saying it is necessary to prove something to someone, the logic, you are assuming (without proof) that the right ratio is actually over. You, too, performs an act of faith, have faith in the ratio over, would not you ask a demonstration in accordance with the classical ratio (the ratio over, that up to Kant). Hegel can not prove his philosophy in accordance with the ratio over, for it would be useless to try to disprove something that is already in the introduction, that is in the method of demonstration. It makes no sense if you could prove that the reason is endless, starting from the assumption that the reason given is over, because they demonstrate, the logic means to assume without proof that the reason is over. But he does not separate the finite from the infinite, because if the mind sees them separate means that were originally uniti.Altrimenti if they were completely separated, the intellect can not see them separated, because he could not compare them. And 'the understanding between them.
show you everything, but does not demonstrate the postulate on which the parties, ie the ratio is over. The finite intellect can not grasp the contradiction that I have explained, precisely because it embraces the view of the absolute. And why not embrace it? Why take for granted not only that a = a, but also that everything that is not is absolutely other than a. For example, says finished = finished, all that is done is completely different from the finite. In this way separates finite and infinite, who are united in reason. And 'the dialectic of reason that can uncover and resolve the contradictions of the intellect, thus continuing to affirm itself as absolute reason.
0 comments:
Post a Comment