Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
- Jan 4, 2015I actually think that the sense which the subjective/objective distinction of contemporary parlance is derived from the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle, who tried to reframe the analytic/distinction as a distinction which applies only to assertions, not to judgments. They partnered their linguistically fanged re-imagining of the analytic/synthetic distinction with an expressivist view of normative/moral assertions like "crime is unacceptable." Their assertions, I believe, ought to be read by us today as expressive of a kind of moral anti-realism, the idea that there are no 'facts of the matter' as regards moral concerns. The only facts, as far as they were concerned, were either facts of logic/mathematics, or facts of physics. The fact/norm dichotomy, which was implicit in Kant, was propagandized by them in such a way as to constrain intellectual activity to the point of keeping any expression of a realist attitude toward morality out of the discussion.Moral realism, or the idea that there is nothing contradictory in saying that something may be "objectively good", is an old idea, and debates as to the status of its legitimacy are debates which I personally think should be back on the table. I think Hegel would agree.-ChuckOn Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:28 PM, robert fanelli robertfanelli2001@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear Group,We need to suspend the terms objective and subjective, 'expressions about knowledge, as an instrument to take hold of the Absolute, or as a medium through which we have a glimpse of truth,' and get to the heart of the matter, that is, 'the true shape of things.' Objective and subjective make a 'mere empty show of knowledge.' Of course, as post modern philosophers will add, we still have the burden of language to contend with regardless of what terms we use. Hegel offers that 'science is itself a phenomenon.' Science must free itself of this phenomenal domain. The phenomena which is the empirical basis of our knowledge starts with things as they appear. They are on the bottom rungs of the Hegelian ladder of knowledge. Sensate empirical data are essential for the climb. As we apply logical structures and previous perceptions to such phenomena we climb the ladder and seek a more representative reality or a fuller reality. These rational structures turn against each other in the negative sense which Hegel utilizes to its fullest. Science (of Hegel's day) can not be presumptuous by just rejecting this kind of knowledge and then boast that its very nature will bypass the imperfections of what we know about things. It should not pretend to have this 'force and value' and to be able to reach absolute knowledge by offering all kinds of pleasant sounding dogmas and paradigms. These are merely 'barren assurances.' These are 'bad forms of its own existence.' They are merely 'illusion.' Science must get to its 'real and true nature.' It must get to an 'in and for itself.' It must lock in the objects in the universe with its own agency and its own representative reality which is the top of the Hegelian ladder.Happy New Year to all.Regards,Bob Fanelli
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>