panlogicism which seduces you and which blinded him. He made complete total perfect sense of - what? picrel. This is the guy who thought art was dead and also thought this was a good thing ffs.
>>25344516Your inability to think through them doesn't change anything. Kierkegaard still gets stuck at the same point, Kant admits no knowledge, and Fichte moves on. Spinoza is arguably one that can still challenge, but this has more to do with the network of subsidiary thinkers who used his system than it does with Spinoza himself. Saying Hegel thought capitalism was great is mostly an oversight on your part. He had multiple paradoxes on it and at best you might be able to claim he thought division of labor would increase efficiency of abstract labor. This also doesn't take into account his economic illiteracy on certain topics, to give an example Hegel mostly thought value had to be generated for something to happen, otherwise a simple exchange value doesn't register to him. He couldn't defend capitalism if he wanted to since he can't technically admit a stable or static currency. This ultimately was beneficial to him but he also has to acknowledge and recognize MMT which isn't capitalist. This quirk also means M-M can evade him and operate completely off his radar. Some of his paradoxes also make it difficult for him to argue for capitalism beyond a mere stage in history where progress was made. This is probably an idea of your own headcannon from arguing with the regulars here.He thought the time of art conveying the highest and ultimate truths was over but he didn't say it was dead. Think more of a leisure pursuit.
>>25344584>Kierkegaard still gets stuck at the same point, Kant admits no knowledge, and Fichte moves onThe last post you wrote was relatively lucid but this is gibberish. “Kant admits no knowledge” do you think it’s profound to write nonsense? I get it, you think Hegel is le based and you hardly understand him after all. Many such cases. You talk about ‘head canon’ but your entire reading of the Outlines is hallucinatory. You seem to think that because Hegel was no economist he did not value markets and capitalism. You talk about “multiple paradoxes” as if Hegel did not explicitly believe that he had solved all paradoxes by transcending the entweder/oder. Fuck you for wasting my time like this, you have holes in your brain and you make shit up. You think you’re le profound by writing retarded gibberish. Philosophy is a science.
>>25344628>muh kierkegaard>muh me meta muh me makin cappy no cap religious for no reason>muh hurr durr check out me ultra modern sensibilities that result in vapid materialismYou are your own problem.
>>25344516You're talking to the schizo Swede, "perform the calculation" etc.
>>25344713>before one can love the most esoteric schizo one must love the normiest normie.
