/lit/ - Literature

How could something 'outside the empirical realm' 'perceive and produce' phenomena?

hegel
>halfassed metaphysical wankery within a fixed system of time
guenon
>time is no object, the temporal, phenomenal world is an outflow and manifestation of an unseen metaphysical reality that forms the origin and basis of the material, historical reality human beings perceive with their five senses. It has been pointed out by several authors

Because the forms are found immanently in our nous not floating around in space by themselves, the thing-in-itself doesn't exist

>>13589106
No, he only refuted dogmatists.
Dogmatists started from the Thing-in-itself.
Kant recognized that you can't access Thing-in-itself except through the representation, thus refuting the dogmatists.
Hegel didn't regress to the dogmatic position (which is what would make your charge correct). He only remarked that when you posit a Thing-in-itself beyond representation through NOTHING BUT the negation of this representation, you have no ground to claim that you're pointing to anything beyond. All you're pointing to is just the negativity inherent in the representation itself.

>>13589106
>>13589550
>Hegel's reproach to Kant (and at the same time to the Jewish religion) is, on the contrary, that it is Kant himself who still remains a prisoner of the field of representation. Precisely when we determine the Thing as a transcendent surplus beyond what can be represented, we determine it on the basis of the field of representation, starting from it, within its horizon, as its negative limit: the (Jewish) notion of God as radical Otherness, as unrepresentable, still remains the extreme point of the logic of representation.
>But here again, the Hegelian approach can give way to misunderstanding if we read it as an assertion that—in opposition to Kant, who tries to reach the Thing through the very breakdown of the field of phenomena, by driving the logic of representation to its utmost—in dialectical speculation, we must grasp the Thing 'in itself', from itself, as it is in its pure Beyond, without even a negative reference or relationship to the field of representation. This is not Hegel's position: the Kantian criticism has here done its job and if this were Hegel's position, Hegelian dialectics would effectively entail a regression into the traditional metaphysics aiming at an immediate approach to the Thing. Hegel's position is in fact 'more Kantian than Kant himself'—it adds nothing to the Kantian notion of the Sublime; it merely takes it more literally than Kant himself.
>Hegel's position is, in contract, that there is nothing beyond phenomenality, beyond the field of representation. The experience of radical negativity, of the radical inadequacy of all phenomena to the Idea, the experience of the radical fissure between the two—this experience is already Idea itself as 'pure', radical negativity. Where Kant thinks that he is still dealing only with a negative presentation of the Thing, we are already in the midst of the Thing-in-itself—for this Thing-in-itself is nothing but this radical negativity. In other words—in a somewhat overused Hegelian speculative twist—the negative experience of the Thing must change into the experience of the Thing-in-itself as radical negativity. The experience of the Sublime thus remains the same: all we have to do is to subtract its transcendent presupposition—the presupposition that this experience indicates, in a negative way, some transcendent Thing-in-itself persisting in its positivity beyond it. In short, we must limit ourselves to what is strictly immanent to this experience, to pure negativity, to the negative self-relationship of the representation.

>>13589550
good answer

>>13589550
>>13589554
Excuse me for being a huge brainlet, but what exactly is negativity ?

>>13589554

Absolutely Christological and literally Philosophical.

>>13589633
read Hegel

>>13590019
Yeah, usual answer.

>>13590191
I mean it was pretty much his whole project, check out the first encyclopedia he has some interesting points defining negativity

>>13590199
Could you possibly explain just some of those points here ?

>>13589276
Will you just fuck off already