Comparing Hegel, Marx, Kant's Views on Pantheism Essay

Kant argued that to have an idealist sociology, the natural world and the social world must be separated (Walsh, 180). Idealism is built based on reality. We only know something because we were taught that and were told it was true. Kant believed that all knowledge is universal. He believed that if one culture or society believed something, all the rest believed it as well. Kant had a very objective view of reality and idealism (Schaffer, 2017). Kant believed that humans have a unique source of knowledge and insight into knowing. He argued that each human was born with the ability to be rational. No matter if the individual chose to be

Hegel's philosophy of History, on of the greatest in the philosophy cannon, is the great philosophers greatest body of work. The philosophy of History is based on such ideals as the idea that Reason rules history. George Hegel used Immanuel Kant's system of

German philosophers Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) have traditionally been viewed as polar opposites in terms of their philosophy. Hegel has been dubbed an idealist and a systematic philosopher who identified various different types of History, theoretical entities and concepts. Nietzsche, on the other hand, is seen to be a counter-Enlightenment and counter-systematic philosopher who penned the well-known text, ‘Genealogy of Morals’. In this essay, I aim to bring to light the underlying similarities between the two thinkers that have previously been overlooked, as well as to identify the differences in Hegel and Nietzsche’s ideologies and presuppositions.

And Kant is in a certain extent joint the two point of view. Kant believe that knowledge is the human sensory and rational through at the same time. Experience is necessary to produce knowledge, but is not the only factor. Change the experience into knowledge, we need rational (Kant call it "category"), and the rational is the talent. Human through the category framework to get outside experience, you cannot perceive the world if you do not have category. Therefore category and experience are both the necessary conditions to get knowledge. But some human category can change to the factor to the concept of the world, Kant realized that the things is difference to what are people can see, people can never knowing what are the things true colors.

The truth behind metaphysics is a consistent stream of changing ideas which involves thoughts on what existence really is. Kant, unlike many metaphysicians tries to not include an outside aspect that is intrinsically linked to existence, leading to patterns of this form of thinking that continues even to contemporary philosophers. As a transcendental idealist, he molds two schools of thought into one, expanding the capability of what metaphysics is able to ponder, while also eliminating nonscientific approaches to these questions, because those explanations are always lacking empirical substance. On the surface of Kantian metaphysics, it seems as though all hope is lost in respect to the evaluation of the impact metaphysics has on objective thought. However, this is not the case, by using synthetic a priori knowledge one will be able to jettison oneself from the spectacles

Kant begins by considering how metaphysics could be determined. This would involve figuring its object, sources of cognition, and /or type of cognition. Firstly, metaphysics must be non-empirical, and its principles and basic ideas must not be derived from experience. Thus, metaphysics must be a-priori cognition “coming from pure understanding and pure reason”. It is distinguished

He claims that without sensibility we cannot have intuition, therefore understanding cannot be a faculty of intuition. He prescribes a transcendental deduction to explain which concepts can relate a priori to objects. Along with the transcendental deduction Kant introduces his concepts of phenomena, the world as it appears to us, the world we can touch, taste, and perceive with noumena, the way in which the world is in itself, what the world looks like when no one is looking. All of these concepts set up the concept of reflection and how it is true that people learn to understand the world around them and do not just know it inherently like Leibniz advocates for. The phenomenal and noumenal worlds develop the transcendental self which possesses the cognitive ability to generate the kind of experience humans possess. Through understanding that the noumena are taken and put together into sensibility into the experiences we have. This presents space and time as mental phenomena, a production of the mind and denies that space exists without the human experience. Much like Leibniz’s account of space and time in the pre-established harmony and the monadology. The key to distinguishing the difference between Leibnizian accounts of perception and Kant’s view of

Immanuel Kant's theory of knowledge has been one of the most influential in modern Western philosophy. His basic premise is that we do not experience the world directly, but we do so by using certain intrinsic cognitive concepts. “Appearances, to the extent that as objects they are thought in accordance with the unity of categories, are called phenomena. If, however, I suppose there to be things that are merely objects of the understanding and that, nevertheless, can be given an intuition, although not to sensible intuition, then such things would be called noumena.” (A249) According to Kant, it is crucial to make a distinction between

Kant starts off making two distinctions regarding kinds of knowledge, empirical/rational and formal/material. Empirical or experience-based knowledge is contrasted with rational knowledge, which is independent of experience. This distinction between empirical and rational knowledge rests on a difference in sources of evidence used to support the two different kinds of knowledge. Formal is contrasted with material knowledge. Formal knowledge has no specific subject matter; it is about the general structure of thinking about any subject matter whatsoever. Material knowledge is of a specific subject matter, either nature or freedom. Rational knowledge is metaphysics, of which there are two branches, the metaphysics of

Kant began to examine pure ‘a priori' reason by establishing his critique. He stated that there are boundaries and contents. He set out to find what is inside the limitations and what is outside. Kant examined the three bodies of knowledge: math, physical science and metaphysics. Kant said that science must have necessity and universality. This places math and science within reason. Kant first divided judgement into two kinds of knowledge- analytic and synthetic. In the Prolegomena, Kant criticized Hume for having regarded mathematical

Marx became cynical of the German government and Hegel’s philosophy agreeing with the writings of Feuerbach which criticised the writings of Hegel.

Hegel disagrees with some of Kant’s ideas regarding morality and social institutions. Hegel believes that our right is depended on rational institutions and that people cannot fathom maximal freedom due to the confusion of how it is truly achieved, while Kant thinks that the construction of social institution ought to maximize personal freedom under the universal law.

Immanuel Kant is a German philosopher of the 18th century, one of the most important representatives of the German Enlightenment, and a forerunner of the main elements of the idealist philosophy. He had established two great theories in contrast to each other: one concerning knowledge, and the other concerning morality. At the end of the Critique if Practical Reason, there is clearly a strong opposition to the conclusion of the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant’s attempt in the Critique of Judgment is just to correct these contradictions. With this work, Kant deals with themes, such as those of beauty and art, absent in the two previous critiques. However, he formulates decisive theses about the subject’s transcendental structure and the reconciling,

The world conforms to our modes of knowing and we know it only as it appears to us. According to Kant, our knowledge begins with experience but does not arise out of experience ; experience is already determined by the subject’s a priori modes of knowledge. In other words, the objects of experience are already conditioned by the subject’s constitution and what human reason knows as necessary and universal is what it has already put into experience. Simply, that means all our experience is synthetically produced and he locates the origin of these productions in our faculties. To wit, we can only know what we produce as a condition of our

His ideas can be interpreted and reformulated according to the new philosophical apparatus. Wilhelm Windelband, for instance, advises us to capitalise Hegel's philosophy, even if we don’t agree about the validity of the whole system. He expresses the hope that “the as yet untouched treasures of the Hegelian philosophy may speedily be explored. And the explorer will be wise if he not merely follows the continuous march of the main argument, but makes it his special business to examine those pregnant germs of thought which he will there find scattered in such abundant measure” . In the case of Marx, Hegel's influence is much stronger. Although he renounces, from the outset, at the project of a unitary system, he is not content to adopt only some few isolated results but grounds his critical apparatus by including substantial speculative methodological elements. We intend to elucidate, in the following, of which type the relationship between the two dialectical models is: opposition, complementarity or