Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:53 am Post subject: Kant and Hegel
the disciplines of history and science have played the biggest role in our discussions thus far and yet a majority of the readings have been about philosophers first and foremost. how do you think the term 'philosophy' plays into the juxtaposition of history and science if at all?
(the first paragraph is sort of synthesis to try to answer Jason’s question, the second is exploring a related awesome question that Olivia brought up in class)
Jason talked about History and Science being branches of “the knowledge tree”. The tree is Philosophy. The first definition of philosophy on dictionary.com is “the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.” The fourth is “the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge“. Philosophy (with a capital P) is therefore an umbrella term for the “capital letter” disciplines. We determined in class that capital History means the method/the “how” (instead of the little “history”, which is the content, the “what”). When we talk about Science and History, we’re talking about two “methods/hows” of finding truth, including how experiential knowledge (all the various pieces of little-letter content) plays into finding the bigger “what”, past and present. The philosophy tree is one big “how we should think about it” tree, and then eventually branches split off into the “what we should think about”. I drew a picture of it, but I can’t post that online, or put it in the middle of an essay.
Also I’ve been thinking a lot about where the what and the how intersect since Olivia brought up this quote on page 66 or 67 that I can’t find. the gist of it was that “history is made up more of people like Kant/Hegel than people like Napolean”. Olivia said she had a hard time believing that the minority of intellectuals who sat around thinking about HOW we do history were more significant than the people who made up/changed WHAT actually happened. What I’ve come up with since then is that, depending on the current METHOD historians have of studying the past, the content they come up with is going to be drastically different. If for example, the current belief was that we get the truest version of what happened by skimming the surface of 100 different accounts of a November 2nd assembly, we’re going to get a different CONTENT, than if we believed that the best way to find the truth was to go into intense detailed depth of one account. So the people who think about the method, or the philosophers, don’t change the ACTUAL content, but they change the way we get it, which changes what we perceive as the content, so they might as well be changing the actual content. I’m not sure if this makes sense. I can clarify further, if needed.
So I was wondering what you guys thought about how the guys who (historically, ha) determined the "how" effected the “what”? Also I’m not sure I answered Jason’s question satisfyingly, so I’d be interested to hear some more answers to that.
philosophy-
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.
(New Oxford American Dictionary)
History- the discipline of documenting history
history- the raw material itself
Science- the discipline of documenting processes
science- the processes themselves
I guess that makes Philosophy the discipline of explaining knowledge, reality, and existence and connecting them all together. (I really hope this makes sense.) Sophie explained the connection really well in her post. Philosophy is the lens through which we look at these two topics ("The philosophy tree is one big “how we should think about it” tree...")
I'm really confused about this whole cause/effect and euclidean proofs in relationship to explaining everyday events. I know we talked about it in discussion, but it's getting all muddled in my head and I keep tripping myself up. Can someone use an every event as an example to explain this to me? How would that same event contrast if you were just looking at through an empirical lens?
@Isaac- I don’t think so. Although Jason, who brought this up in class, could probably clarify better than I- knowledge per se is not the tree of knowledge. The tree is a way of systematizing knowledge and how we acquire it, sort of like a biologist’s “tree of life” except there’s no fundamentally correct way to organize the tree. Celina pretty much nailed it with her post.
Philosophy deals with metaphysical knowledge that can’t necessarily be demonstrated in a lab or replicated in an experiment.
@Celina- I’m not quite sure what you’re looking for, but I hope this helps:
Euclidean proof using cause and effect (as taught to me in CSW Geometry) of the statement “If I eat soup that’s been sitting around for a month, then I will get sick”:
1. Soup that’s unrefrigerated for more than a few days accumulates infectious bacteria (reference to whoever proved this)
2. This soup has been sitting around for a month (given)
3. This soup has dangerous bacteria in it (transitive property connects 1&2)
4. If I eat this soup, the contents of the soup will end up in my digestive tract (definition of eating)
5. If the contents of the soup will end up in my digestive tract, then infectious bacteria will end up in my digestive tract (transitive property connects 3&4)
6. If there are infectious bacteria in my digestive tract, they will infect me (definition of infectious bacteria)
etc, etc etc.
A die-hard empiricist would either:
Sniff the soup and know that he’d gotten sick from nasty-smelling soup in the past, and figure that would happen again.
Or, he’d eat the soup and see if he got sick.
