>> that full blown argument is seen by means of 1) the entire Analytic to

the first Critique which limits knowledge to what is capable of appearing to
the senses (ie., the "transcendental ideality of our knowledge") and 2)
allowing us merely to think things in themselves, which are objects of
reason (not of the understanding) <<

Look, Omar, I am frankly not interested in going on further with this.

This is called "hegel" list. Supposedly, each one of us has gone through a
Kantian phase before becoming Hegelian and knows and approves of Hegel's
criticism of Kant. However, someone in this list may be interested in
debating with you this criticism, it is part of what we could define a
complete understanding of Hegel's thought.

This presupposes that both of the people involved in the discussion already
actually know what Hegel said on the matter. After you read and understand
Hegel (all of it), then you can criticize his arguments.

That's why I said that the burden of the proof is on you, coming with a
Kantian vantage point to a Hegel's list. Continually stating your Kantian
allegiance without responding to Hegel's (and not only Hegel's) criticism of
it and inviting us to justify our own Hegelianism is not - in my opinion -
the aim of this group. This list (this is how I see it, but being
unmoderated, everyone is free to do whatever he/she wants) should not
transform itself into a mere self-justifying propaganda tool of Hegelians
that eternally discuss, with Kantians or X-ians.

For the sake of the argument, however, I will make clear to you (you didn't
answer on this point) what I meant when I quoted the classical Jacobi's
argument against critical philosophy. This is just to unsubstantiate your
claim that I was simply sticking to an "authority", while in fact it's the
other way around (by the way, Jacobi is not "my" authority, and he
successfully criticized Kant well before Hegel).

Jacobi himself would ask: "How can't you appreciate the self-contradictory
character of your point (1) and (2), when they are affirmed together?".
Either you stay within Kant's philosophy and then you are unable to justify
how you can come up with the very notion of thing in themselves; or if you
persevere affirming this notion, then you are already out of Kantian
philosophy.


Maurizio Canfora