Kant and Hegel

i think, anyway.

(1)Experience is constituted by appearances. (2) Appearances are of something else, which accordingly cannot itself appear. (3) All and only functions of experience can be known; these are our categories of the understanding. (4) It follows that the something else--that of which appearances are appearances, whose existence we must grant--cannot be known. In discovering this limitation of reason, reason proves its power to itself, over itself. (5) Moreover, since it is unavoidable for our reason to be drawn to think about this unknowable ground of appearance, reason reveals itself to itself in this necessity also.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhpsvFJCQAAb1HJ.jpg

I Kant believe it

wau

i love the vision of parenting implied by this

imagining a scene in a made-for-tv movie:

WIFE: i bought something for Cindy

HUSBAND: (quizzical eyebrows) oh?

WIFE: The Critique of Pure Reason.

HUSBAND: (exhales long whistling sound) Wow. Are you sure? Are you sure she can handle the, you know .. .

WIFE: (knowingly) I know, I know, he's a dinosaur trapped in a tacitly racist, sexist moment of intellectual history. I just think the transcendental grounding Cindy's going to get in the antinomies is worth the risk of exposure to those subsequently exploded ideologies vis a vis a the social horizon implicit in its model of personhood / subjective ground.

HUSBAND: (smiling) well, I guess it's time for The Talk.

WIFE: (tearful, yet smiling) it sure is. Our little girl's growing up.

we have a student who's working on Kant on sex, & it's about as hilarious as Kant gets. iirc the gist is that you should aim for moderation in sex b/c too much sex will tire you out and you won't be able to be productive enough afterwards. or maybe that's the line on gluttony? think it's the same line.

Sure you didn't mishear that "Kant"?

:| regrets

apparently Kant used to wank on a tree.

or maybe that was a dream I had.

Müller
I have, in any case, a troubled relationship to Kant, because at age ten I read Kant for the first time - my father had that lying around - it was the Metaphysics of Morals. And naturally the first chapter I read was the one on onanism. And that disturbed me deeply, because he considered it completely reprehensible and in every respect the worst and the most undignified thing that exists . . .

Kluge
What's his argument for that?

Müller
It's against the laws of nature, against God's will . . .

Kluge
If nature has given human beings the power to procreate, then it's reprehensible not to use it.

Müller
Exactly, that troubled me deeply at that time. And then I was so happy when, years later, I read an anecdote to the effect that Kant supposedly masturbated once a week, or even more often, on the same oak tree in the park where he always took his walks. That reassured me. And from then on I was no longer very interested in Kant.

Kluge
He had been refuted.

Müller
He had been refuted, yes.

I hope there's a plaque.
"Der Onaniebaum des Kant.
Bitte nicht berühren."

Hegel: how will you look at someone when it's time to kill them? #theworst #teamkant

apparently Kant used to wank on a tree.

― Merdeyeux, Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:24 PM (3 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^neglected post

or even more often

kant q:

general logic : transcendental logic :: (propositional and first-order predicate logic as taught in intro courses???) : ?????????

(maybe that's the wrong place to put modern logic, or the wrong way to distribute it across the terms of the analogy??

Kant can suck it. Has anyone ever read Robert Brandom's book on Hegel? Thoughts?

http://www.pitt.edu/~brandom/spirit_of_trust_2014.html

https://twitter.com/Kantye_West

*Announcement today at @faznet*

“The philosopher Klaus Vieweg (Jena) has found in the archives of @ebmuc five crates of transcriptions of lectures that Hegel held in Heidelberg. Hegel held his first professorship in Heidelberg teaching there from 1816 to 1818. The 1/3 pic.twitter.com/gGwjUhQ66E

— Jason Maurice Yonover (@JasonMauriceY) October 28, 2022

Great, more Hegel bootlegs

– “In the hierarchy of the means used to express the absolute, religion and culture in the wake of reason hold the highest degree, well above that of ass”

Hegel

https://www.filco.es/uploads/2022/03/Kan-y-la-paz-perpetua.jpg

nudge nudge wink wink

Option Votes
Offbeat Bare Ass 2

DASEIN ASS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0aiPgNgXOI

sometimes a philosopher just needs to let the beard do the talking for him

loved her in "Knocked Up"

Great, more Hegel bootlegs

Stealin’ dis

whisper sweet Hegel into your lover's ear at night

I liked this chatty intro to Hegel - not that I'll ever read him

I loved this "intro" to Hegel. https://t.co/iF1sNa12xC

— Rakesh Bhandari (@postdiscipline) April 9, 2023

I am more Hegelian than Hegel

pic.twitter.com/52x6m3wvpn

— Revista Hénadas (@revistahenadas) December 22, 2023

“a political party only truly exists when it is divided against itself”

to be clear this is alexander cockburn “rephrasing” hegel (not something gwfh said in so many words lol)

anyway it's back in my head this afternoon for some reason

dialectics, I believe.

how are we defining "exist" here

Everything is divided against itself for Hegel, as a condition of its being. The fantasy of pure being is what gets us into trouble.

I feel like a lot of 20th century thought is specifically anti-Hegelian and also anti-Freudian. People either long for stability/clarity (too many examples to list) or fetishize constant change (nietzche, deleuze, these tech idiots today). They’re not satisfied with the dialectic.

"exist" in this quote derives from how hegel believes ideas emerge -- which is that ambient states of mind only crystalise into "ideas" once discursively reflected back into that mind from outside; ditto groups of people only become movements or parties when what they feel about things positive or negative becomes something they are collectively (discursively) aware of

hence (unlike say a tree or a star) an idea “exists” only once its reflected back on itself (or in anglified hegel-jargon when the mind having this idea is "divided against itself"); and ditto with parties: they only become orgs with stances once the notions found in the minds that make them up are crystalised by self-recognition (the relevant inner urges "reflected back" on the minds with these urges; this reflection collectively recognised and embraced)

all that said:
i: i don't think this is an actual real literal hegel quote (when i googled i only found cockburn's version; someone more versed in gwfh's work may recognise what he had in mind)
ii: i also think it's a joke (about dems in disarray, since dems are the party under discussion): he's using the "divided” jargon in two senses, hegel-speak and normal-person language

but treesh knows more abt hegel than me, he can confirm my gloss (or point and laugh)