My question(s):
Philosophy (and philosophers) can direct the study of science or history (or, for that matter, ethics and metaphyics). Are there other areas of study that can be directed by capital-P Philosophy (like Sophie’s first definition)? How did Kant and Hegel’s backgrounds as philosophers direct their views on science and history?
Also, one thing I just plain don’t get- did Hegel believe in a priori knowledge? How was his dialectic related to Kant’s ideas on a priori knowledge?
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: holy shit, so much to think about my brain will explode
Everything everyone has asked and written so far is great, informative, and really asking some really awesome questions. However I think my brain can only handle one of these questions at a time so I think I will answer Will's first question.
I think I will just answer Will's question right away and say: Yes philosophy can direct other disciplines. For instantance, Math can be directed by Philosophy in way very similar to Science. It can also be given a very similar definition. Math is the documentaion of processes, as well as the analysis and application of these processes. The only big difference I can see is that Math applies to numbers where as Science applies to numbers. Philosphy affects these two disciplines in a similar as well. It doesn't exactly affect the material itself, or the actual subject, but it does affect how we look at the discipline and how humans analyze and devolpe this discipline. Hmmm, maybe this can be applied to all subjects, this affect that philosphy has on disciplines: that Philosophy may not directly affect subject matter, but it does affect at how we look at what we do. Put another way: Philosophy affects our actions by changing how we look at them. I think I have gone far to broad here and am just vomiting onto a page... stopping.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
These are three of six definitions of philosophy I found on dictionary.com.
In response to Wills question: “Philosophy (and philosophers) can direct the study of science or history (or, for that matter, ethics and metaphyics). Are there other areas of study that can be directed by capital-P Philosophy (like Sophie’s first definition)?”
I think that capital-P Philosophy can be directed at any discipline. While the first definition above relates more to disciplines that specifically search knowledge (like science and history). I think that definition number 4 is a broader version of what Philosophy can be. In my opinion many disciplines could be put in the blank ‘the philosophy of ___’. To me, philosophy is very personal, sort of like each individual’s moral code and view of the world. The phrase ‘personal philosophy’ keeps bouncing back into my head. I don’t think anyone can agree completely on anyone else’s philosophy because no two people share identical opinions. Anyway, my point is that each individual personal philosophy affects whatever discipline they work in. For example, I dance all the time, and have been taught by a bunch of different teachers. Each teacher has his or her own approach to dance, and to how it should be taught safely, taught well, taught correctly, taught most efficiently, ect. Dance is not a search for knowledge and there isn’t a single truth. However, anyone who dances or teaches dance has his or her own individual philosophy about how it should be done or taught. In short, I think Philosophy can be applied to any discipline. I’m not sure how understandable any of this was so feel free to point out or ask about things that make no sense.
Question: (this is somewhat contrary to everything I just said, but I’m interested what people think)
Does anyone think that philosophy can be proved correct or incorrect, how so?
Also, one thing I just plain don’t get- did Hegel believe in a priori knowledge? How was his dialectic related to Kant’s ideas on a priori knowledge?
This isn't my big old post, but just in looking stuff over I was interested by will's question- as far as we know, I'm pretty sure Hegel didn't really touch a priori knowledge at all. But as far as I can deduce from what I've read, I don't think he would be a big fan of a priori.
he was pretty empirical. A lot of Hegel's philosophy is about the process of aquiring knowledge (no reality till we know it, dialectic, thesis/antithesis).
So, according to Hegel, you need to change stuff around in order to create something, including knowledge. Where as with a priori; we all have the knowledge already- its just choosing what to do with it.
THAT MADE LITTLE TO NO SENSE. Sorry will. and everyone else.
okay so the more i re-read the hegel bit of the text, the more confused i am about his key points. i think that they're:
-progress is made when nature provides an thesis and an antithesis and the two collide and become one (can someone provide a tangible example that's not darwinian evolution itself please?)
-there is no objective reality. the relationship between the knower and what he knows is that the knower creates the world outside him. a chair doesn't exist until i and others see/feel that it exists (..but i thought this was what Hume said? how is this different?)
