I find this fascinating, for a great liberator to be keen on Hegel, but I have a concern that the passage shows the well-coached treatment of Kant by Hegelians that is undoubtedly rife in seminaries where the faith of preachers has to be kept safely away from Kantian danger. This canned treatment of Kant is also the fate of Marxists, the reason I mention the point. I should indeed not wonder at Schopenhauer's desparing scorn, and what amounts to the net destruction of German philosophy through the mesmerization by pretentious gibberish, making off with the Hegelian treasure chest like pirates, the owl of minerva a sort of pirate's parrot. This is rude, or else real respect for someone like King, but I think essential, as one examines the training of great liberators, and the way Hegel tends to fool them all. Marx was a smart fellow. I wish he could gotten Hegel off his chest. In Marx's case we weren't so lucky, and I always marvel at the way someone as smart as Lukacs could never quite shake Hegel either. (None of these remarks are even criticism of Hegel, who exists in a bigger limbo than even Kant as a sort of phantom of dementia in philosophic pretenders.) All in all, I admire King the more if Hegel's contemplation on history and freedom contributed to his efforts. But in the future, one has to hope that the use of these streams of thought should be taken in their totalilty, and students reach the source, and most of all not get their philosphic brains neutralized in seminaries. Answer: the entire sequence from Kant to Jacobi, Rheinhold, Maimon, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hegel, should be required study before one starts becoming a 'sudden certain conver'. We have to stop getting unlucky with poorly trained leaders. > > "...The categories began their history, so far > as modern philosophy is concerned, in the > system of Kant. The categories were for Kant, > like space and time, pure forms without content > or matter, prior to all experience, and not given > from any external source but contributed to > cognition by the mind itself. These categories > were also universal and necessary. But with > all their importance, Kant insisted that the > categories were limited to phenomena. They > did not apply to the thing-in-itself (Ding an > sich). The thing-in-itself was not a cause, or > a substance; it was neither quality nor quantity. > These concepts applied only to phenomena, > not to noumena. So for Kant the categories > were mere subjective forms of thought, not > objective ontological entities. It was at this > point that Hegel went beyond Kant." > (Dr. Martin Luther King, AN EXPOSITION > OF THE FIRST TRIAD OF CATEGORIES > OF THE HEGELIAN LOGIC, 1953) > > > > "The categories for Hegel were more than > epistemological principles of knowing; they > were ontological principles of being. They > were not merely the necessary and universal > conditions of the world as it appears to us, > but they were the necessary and universal > conditions of the world, as it is in itself. > Reason, the system of categories, is > self-explained and self-determined, > dependent only upon itself. This means > that it is real. Therefore, "the rational is > the real and the real is the rational." > (Dr. Martin Luther King, ibid. 1953) > > > "The task which Hegel undertakes in the > Logic is, therefore, this: to give an account > of the first reason of the world; to show > that every single category necessarily > and logically involves every other single > category; and finally to show that all the > categories, regarded as a single whole, > constitute a self-explained, self-determined, > unity, such that it is capable of constituting > the absolutely first principle of the world. > Kant had named twelve categories. But he > made no effectual attempt to deduce them > from one another...because the categories > were for him only epistemological forms of the > mind, not objective ontological entities...When > we come to Hegel, however, the picture is > different. Just as in formal logic the conclusion > flows necessarily from the premises, so in > Hegelian logic the categories are logically > deduced from each other." (Dr. Martin > Luther King, ibid. 1953) > > This point by Dr. King is never given enough attention. > Hegel is not simply announcing his science of logic. > There is nothing authoritarian about it. It is not a mystic > belief-system. Rather, Hegel carefully and scientifically > *deduces* each category of his Dialectical Encyclopedia > from the other categories. This is a mammoth scientific > challenge, and Hegel was the first (and so far the last) > philosopher to attempt this world-historical activity in > such dialectical detail. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ralph Dumain" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:48 PM > Subject: [hegel] Martin Luther King on Hegel > > > >"An Exposition of the First Triad of Categories of the Hegelian > >Logic--Being, Non-Being, Becoming" > > > http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol2/530522-An_Exposi > tion_of_the_First_Triad_of_Categories.htm > > John Landon Website for World History and the Eonic Effect http://eonix.8m.com Blogzone http://www.xanga.com/nemonemini