>>24792432
This implies there is nothing to be known but what is simply external to us. You keep talking about the “use” of philosophy - philosophy does not have a “use”. Aristotle called it the free science for this reason, its lack of “uselessness”. Utility is for slaves. Plato calls it the useless science in the Philebus, too. If you think, “Well we know how black holes work now it’s just a bit of mopping up with linguistics and we’re done!” you have a sadly truncated view of yourself and the people around you. Ofc Hegel analyzes all of this in the dialectic of pure insight. Try picrel.

“No infinity, no limitation; no limitation, no infinity; infinity and limitation are united in one and the same synthetic component. If the activity of the I did not extend into the infinite, it could not limit its own activity. It could posit no boundary for its activity, which it is nevertheless supposed to do. The activity of the I consists in unrestricted self-positing, in opposition to which there occurs some resistance. If the activity of the I were to give way to this resistance, then the activity lying beyond the boundary of this resistance would be utterly annihilated and annulled, and, to this extent, the I would posit nothing whatsoever. But of course the I is supposed to engage in positing beyond this boundary-line. It is supposed to restrict itself; and, to this extent, it is supposed to posit itself as not positing itself. In this domain, the I is supposed to posit the undetermined, unlimited, and infinite boundary (=B) and, in order to do this, it must be infinite. Furthermore were the I not to limit itself it would not be infinite. The I is only what it posits itself to be. To say that it is infinite means that it posits itself as infinite: it determines itself by means of the predicate ‘infinity’ and in so doing limits itself as the substrate of infinity. It distinguishes itself from its own infinite activity (though it and its infinite activity are in themselves one and the same), and this is how the I must comport itself if it is to be infinite. The activity which extends into the infinite, which the I distinguishes from itself, is supposed to be its activity. Consequently the I must, in a single, undivided and indivisible action, assimilate this infinite action to itself once again (A+B determined by A). But if the I assimilates the infinite activity to itself, it is determinate, and thus not infinite. But it is supposed to be infinite and therefore the infinite activity must be posited outside the I.”

Ideality of matter, infinite striving, the unity of finite and infinite, it’s all there in this passage.

>5% epistemology
>95% metaphysics
False advertising fr

Aristotle and Fichte are my go to guys. No one else I’ve read so far reaches their power level.

>>24582552
Fichte’s is more autistic. He says yes OF COURSE you should tell the murderer where your friend is hiding, that part goes without saying. But then you need to engage the criminal in moral dialectics to convince him to change his mind. If he attacks you anyway, you have a duty to fight back, but only to the point of disarming him because it’s wrong to kill people. Meanwhile you have to invoke the state’s protection contract by hollering “Help! Help!” at the top of your lungs. If the murderer kills you and your friend after all that, at least you died following the dictates of Reason. I’m not even memeing this is exactly what he says. Brilliant philosopher but he had severe autism.

>>24504830
Experience is one thing, science is another. Science is not opposed to experience, it doesn’t rob experience of its immediacy and vitality, but it helps you make some sense of these things, and seeking science is an experience in itself. I highly recommend picrel as a light and readable introduction to speculative philosophy.