1. Hegel is a pantheist, meaning that he believes that every tng to eather comes to being God. Subsequently he believes that everythenig is one, mena tin gt at reason and reality actually are the same thing, fuirtheremore Hegel belie vst that reality is reason, this is his “first Principle.” In contrast to this Kant believes that all we really know are our pers c = ep tions of the real (Nominal world) and tat we cannot really know anything ao but the real world. So our reason, though it lets us perceive reality it in fact changes reality, so our reason is not our reality. This is why Kant believes that reason isn’t our first principle, and that we cannot in fact know the true first principle. I said earlier that Hegel was a pantheist.
This is true. He believes that all of reality is moving toward a specif ce goal, this goal is ever being pushed towards the better. An example of this that comes into society comes well with the ideas of thesis, antithesis, and finally a synthesis that combine the too in such a way as to make the argument null and vid. A good example of this can be found in Christianity. We look at the problems we have with God and the Human soul. God is everlasting and unchanging he is also perfect, the human soul is distinctly human, it is changeable.
What can possibly make it so that these to can communccre Well the anse ww is Jesus Christ, he was the synthesis between God and humans, being that Jesus was both God and man at the same time. So we are all moving towards a specific goal, and the ore we learn the closer we get and eventually we will arrive, once we have learned enough we will come to the realization that we are all part of this Consousness. The problem with this is that this means that there cannot be anything in metaphysics so there is no god and our souls are just anther on of the ideas that we will have to let go in or ede rot come to the realization that we are all just part of this world spirit. Kant believes that evertythnging is the nouminal world, and the we are perscieveing theis nouminal wourld though our lens which we call reason (Or concepts).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I am grateful to the Almighty God for establishing me to complete this project. I wish to express my sincere thanks to SOTERO H. LAUREL Librarians, for providing me with all the necessary facilities and books that I need to be able to carefully analyze all the topics that have been discuss in philosophy of human existence. I also thank Professor Josefina C. Perez, one ...
We then use our senses to interpret what we are percieveing. He came to this conclusion when he was trying ot find a synthesis between hume and De scares. Descartes was wrong in his thinking, or at least is is evident that there is something missing from his rationalist thinking. Kant used to believe this but after reading the empirist remarks of Hume he began to see the need for use of our sensory perceptions within reality as well. So the synthesis is that all knowledge comes from the combination of concepts and intuitions (reason and sensory perceptions), without reason we would have no lens to perceive what the nominal wourld is telling us, and without senses we would have no way of understanding what our reason is telling us.
But even with this we need to remember that the best that we can do is perceive what is, but that does not determine what something is, the nominal would exists beyond our perception and is still a mystery. This leaves open room for metaphysics, because God, and our souls can still exist beyond our plain of sensory, or reason. 2. both Kierkegaard and Marx disagreed with hegels philiosphy. Kierkegaard Thought that Hegel was full of it because Keirgkegaard did not believe that history was a divi driving force behind nature, he also believe that there is free will, we are not a subordinate to the matrix type idea that Hegel believes in. Kierkegaard is also not a pantheist, he believes that our purpose on this earth is not to reach athe end goal of realizing that we are all part of one this, but rather that we are here on earth for the purpose of becoming what God wants us to be.
Professor Foltz 20 th Ce. Philosophy Nietzsche, Marx, and Kierkegaard Zarathustra is always a favorite, with the ringing of God is dead throughout the mountains. Re-evaluating our idols, discovering the significance of their dethroning and how it relates to the intricate web that we create for our lives. Zarathustra, holy man in his blasphemy, ushering in a new era where the last men are ...
Hegel doesn’t even leave room for God in his Philosophy. This is not to say that K is wholeheartedly against Hegels every word, Kierkegaard agrees with Hele gl as for as the Astetic, ethic, and religious sages of life are concerned, we are moving on in our lives to wrd becoming better, keirkegaard beleive better things for god, and so does hegel, think is that hegels go d is a wold univers, kirk’s god is an o minix 3 bei gnd. Describe how we go from love affair, to marriage, to love with god. This also brings around another similarity ghe tween this too bphilosphers, that fact that hey both belive in the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis concept, go on to describe this. Marx’s views were often contrary to Hegels as well, this mainly had to do with the Fact that Hegels view made little or no contribution to the martial world, and Marx firmly believed that the material world was all that matter. Marx believed that Philosophy was unless, it was pointless to ponder the what if’s or reality we we have so much to deal with with reality it ” self.
Marx bleived that the only good philosophy was one that was ment to change the world, and he believed that his -philosophy ws the one that would do this. There are only really two major pts. Of over lab between helge and marx, Marx believed that history was an important part in the philsopheey that once is trying ot instill, the second harsh concept that both believed firmly in was that the ends justifies the means, this is because in the end we well be better for it, Hegel thinks that we will progress a little more towards that goal that reality is trying to obtain, and Marx ble ives that if it makes you life better in the long run, the nit is something that you should do now, the short run. 3. I learned a term in my 3 years of Spanish that I beleive can be used as a way to describe the similarity of these two philophers statements. The phrase is false cognate.
A cognate is a word that sounds the same in two languages and means the same thing in both, such as no and no in English and Spanish. As false cognate is two words that sound (look) the same but mean something different, saber and saber, in english it’s a sword, in Spanish it’s a verb, to know a fact. In Nietzsche saying that we are to become who we are means something completely different that Kierkegaard’s saying be willin to be oneself. Nietzsche is as ying tha we are to become Overman. Nietzsche things that we all should strive to become the best we can, and that we should do this for our own personal good.
Karl Marx: A Life. Francis Wheen. New York: Norton, 1999. 431 pp There were only 11 mourners at Karl Marx s funeral in Highgate cemetery on March 17 th 1883, but within a hundred years of his death governments that professed Marxism as their guiding faith ruled half the world s population. Not since Jesus Christ has an obscure pauper inspired such global devotion or so been so calamitously ...
We are to give up though of an afterlife, we are to be healthy in mind and body, and we are to think firstly of ourselves, being that we are the best we are. We are to strive to become this perfect person that we all want to be, only our weakness brings us down. Nietzsche is saying tah everyitng we do is an efforts to better ourselves two rsd athe goal of becoming overman. From his nihilistic point of view Nietzsche says that we are not to despair if we fall short, but that we should push push push towards the goal of becoming overman, because that is all there is, and that is the only nobel thing to be. Kierkegaard is saying that we are to be willing to be on self. We are to try to be the one that God is trying to make us.
We are to do this out of our natural love for god and that we are doing in because this is what inside us is telling us is right. To do this we must look to the teachings of the bible which tell us to be humble, righto uss, and to help those in need. This will lead us to be that which god has designed for us to be and this is what we are striving for. Kiekegaard is saying that we are going through the astetic, ethical, and religious steps in order to better society by being that which God wants us to be. Kiekegaard is saying that his attempt will ead us to a life of despair, because we will never match up to the goal set in front of us.
But that this is good because in the midst of this we have in fact become the best we can, and we have become what God wants us to be.