Zizek: seems like a nob

[Knotted]

I don't understand on what basis. Hegel isn't neo-Kantian, but is quite clearly post-Kantian (not only in chronological terms but also in terms of his argument). Hegel doesn't seek to answer Kantian problems, he demonstrates the aporetic nature of the way he frames the questions...

I would say Hegel was for the main anti-Kantian with small bits of Kant nevertheless absorbed (basically the transcendental dialectic without the transcendentalism and the "speculative" nature of the synthetic a priori without the synthetic a priori).

In terms of the philosophy of mathematics (which interests me if nobody else ) Hegel was plain anti-Kantian and could be seen as pre-Fregean and a fore-runner to analytic philosophy.

 

[articul8]

are you sure you've rejected that approach?

absolutely - Kant was heroic and courageous in pushing his argument as far as he did.

 

[Pickman's model]

absolutely - Kant was heroic and courageous in pushing his argument as far as he did.

so it's just coincidence which leads you to make apparently the same argument pretty much right after me.

 

[articul8]

what about the mathematical manuscripts?

No - didn't know they existed. No particular desire to read them either unless someone explains why I should...

 

[Knotted]

what about the mathematical manuscripts?

They're probably best forgotten about...

 

[articul8]

You mean the 37 huge volumes of his collected work, minus 15 or so of correspondence published so far with material for another 120 volumes? Come on, you're not some teenage trot.

Have I fuck read it all. You have I suppose?

 

[Knotted]

Post-Kant German philosophy summarised:
Schopenhauer = neo-Kantian
Fichte, Schelling = post-Kantian
Hegel = anti-Kantian
Old Hegelians = neo-Hegelian
Young Hegelians = post-Hegelian
Feuerbach = anti-Hegelian
Marx = Marx

 

[love detective]

Zizek = a nob

 

[articul8]

I don't think Hegel was anti-Kantian, he should be in there with the post-Kantians

And where are Novalis and Schlegel?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think Hegel was anti-Kantian,

Schopenhauer did.

Do you think both Hegel and Schopenhauer are post-Kantian? How do you square the differences between them if you do?

 

[Knotted]

I don't think Hegel was anti-Kantian, he should be in there with the post-Kantians

I know, but you're wrong.

And where are Novalis and Schlegel?

Neo-Kantians. (That's where Hegel puts them at least, along with Fries iirc)

 

[articul8]

Do you think both Hegel and Schopenhauer are post-Kantian? How do you square the differences between them if you do?

They are post-Kantian in different ways.

 

[Pickman's model]

Post-Kant German philosophy summarised:
Schopenhauer = neo-Kantian
Fichte, Schelling = post-Kantian
Hegel = anti-Kantian
Old Hegelians = neo-Hegelian
Young Hegelians = post-Hegelian
Feuerbach = anti-Hegelian
Marx = Marx

& nietzsche?

 

[Knotted]

Neo-Kantians. (That's where Hegel puts them at least, along with Fries iirc)

Or maybe neo-Fichteans... Or whatevva.

 

[Knotted]

& nietzsche?

Post-Schopenhauer?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

& nietzsche?

neo-Schopenhauer, no?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Post-Schopenhauer?

Snap!

 

[love detective]

you know the rules of snap LBJ!

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Zizek = a nob

 

[phildwyer]

That's ironic! Unless your name is Phil Dwyer...

What do you mean ''ıt's ıronıc?''

Do you mean that Marx dıdn't thınk the commodıty was ''full of metaphysıcal subtletıes'' etc?

 

[8ball]

And the universe is back in order - this thread has been missing Phil's presence for too long.

 

[phildwyer]

Hegel doesn't seek to answer Kantian problems

Yes he does. He trıes to answer the questıon of why we cannot know the thıng-ın-ıtself.

 

[phildwyer]

Zizek's "proletariat" does not necessarily have anything to do with the working class at all!

Neıther does Marx's. Anyone who works for a wage ıs a proletarıan--even ıf that wage ıs ten mıllıon pounds a second.

 

[phildwyer]

you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel

Brıllıant. But I thınk your argument lacks a certaın jenersayquoy.

one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate

Excellent. But your case seems to be dıjıneratıng a bıt here.

 

[phildwyer]

where would we be without him

Stuck wıth just more degınerate speel I suppose.

 

[phildwyer]

that's all very nice, but doesn't bear in relation to the point being made

But ıt does bear ın relatıon to the Kantıan speel doesn't ıt? Or does ıt bear ın relatıon to the degıneratatıon?

 

[phildwyer]

what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx or not, they end up at the same place, your kantian epistemological. As whether they degenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your words, are the same. As what you described as the most important part of marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway.

But thıs ıs mere degınarate speel! It doesn't bear ın relatıon to anythıng.

What you seem to be sayıng ıs that the Kantıan epıstemelogıcal bears ın relatıon to the speel that ends up back ın the same place that was most ımportant ın Marx's speel. As whether they dıgenerate back to what you saıd was the most ımportant bıt of the speel you dıdn't say whether the relatıon was born ınto any Kantıan speel or coppıng a feel lıke the fıfth wheel underneath the ıron heel of the keel's speel. Both these thıngs.

 

[Knotted]

What do you mean ''ıt's ıronıc?''

Do you mean that Marx dıdn't thınk the commodıty was ''full of metaphysıcal subtletıes'' etc?

Marx goes on to list the origins of these "mystical properties".
1) Commodities are product of human labour
2) The manner in which the quantity and quality of labour go into making up the quantitative determination of value
3) The social character of labour

So yes the commodity has these metaphysical subtleties but the origin of these subtleties is mundane. Marx is showing how the commodity form is something really very peculiar and bound up with certain historical developments.

 

[articul8]

Yes he does. He trıes to answer the questıon of why we cannot know the thıng-ın-ıtself.

Well, only by showing how it was a false problem - it doesn't have a solution on the terms that the question is asked.

 

[Greebo]

But thıs ıs mere degınarate speel! It doesn't bear ın relatıon to anythıng.

What you seem to be sayıng ıs that the Kantıan epıstemelogıcal bears ın relatıon to the speel that ends up back ın the same place that was most ımportant ın Marx's speel. As whether they dıgenerate back to what you saıd was the most ımportant bıt of the speel you dıdn't say whether the relatıon was born ınto any Kantıan speel or coppıng a feel lıke the fıfth wheel underneath the ıron heel of the keel's speel. Both these thıngs.

Spiel FFS!