In a message dated 2/8/2004 6:18:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
greuterb@... writes:

> For him it is not allowed to
> tranfer perceived principles of the organic world to aesthetic or even
> teleological judgements. The world as a whole or a society as a whole is
> not the same as the organic of an animal or the soul of man. With this
> Kant gains freedom of thought against (organic) system thinking. Hegel
> accepts this, however, he does not accept that the categorical notions
> of the judgement are merely subjective and formal. For him being as such
> is a concept and only because of that human thought can arise and posit
> itself against being and mediate itself with being. So, Hegel has an
> other concept of the concept than Kant, and in my opinion it is only
> fair to make this distinction before going to criticize Hegel's philosophy.

Beat,

I agree. Kant separated the aesthetic from the organic and from the
telological. Analogly was not applicable. His forte was the freedom to search each
of these domains with separate judgments. He does seem, from time to time, to
cross over directly, as in the Third Critique with application of the
categories to aesthetics, but, as you say, one can not use analogies on the whole.

I also agree that Hegel looks far beyond just subjectively creating or
actualizing reality by means of categorical forms; that is the only way a Kantian
can formulate reality by means of cognitive reasoning is through the categories;
however, as you know Kant left the door open for ethical (Second Critique)
and aesthetic (Third Critique) ways to confirm or actualize reality, well beyond
the categories of understanding (First Critique). For Hegel,as you succinctly
offer, goes well beyond Kant, in presenting human thought as positing itself
as being; that is the age old contention that thought actualizes reality by
mediating and positing being. Thought,in the Hegelian system, is being and thus
is, for Hegel, in its movement, reality. The question then becomes, is
thought always a sufficient condition for all reality. Of course, herein lies the
danger of radical idealism, which offers an ongoing dialogue for all serious
philosophers. Was it Samuel Johnson who offered his argument against Berkeley
by kicking a large rock? I'm not sure.

Regards,

Bob Fanelli





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]