Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

AW: Re: [hegel] Idealism and Realism?

Expand Messages
  • greuterb@bluewin.ch
    ... Von: merrillbp@gmail.com Datum: 21.07.2011 12:52 An: Betreff: Re: [hegel] Idealism and Realism? While we often engage in
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 21, 2011
      ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
      Von: merrillbp@...
      Datum: 21.07.2011 12:52
      An: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
      Betreff:
      Re: [hegel] Idealism and Realism?

      While we often engage in conversation and argument in order to assess the truth,
      on
      the other hand,
      Individuals need and seek the truth.

      Crusoe needs and seeks and also arrives at (some) true knowledge
      of
      his island, all by himself.

      In this process, the reconciliation of mind and thing is not a matter
      of thing
      approaching mind, but the other way around. Truth (i.e.
      objective cognition) is achieved by means of Crusoe's correct

      perceptions and correct knowledge in regard to his island, not by his
      island conforming itself to his thought. Crusoe
      does not enjoy magical
      thinking.



      Bruce,

      I think your Crusoe case is a good example for demonstrating Hegel's
      thought. However, your comment seems to be at least a little ambivalent and immature. 'Mind approaching thing', good!
      But how can he master the situation with perception alone? How he acts out of his perception is as important as the
      perception itself, more, the quality of perception depends on what he is able to do, on his being-in-itself. Imagine
      for instance, he would have been a stoic or a skeptic or a man with an unhappy consciousnes, what would he have
      perceived and how would he have acted? As far as I know your Crusoe was a Englishman of reason. This means that he has
      found a unity of his self-consciousness and consciousness and therefore is already in principle reconciled with
      reality. So, 'thing approaching mind' has already happened and constitutes his being-in-itself and therefore his
      perception and acting. You could answer that this is of no interest but only that Crusoe is a reasonable man. But with
      this you reduce perception and knowing to a mere formal world relationship, precisely what Hegel rejects and whose one-
      sidedness he corrected: for this he has become a philosopher.

      Regards,
      Beat
    • john
      ... Yes, right, an Englishman of reason. He also had a good many tools and other things from the boat from which he built a fort. He had many skills. He kept
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 21, 2011
        --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "greuterb@..." <greuterb@...> wrote:
        >
        > ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
        > Von: merrillbp@...
        > Datum: 21.07.2011 12:52
        > An: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
        > Betreff:
        > Re: [hegel] Idealism and Realism?
        >
        > While we often engage in conversation and argument in order to assess the truth,
        > on
        > the other hand,
        > Individuals need and seek the truth.
        >
        > Crusoe needs and seeks and also arrives at (some) true knowledge
        > of
        > his island, all by himself.
        >
        > In this process, the reconciliation of mind and thing is not a matter
        > of thing
        > approaching mind, but the other way around. Truth (i.e.
        > objective cognition) is achieved by means of Crusoe's correct
        >
        > perceptions and correct knowledge in regard to his island, not by his
        > island conforming itself to his thought. Crusoe
        > does not enjoy magical
        > thinking.
        >
        >
        >
        > Bruce,
        >
        > I think your Crusoe case is a good example for demonstrating Hegel's
        > thought. However, your comment seems to be at least a little ambivalent and immature. 'Mind approaching thing', good!
        > But how can he master the situation with perception alone? How he acts out of his perception is as important as the
        > perception itself, more, the quality of perception depends on what he is able to do, on his being-in-itself. Imagine
        > for instance, he would have been a stoic or a skeptic or a man with an unhappy consciousnes, what would he have
        > perceived and how would he have acted? As far as I know your Crusoe was a Englishman of reason. This means that he has
        > found a unity of his self-consciousness and consciousness and therefore is already in principle reconciled with
        > reality. So, 'thing approaching mind' has already happened and constitutes his being-in-itself and therefore his
        > perception and acting. You could answer that this is of no interest but only that Crusoe is a reasonable man. But with
        > this you reduce perception and knowing to a mere formal world relationship, precisely what Hegel rejects and whose one-
        > sidedness he corrected: for this he has become a philosopher.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Beat


        Yes, right, an Englishman of reason. He also had a good many tools and other things from the boat from which he built a fort. He had many skills. He kept track of the days of the week, I guess, as that is how he named Friday. He made Friday his slave--and also, if I remember correctly, taught him Christianity. Did he have a Bible from the boat? I don't remember. Perhaps he just had a good deal of it memorized.

        John
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.