>From my brief reading about thesis, antithesis and synthesis and my sense of where Kant would have been coming from, this was all about working from a thesis and its negation toward developing a better thesis about the subject. So the evaluation of fuzzy logic, while it might play a role in this process, would not be the goal. Jim Bromer
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > I remember reading Kant and he did use the basic > thesis-antithesis-synthesis in the Critique of Pure Reason. Hegel > picked up that theme and made it the fundamental scheme of his > ontology. The official accounts of Hegel by scholars are one thing, > but remember reading Hegel is another thing. The Science of Logic is > a book of extreme obscurity and subject to interpretation of wide > degrees. I spent two long years on it, about 2 hours every day. > Hegel basically starts out with fairly simple opposites, but he > advances in a series of brutally obfuscating steps to the increasingly > mind-dependent, and he does certainly venture into the middle ground. > His "illusory being" is a mind-dependent "nullity" -- he is basically > saying as far as I can determine that we may hold some determinate > value for something, but we also hold its other, opposite, and also > all values that it COULD be. Remember, again, that it is more or less > impossible to give a definite account of what the f he really meant... > Mike A > > On 11/1/15, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>> Wikipedia says, "Hegel used the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" idea only >>> once, and >>> he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was >>> largely >>> developed by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, also an advocate of the philosophy >>> identified as German idealism. Although Hegel rejected the Fichtean >>> schema, it is >>> at least arguable that his dialectic can be described in Fichtean terms." >>> The thesis-antithesis idea is referred to in a Stanford Encyclopedia of >>> Philosophy >>> article about Kant. >>> Jim Bromer >>> >> >> Thanks for setting us straight on that Jim. >> >> So then we might rather say Hegelians use Being, Nothing, then Becoming >> whereas Neutrosophians(?) use Being, Nothing, NeutroBeing then >> NeutroBecoming. >> >> Or would it be NeutroNothing verses NeutroBeing. Either I guess. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
