So today we decided that we are going to have a debate on Friday, on Hume versus Descartes. I'm on Hume's side.
So we basically have to have a rationalist vs. empiricist debate, which I've been looking forward to since reading Sophie's World. It's very interesting, because I feel as if I want to ideally follow the rationalists view, but I feel as if I personally agree with the empiricists, especially Hume's line, "Reason is the slave of the passions," because I really do feel that the first reaction to any situation is NOT logical, but based on your emotions, and passions. However, there is also the irrational response, which is backed by rationalists. Therefore, I think, on the whole, that I simply agree with Kant. I feel that both views have valid points, but only by including both can we really get a true picture.
This is a nice connection to Taoism, which I studied a bit for English this year. In Taoism, one of the main themes is the taijitu, or more commonly known as the yin and yang symbol. In this, Taoism states that nothing can exist without part of the other, and that "seemingly opposite things actually give rise to each other." But I haven't fully developed this idea. Maybe it will appear during the debate on Friday!
Do you see a connection between Hegel's negation of opposites in his dialectic and yin yang principles?
ReplyDeleteI assume you are talking about the thesis, antithesis, synthesis argument, yes? If so, I would state that yes, there is a connection, because according to Hegel, only be discovering the true identity of one thing, can the other be truly realized. Because in this process of discovering the true nature of the first thing, you understand the vast complexities that encompass it, which therefore are related to the secondary thing. However, i would like to point out a distinction. In Hegel's thinking, there is a synthesis, or final result which comes from the thesis, then antithesis. In the yin yang principles, there is just simple existence.
ReplyDelete