Seminar Paper: Kant and Hegel

Kant:

Immanuel Kant lived from 1724 to 1804 in East Prussia living through both the Seven Years war and the French Revolution. Rousseau and Hume were his main influences and whilst he regarded Hume as an adversary he was far more taken with both the beauty and meaning of Rousseau’s work.

Kant produced works on both philosophy and science with great interest in physical geography which can be seen in his treatise and essay on wind. However his most important scientific writings would be his ‘General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens published in 1755. Its relative importance is due to the fact it anticipated Lapace’s nebular hypothesis. This hypothesis put forward ideas for how a solar system is formed. However unlike Lapace, Kant did not put forward serious scientific arguments in its favour.

Kant wrote works pertaining to various subjects it seems whenever they were the most prominent in his mind. He wrote a treatise on wind after an earthquake in Lisbon. He produced a manuscript on mystics and metaphysics when he was troubled by sceptics and like all other writers of the day produced treatise on the beautiful and sublime.

In 1781 he published a book called ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ with the purpose to prove that whilst all knowledge is derived from experience, some knowledge is in fact a priori. He argues that such a priori knowledge is not only logical in nature but also does not belong in logic and cannot be derived from it.

He thus divides this knowledge into analytic and synthetic propositions and outlines the distinction between a priori and empirical propositions.

An analytic proposition is where the predicate is self evident and which cannot be contradicted, for example; ‘the red ball is a ball.’ Synthetic propositions are based on experience which is not our own but has been recorded or observed to be true such as history and the laws of science which are empirical propositions. Meanwhile a priori propositions are those which are initially based on experience and having been observed to be true become analytic propositions such as mathematics.

According to Kant the outer world only causes experience of sensation but our own frame of mind orders this in space and time whilst supplying the concepts we need to understand experience. Space and time itself are forms of intuition and subject a person’s perspective of the world. However the specific causes of experiences are unknowable because they are not in space and time and do not fall into Kant’s 12 categories.

A priori concepts are split into twelve categories and further divided into subsets of three and these are:

Quantity, plurality and totality
Quality, reality and negation
Relation, substance-and-accident, cause and effect and reprocity
Modality: possibility, existence and necessity

These concepts like space and time are also subjective and whilst applicable to experiences are not applicable to the things themselves which cause experience.

Logical fallacies arise when one attempts to apply space and time and/or the 12 categories of a priori concepts to things that are not experienced. These are called Antinomies which are contradicting propositions which can both be found to be true. Each antinomy is made up of a contradicting but unfalsifiable thesis and antithesis.

The four antinomies Kant details are as follows:

The first argues the world has both a beginning and no beginning and is both limited and infinite in regard to space.

The second proves every composite substance is and isn’t made up of simple parts.

The third maintains causality is only according to the laws of nature but also causality is of both the laws of nature and freedom.

The fourth both proves and disproves there is not an absolutely necessary Being.

In another section of ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ Kant takes to the task of dismantling three intellectual proofs for the existence of God, though as he points out he himself has other reasons for his belief in God.

The proofs he destroys are the ontological, cosmological and the physico-theological proof.

The ontological proof is an a priori argument that asserts that because God is considered a perfect being and because existence is perfection God must exist. Kant argues existence is not a predicate and something he can imagine can have all the same predicates of the same thing which exists. He uses this same argument to disprove the cosmological proof.

The physico-theological proof basically states the universe shows purpose which is evidence of design and where there is design there is surely a creator. Kant asserts that this only proves there is a designer, not a creator and not a God.

He goes on to state God, freedom and immortality are all ideas of reason but whilst reason leads us to form these ideas it cannot prove them to be true.

Hegel:

Hegel lived from 1770 to 1831 and his philosophy arose from what Kant had created before him.

Hegel asserted that the real is rational and the rational is real. However he does not speak of what is ‘real’ in the empirical sense. In fact he asserts nothing is completely real except the whole. The whole is akin to an organism in its complexity and what Hegel called ‘the Absolute.’ The separate things that make up the world have differing degrees of reality which is an aspect of the whole and can only be viewed properly when viewed as a whole. Therefore rationality and truth of what is real can only be obtained by viewing them as aspects of the whole.

As with his definition of what is real and rational, Hegel’s focus on logic also differs mostly from the traditionalist definition of what logic is. His idea that an ordinary predicate if taken and examined as part of the whole is self contradictory and so the whole must be examined as a whole if one is to remain rational by Hegel’s definition.

Hegel also focuses on the dialectic which is also of logic and is comprised of a thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The thesis and antithesis serve to contradict one another as seen in Kant’s antinomies but the synthesis takes the fundamentals of both the thesis and antithesis to produce the absolute which is referred to as ‘Absolute Idea.’ 

