Too much nuance, my friend, for somebody else's homework. :smirk:This sounds like a homeowrk question, but ok. I define does notions a bit different than 180 Proof does. I think the differentiation is made by Hegel himself actually when he described Fi[chte]'s system as subjective idealism, Schelling's as objective idealism and his own as absolute idealsim. — Tobias
Hegel tried to reconcile the systems of Fichte and Schelling stating that it is neither subject, not object that should be prioritized, but that these are terms that themselves develop from the way the that thinking (the idea, or 'the movement of the concept') develops. The subject and object are different and at the same time essentially the same, or at least springing forth from the same source (the absolute). The difference between the two is both ineluctable and untenable. It is untenable, because we know consciousness is consciousness of a world and in itself it is empty. What is given is given to it by the world (object) that it examines. At the same time though we can never see ourselves as merely part of that 'world spirit', we also take ourselves as different from it. 'The world' does not exist, only my world exists. So between subject and object there is a tension of difference, but also a realization of identity. — Tobias
From my point of view, I think, according to Ockham's razor that both Objective and Absolute Idealism are the same:
- One absolute being.
- the Objective things are present Objectively, but not Materially.
- The One absolute being is both the Perceiver and the Perceived. — Salah
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.