MMMFFPPHH!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I went to a Hegel lecture.
I realize I hate an entire generation of German philosophers.

Point being, Kant's whole autonomous rational individual doesn't exist, at least not in the sense he means it, and he needs to get kicked.

Bourgeois.
Kant was the inspiration for the German bourgeois philosophers. Hegel and his contemporaries were like the French Liberals of the central powers (only they were fucked up authoritarian nightmare-states, as far as my understanding goes).

[Angry Young Man]

how did kant inspire bourgeois? that makes no sense. in my understanding, deontology is a very liberal left-wing philosophy as it says not to use anybody as a means to an end, and believes that you should help people out of duty. now plato: he was EXTREMELY right-wing (in retrospect, as there were no such terms in athens). anyways, kant inspired hegel, whom marx corrected, so no kant, no marx, no che lives forum. are you studying philosophy at any level. im at alevel.

[Guest1]

I'm confused.

But yes, Hegel very much used his dialectics to justify the status quo. But he's a victim of his own philosophy, he's been swallowed by progress, his idealism and reactionary inclinations spit out, and what was left of his ideas reemerged on a higher level :lol:

Oh, the hilarity.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:09 PM
how did kant inspire bourgeois? that makes no sense. in my understanding, deontology is a very liberal left-wing philosophy as it says not to use anybody as a means to an end, and believes that you should help people out of duty. now plato: he was EXTREMELY right-wing (in retrospect, as there were no such terms in athens). anyways, kant inspired hegel, whom marx corrected, so no kant, no marx, no che lives forum. are you studying philosophy at any level. im at alevel.
If anything, it draws heavily from the classical tradition of Plato and its bizzare, dichotomous view of the world. Kant's emphasis on the idea of autonomous rational being (alienable from the historically real person) is bourgeois individualism at it's friggin' finist. And the catagorical imperitive? I mean, the whole idea of universalizability is . . . no, I'm getting sidetracked.

As to "No Kant means no Hegel, and, thus, no Marx" - that's rediculous. Marx analysed the reality of capital, and IF HE HADN'T, SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE. I mean, fuck this great men nonsense.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:09 PM
deontology is a very liberal left-wing philosophy as it says not to use anybody as a means to an end, and believes that you should help people out of duty.

I don't think this is what Virgin Molotov Cocktail is attacking. He is attacking Kant's notion that there is this "isolated" individual that exists independently of external reality, i.e., societal influence, environment, historical influence, etc.

[gilhyle]

Its important to remember Kant, Hegel and Marx were all writing in Germany, which was a very backward country at the time (with the RHine industrial zone as a unique exception). For Kant, capitalism was nothing more than an idea he occasionally read about in English political economy. IT was all just an intellectual exercise for him and his consciousness was essentially that of the moraliser. For Hegel, Kant's autonomous agent was rubbish.

WHat is interesting about Hegel is that he was ahead of philosophy since in the depth of his rejection of individualism.

As to the idea that someone else would have done it......you know, I doubt it. 'Accidents will happen' and Karl Marx was an historical accident and without Hegel he couldn't have put thing the way he did.

Some might say that would be better, since so much of what he says relies on an intellectual architecture that is alien to just about everyone today.

The number of so-called Marxists of many years standing who can't Capital or cant get past Volume One and who couldn't even begin on the Grundrisse, is immense. That is because it is arcane - however incredible.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Oct 18 2005, 04:12 AM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Oct 18 2005, 04:12 AM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 06:09 PM
how did kant inspire bourgeois? that makes no sense. in my understanding, deontology is a very liberal left-wing philosophy as it says not to use anybody as a means to an end, and believes that you should help people out of duty. now plato: he was EXTREMELY right-wing (in retrospect, as there were no such terms in athens). anyways, kant inspired hegel, whom marx corrected, so no kant, no marx, no che lives forum. are you studying philosophy at any level. im at alevel.
If anything, it draws heavily from the classical tradition of Plato and its bizzare, dichotomous view of the world. Kant's emphasis on the idea of autonomous rational being (alienable from the historically real person) is bourgeois individualism at it's friggin' finist. And the catagorical imperitive? I mean, the whole idea of universalizability is . . . no, I'm getting sidetracked.

As to "No Kant means no Hegel, and, thus, no Marx" - that's rediculous. Marx analysed the reality of capital, and IF HE HADN'T, SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE. I mean, fuck this great men nonsense. [/b]
deontology contradicts plato, as kant is about the individual (not necessarily a right-wing belief), whereas plato believed that one direction was good for all, as it was the decision of philosophers.
in what way is kant right wing. he said not to use ANYBODY as a means to your own end, but everyone as an end in their own right.

[Guest1]

I think it's a pointless argument to ask whether or not someone else would have come to those conclusions.

I think it's pretty likely those conclusions would have been arrived at similarly, perhaps at a later time, but we can't pose "what if" questions like that.

I didn't make the argument that without kant or hegel there would have been no Marx, but I did make the argument that in a kant or a hegel there is a bit of truth which finds itself expressed in a later stage of the ideas, brought up by someone else.

Much like we can't say Newton was useless, simply because he mechanized science, thereby turning the study of living processes into the study of dead portions of the universe taken in isolated and abstract form.

His contribution was incredibly important, and from those ideas came the next stage of Einstein, which swung the penduluum far the other way. And now we have an idealistic and relativist interpretation of science, but that in itself has the seeds for the next set of ideas, which are now coming out of chaos theory and complexity.

Anyways, Hegel was basically correct in his dialectics, but had turned it upside down to force it to conform to his idealist slant. That is why he ends up supporting the status quo, killing the revolutionary character of his ideas.

[gilhyle]

You are correct.

[BANANARAMA]

ya ok mon you guys want revolution?

[Guest1]

What the hell?

[Delirium]

Kant stated that you should treat everyones own well being as paramount to your own. And the only measure of morality is good will. This is contrary to what the bourgeois are. The accumilation of money certinly cannont stem from good will.