Traditional logic comes into play in Hegel’s underlying theme that truth is dependent on reality as a whole. The assumption that every proposition has a subject and a predicate means every fact relates to one thing. This however means relations are false as they consist of two things. However because the whole has no relations to anything outside of itself, any truths relating to relations inside the whole between separate things must instead relate to the whole. I.e. The whole is real and the truth but two separate things related are not. 

To understand the whole, Hegel stated it was necessary to understand the process of ideas behind it. I.e. that each new but flawed synthesis of a flawed thesis and antithesis allows our perception of reality to develop by unending correction and improvement which seems to imply that reality is only what we are able to make of it. That our continual views change the shape of our reality the question arises whether this change is ‘real’ in accordance with Hegel’s philosophy in relation to the whole. It appears that by continuing to shape what is real we will eventually be able to see the whole. That having spent our time correcting the finite we are than able to see the infinite as each perfected piece of finite reality falls into place in the whole.

Hegel states truth and fallacies are not actually obvious opposites because in his view nothing is completely false and we can’t know anything to be absolutely true. This applies to even the most basic and most self evident of facts. For example if someone were to ask; ‘what is this fruit?’ and you were to reply ‘an apple.’ You would be correct factually but not philosophically and thus there are only partial truths because only the whole is an absolute truth.

Hegel states that ultimate reality is timeless and time itself is an illusion caused by the fact we cannot see the whole. He asserts that the time process of the dialectic is from the less to the more perfect in both an ethical and logical sense in context with world history at his point in time. However he makes no distinction between the ethical and logical as logical perfection consists of the whole, unified, interdependent and working towards a single goal.

In terms of the dialectic, of nations and governments Hegel made several polarising statements. He stated that there is no freedom without law but also states wherever there is law there is freedom which essentially implies one is free if they have the freedom to obey whatever laws are imposed upon them. Such views on freedom can also be seen in his praise of Rousseau for distinguishing between the General Will and the will of all, whereby the monarchy is the embodiment of the General Will.

From his work ‘The Philosophy of History’ it could be argued Hegel had a distinct fascination with war which created a bias in his political writings, he glorifies Germany, viewing them alone as the key nation of his time to lead the world through the next stage in the dialectic. He then touts individuals who were just as important for the dialectic transitions of their time and those individuals he speaks of are all military commanders including Napoleon and Caesar. 

Further to these assertions he argues against the idea of a world government to prevent conflict as in his view war is a good thing in moderation. He argues that it preserves the morale of the people, that it is simply a natural part of the state of nature whereby states and nations need not abide by morals and politics as neither are applicable but instead the interest of each State is the highest law.

Overall the problem of examining history in relation to Hegel’s philosophy is that it is a pointless endeavour. Each part of history is but a part of the whole and one must examine the whole to gain the truth. Any other course of action such as to examine pieces of history will not only be irrational but any conclusion drawn will not be real or true because only the whole is truth.

Romanticisim and Prometheus

Prometheus was entrusted with moulding mankind out of clay. However his attempts to better the lives of his creation brought him into conflict with Zeus when he stole fire from heaven and delivered it to men. As a punishment for his actions Prometheus was bound to a stake on Mt Kaukasos where an eagle fed upon his liver each day.

Prometheus’s attempts to better mankind saw him adopted as the God of Romanticism.

As the creator of mankind and the bringer of fire he served as an inspiration to many romanticist artists.

Such artists include:

-Ludwig Van Beethoven and his ‘The creatures of Prometheus’ in 1801

-Lord Bryon’s ‘Prometheus 1816

-Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein 1818

-Percy Bysshe Shelley’s ‘Prometheus Unbound’ 1820

Romanticism itself was a general Euro-American movement arising out of the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries with Prometheus touted as the champion of oppressed human kind.

He was a god who embodies the spirit of liberty, egality fraternity from the French revolution of 1789.

Percy Shelley’s letter to Lord Bryon in 1816 stated that the ‘The French revolution is the master theme of the epoch in which we live.’

Ozymandias

I met a Traveler from an antique land,
Who said, "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings."
Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

‘Ozymandias’ is a sonnet which displays Percy Shelley’s own political Prometheanism. His Promethean revolutionary spirit is infused with his 1818 sonnet Ozymandias which is also known as ‘Rameses II.’ The sonnet was composed between the 26^th and 28^th of December following a visit to the Brtish Museum where he saw the large Ozymandias statue which inspired the sonnet. 

The sonnet itself actually mocks Ozymandias and the heart of the sonnet speaks of the connection between poet and sculpter. It articulates a critique of imperial power in the name of revolutionary art via its account of Egypt’s power in similar light to the imperial power of the British Empire at the time. For example Percy had first been inspired to write the poem by seeing an Egyptian artefact in a British museum.