-in order to understand ourselves now, we have to figure out how we got here
-that whole universal spirit buisness--so history reveals where the subjective realities overlap (i think he didn't actually say that, but i decided it would make sense if he did xp)
what am i missing/what did i get wrong?/what did i get right?/can someone summarize these so they relate more/don't contradiction eachother as much? thank yoooou.
ps olivia, you made total sense. also i like will's soup example.
sophie-
regarding the search for thesis/antithesis examples..
in the text there is the example of "The knower + what is to be known = knowledge"
(which sort of relates to Hegel's idea of the three states [i.e. the bud turning into the flower pg.63]: , non-being, becoming, and being, WHICH then goes back to ARISTOTLE with his seed/tree and his three categories (pg.5) of non-being, potential being, and actual being--> WOAH, sorry, that was cool but tangential)
in terms of a real-world-not-in-the-text example I would go so far as to say history demonstrates the dialectic:
objective account + subjective account = history
thesis + antithesis
I know in the discussion we discussed what Kant's definition of history could have been, but did we ever bring up what Hegel's would have been?
Edit:
I found some helpful text referring to Hegel's definition
"Hegel thought of history as the working of a universal spirit. The spirit is reason, and cannot be wrong; and the institution in which this spirit expresses itself is the state. The state has to be accepted as the practical realization of cosmic reason; it is sexular but it is not therefore evil... The state becomes the fulfillment of the mystical spirit of a people, and history works providentially to make it so."
Olivia- regarding history & the dialectic... I think that objective + subjective account is the way it tends to be, but historians strive for something purely objective.
Could you also clarify what you said earlier: "according to Hegel, you need to change stuff around in order to create something..."?
so... I had a really busy break, and I COMPLETELY forgot about doing the posts. So i'm starting now. I'll try to answer a couple of questions first, starting with:
"the disciplines of history and science have played the biggest role in our discussions thus far and yet a majority of the readings have been about philosophers first and foremost. how do you think the term 'philosophy' plays into the juxtaposition of history and science if at all?"
the definition of philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. History, and Science, I think are both directly related to that because History has essentially the same definition (according to me) only that it's also the recordings of it. Philosophy can be spoken, and current, but History must always be written to be called history, and not storytelling, as long as you agree with Thucydides' approach. Science is more tricky for me. Before this class I would have said that Science and Philosophy had nothing in common, but it makes sense that they overlap, because Science (the discipline) is recording the results of expiriments, analyzing that, and then coming up with a conclusion about it. this is pretty much what history too, if you substitute "expiriments" with "events" which in context are probably the same thing anyway, because no two event happens the same way twice due to the chaos theory.
thanks for asking me to clarify. "Change stuff around" isn't very articulate.
What I meant is that a huge part of Hegel's philosophy is describing how we attain knowledge. Which, in some ways, is essentially the purpose that the dialectic serves. (knower+what there is to be known= knowledge).
That being said, it would surprise me if Hegel was a proponent of a priori knowledge, because thats knowledge you're just BORN with instead of going through processes to achieve it.
"I'm really confused about this whole cause/effect and euclidean proofs in relationship to explaining everyday events. I know we talked about it in discussion, but it's getting all muddled in my head and I keep tripping myself up. Can someone use an every event as an example to explain this to me? How would that same event contrast if you were just looking at through an empirical lens?"
beware, my answer is going to be somewhat abstract, so work with it, and if it doesn't make sense, e-mail me.
Given: We are at a wedding, the bride is not looking where she's going,
your uncle is drunk, your uncle put his glass of wine down on the isle, the veil prevents the bride from seeing clearly, whenever the bride comes in contact with wine, it gets on the dress
Prove: there is wine on the dress
1. We are at a wedding, 1. Given
your uncle is drunk,
your uncle put his glass of wine down on the isle,
the veil prevents the bride from seeing clearly
whenever the bride comes in contact with wine, it gets on the dress
2. The bride walks forward down the isle 2. We are at a
wedding, this is the
normal course
of weddings
3. The bride trips on the glass 3. a.bride does not
see glass (the veil
prevents the bride
from seeing clearly)
b.your uncle put
his glass of wine
down on the isle
4. The wine spills on the dress 4. whenever the bride
comes in contact with
wine, it gets on the dress
5. there is wine of the dress 5. The wine spills on
the dress
I think that might be what it's talking about... if not, HEY! you just learned a really cool story about a wedding!
I'm not sure at all about the empirical lens, but I think it means something like-
the bride was walking down the isle and all of a sudden there was wine on her dress!
maybe?
yes? no?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
