So, after Hegel finished his criticism, he was already hinting at us, why should I pursue absolute knowledge? The starting point of absolute knowledge is to reject this distinction. There is no world we know and the world itself. The world we know is the world itself, and such knowledge is of course absolute knowledge.
So, Hegel is a remarkable figure who came up with his own philosophical goals by criticizing Kant or facing the dilemma of modern dualism and skepticism.
So, when I want to write an interesting and original philosophical work, I'm afraid it depends on whether it raises a real question, and the question is indeed left to him by history. Hegel's question still troubles us today, whether we know the world itself or only our experience. This is a very real question.
I think we have a lot of questions about philosophy now, why can't we write books that truly touch people's hearts and make us feel stimulated at once.
For example, in modern China, there are also some philosophers, such as Feng Youlan, whose books may not sound good, but they have a strong interest in you. Perhaps the problem is not stimulating enough. Is it difficult to read books? Heidegger's books are considered difficult, but there are still many people who cannot understand and still have to read them. Why?
Because I feel that his problem is real, I still have to read it even if I can't understand it.
Due to my work, I have met many people in society who are not engaged in cultural work at all. They are doing business and how they are doing it. They are really hardworking in reading these books, even if they don't understand. If there are such people, they are interested in them. Of course, they often end up with no positive results because they don't receive guidance from famous teachers. However, people are really strange things. They are interested in the unknown and the real problems. He couldn't understand the whole book, but he could feel that the issues being discussed here were real and meaningful, rather than optional. Just make you feel interested.
In the introduction to Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel begins to revise Kant's epistemology by attacking the dualism and distinction. If knowledge is a tool, it will inevitably distort the operation of reality in various ways. Therefore, we cannot understand reality itself, but can only understand it as it is manipulated and distorted by the tools of knowledge.
If we insist on the dualism, we must inevitably come to a conclusion. What we can only recognize is a conclusion distorted by tools, which can only be understood in one way or another. Therefore, we or rather, we have no choice but to rely on human support to understand things, and cannot directly face things themselves, because at least we need an intermediary. Kant has already made this intermediary very clear. Firstly, it is the intuitive way of perception, and secondly, the various categories of intelligence. We cannot throw away these, and throwing away would result in no knowledge.
This is the fundamental idea in Kant's first critique. His Copernican style revolution advocates that we can only understand him under the condition of knowledge plus reality. In other words, we can only understand reality through intermediaries. There is no other way, only through such intermediaries. What philosophers can do is to explore the essence of the tool itself?
This is Kant's fundamental idea of proving what conditions he, as an intermediary, imposed on reality. Kant made it very clear that this was discussed in the First Critique.
Therefore, Hegel said that in his view, Kant's critique of pure reason abandons the pursuit of absolute reality, that is, the things themselves. This does not wrong Kant. Kant is known for speaking without discussing, and we cannot understand him. Kant's first critique studies the tools we use to understand reality, that is, our human reason. This is very clear. Hegel is not exaggerating at all here, and Kant does think about the nature, characteristics, essence, and structure of the tools we use to solve problems. The main task of the entire first critique is this one.
But Hegel asked, why do we have to accept, like tools, like intermediaries, that these are the qualities that a philosopher should have? Why?
Are you right? We can only accept this view of knowledge. Hegel said that Kant never examined and maintained the starting point of the field. Where is his basis?
He didn't think about the problem, Hegel said sorry. In my opinion, the starting point itself is flawed, or the metaphorical basis is flawed. He, or rather, using him as the starting point for our understanding, is flawed and problematic. Hegel considered that others might say that we, or Kant, would be wrong. If we were alive, he might answer this way. The reason why I want to do this is because I am afraid of making mistakes. "To do a good job, one must first sharpen one's tools." I have not yet figured out the tools, and if I use them to do it, I may make mistakes. Therefore, I want to do this by first clarifying my own means, so that we can avoid mistakes.
Hegel, of course, asked himself and answered himself. If Kant had such a rebuttal to defend himself, why would I do so? It's because I'm afraid of making mistakes. Only by clarifying the tools in my hands can I have confidence in not making mistakes when doing things.
Hegel famously said: If this kind of black fear of making mistakes is a form of distrust towards science that starts working and actually understands without such concerns, we do not understand why we should not reverse this distrust?.
In Hegel's view, our actual scientific understanding is one thing, and if we don't want these problems, we should go and understand them. And if you don't trust such a practice, we can ask why we don't trust you and why can't we express our distrust?
So, Hegel's problem of understanding in place is actually an existing problem. And when it comes to us, I absolutely cannot say that I am unreliable. You have to do that because knowing each other is like breathing and drinking water, it's something we humans have to do. As long as you live in the world, to borrow Heidegger's words, this is our basic way of existence, without intermediaries, that is the starting point. This is what you have to do. It is right for scientists to do this, and I have done it directly. If you feel distrustful of this kind of starting directly from existence, why can't we distrust you?
Hegel truly completed an important turn here, which modern philosophy has regarded as such for 300 years. At that time, our teacher's modern philosophy was epistemology. In fact, before Hegel, many philosophers did think so, but they didn't either. This is what we Chinese learned. However, you have focused your main work on the issue of understanding, and the reason why this problem has not been resolved for a long time and ultimately leads to a ironic collapse is skepticism and agnosticism. At the end of the day, the problem lies in his wrong starting point. The starting point is not epistemology itself, but at the level of human existence in order to discuss problems.
So, when he talks about absolute knowledge, why is it absolute? It means not asking for reasons anymore. He is the ultimate basis, which is called absolute. It starts from the fact of existence itself to understand. This is a very important revolution, but Hegel made a significant contribution to the problem. I always feel that so far, he has not talked about it enough, just casually. Of course, some people say that he turned epistemological problems into problems of existence, but his significance is really worth further thinking about.
Hegel believed that Kant, starting from the study of knowledge, had already determined the critical result of his first critique. Once we introduce the object of knowledge and the object itself, and distinguish between the subject's reality and absolute reality, we will inevitably come to such a conclusion. We can only have conditions, the traditional metaphysical requirement of having absolute knowledge is completely impossible.
As we just said, Kant did not prove his starting point. Why is there such a distinction, and what is the rationality of such a distinction? He did not have much evidence, and more importantly, Hegel said that he did not see a fatal problem inherent in this approach.
Firstly, in the field of tools or intermediaries, he is only playing with the concepts of truth, reality, and knowledge. Hegel spoke very strongly and sharply. He said that based on Kant's binary distinction, he should say that since our cognitive ability is like this, since it is a knowledge that can only recognize us conditionally, then we cannot have knowledge at all, and we must never know truth.
Secondly, Hegel said that it is impossible for a person to start studying cognitive abilities by attempting to acquire them in philosophy, because this study itself already uses these abilities and their concepts. Hegel made a vivid metaphor that we cannot learn to swim before entering the water. He believed that Kant's statement that we cannot learn to know without studying cognition itself is like asking for someone to learn to swim before entering the water, which is impossible.
He also said that Kant, based on the metaphor of using knowledge as a tool, distinguishes between two different types of knowledge, two different truths, one is limited and conditional knowledge, and what he gives us is our cognitive ability, limited by our cognitive ability.
There is also an absolute or unconditional truth about things themselves, which human consciousness cannot possess.
Even limited proof is actually truth. As long as things really exist that way, if everything must be in a temporal order, an unconditional innate proof, finite truth is truth. As long as everything is truly orderly in time, if things are not actually orderly, limited proof is a mistake, even if it is inevitable for us.