Aesthetic Promethianism:

The aspect of the Promethian myth to do with Prometheus’s making and creating served to inspire romanticist writers such as Joh Keats with his ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ composed May 1819 and published in 1820. This is another example of a writing inspired by an artefact in the British museum, this time a townly vase.

Ode on a Grecian Urn

THOU still unravish'd bride of quietness,

Thou foster-child of Silence and slow Time,

Sylvan historian, who canst thus express

A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:

What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape

Of deities or mortals, or of both,

In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?

What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?

What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?

What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard

Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;

Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,

Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:

Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave

Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;

Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,

Though winning near the goal—yet, do not grieve;

She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,

For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed

Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;

And, happy melodist, unwearièd,

For ever piping songs for ever new;

More happy love! more happy, happy love!

For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd,

For ever panting, and for ever young;

All breathing human passion far above,

That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy'd,

A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.

Who are these coming to the sacrifice?

To what green altar, O mysterious priest,

Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,

And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?

What little town by river or sea-shore,

Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,

Is emptied of its folk, this pious morn?

And, little town, thy streets for evermore

Will silent be; and not a soul, to tell

Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.

O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede

Of marble men and maidens overwrought,

With forest branches and the trodden weed;

Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought

As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!

When old age shall this generation waste,

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

This ode was an opportunity for Keats to demonstrate his poetic skills in the process of celebrating the very artistry of the Grecian Urn. He uses finely tuned personification and artificially alternating line length to show his creativity. 

The ode is another typical romanticist work of protest at the appeared devaluation of art in an industrialist civilisation.

Wolstencraft - A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

From the outset of her manuscript Mary Wollstonecraft seems to agree with the assertion that women are naturally weak but that they are further degraded by circumstance which is the fault of society.

She argues for the independences of women, that they do not simply exist for the benefit of men.

She argues the large differences between gender roles are the fault of education because education teaches and develops each gender for their specific gender role in life which they take without question.

The opportunity to pursue an intellectual career is not only denied to women but writers argue that with few exceptions women are simply not able to pursue an intellectual role in life.

Later in the text she remarks upon the fact that men are thoroughly prepared for professions, all their energy is directed at their goals with pleasure only as relaxation. In contrast women seek pleasure continuously and attempt to marry advantageously. 

Such differences digress into the mental states and patterns of thinking for both sexes. Men are destination orientated whereas women focus on the journey and on what Wollstonecraft calls trivialities which prevent ‘dignity of the mind.’

However overall she states the government is the most at fault for such diverse gender differences by creating many obstacles that impede women who despite all prejudges pursue understanding and reason from the beginning.

Many women who understand their place in society use their beauty to get by and thus are treated with hollow respect for it which inevitably means their cries for equality are ignored. However in regard to equality women are revered by men for their beauty and thus these women are exalted by their place and focus on their looks and thus give up virtue. Because they are taught to please man they only look to please man.

Wollstonecraft also hates the chivalrous nature of men and thinks such actions such as to close a door for a woman systematically degrades such women because they are supposedly and insultingly supporting their own superiority by doing so.

She asserts that whilst men require ability and virtue to rise above the middle class women are effectively born rich and are not so inclined to work for what is beyond their minimum duty.

She continues by arguing there is no case where women have seized respect through admirable ability and virtue.

She states women are governed by emotion which not only produces an anxious disposition but can be troublesome to others. Such examples can be seen in novels music and other media she says.

Through amiable weakness women become dependent on men not only for protection but also reason and must look to man for every comfort.

Rousseau stated: ‘Educate women like men and the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us.’ Mary Wollstonecraft agrees with this statement greatly as she wants women to have power over themselves not over men. 

On the subject of child rearing she states that whilst society leaves children to the care of women they are actually unfit for this task as they are ruled by their feelings and this will create a child of spoiled tempter. Management of temper is the first most important branch of education Wollstonecraft states and thus requires a mind of reason to achieve this which women do not possess.

Mary Wollstonecraft argues men and women should not have their sensations heightened through sheer apathy at the expense of their understanding. 

Men have used arguments deduced from nature to morally and physically degrade the female sex.

For example the idea of a woman maturing faster than men is based on the prejudges of men that judges beauty as the measure of perfection in women.

She states the ideals of polygamy mean women are inferior to men in the fact one man has many women.

However despite her disagreements with polygamy she also has problems with marriage. Whilst she respects the institution of marriage as the foundation of most social virtues she also feels marriage secludes women from sensations that improve the heart and mind.

She argues the obedience of women in marriage falls under this description because the mind never exerts its own powers having been weakened by depending on authority.

On the subjects of friendship and love Wollstonecraft states friendship is the most sublime of affections because it is founded on principle and cemented by time. Whereas love is the reverse and for that reason they cannot coexist but instead destroy one another.