Hi bro i want to ask question did there is any relation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and logic arguments which is more mentally demanding?please answer thank you
Both McGinn and Chomsky acknowledge the limitations of human understanding, especially concerning metaphysical questions like consciousness. McGinn asserts that some problems are inherently beyond human cognition (e.g., consciousness), while Chomsky is more open to the idea that our conceptions of the physical world (including matter) are flawed or incomplete, implying that progress might still be possible, though difficult. Hegel sees contradictions as forces driving progress toward greater understanding. For McGinn, however, contradictions like the mind-body problem represent an endpoint where human cognition hits an insurmountable boundary. Chomsky’s view shares some of Hegel’s optimism, though he’s cautious: while we may be limited by the current scientific paradigms and misunderstandings of concepts like "matter," there’s still room for revision and progress. Chomsky’s critique of our conception of matter echoes a Hegelian skepticism toward fixed or rigid categories. Hegel believed that what we perceive as contradictions often stem from inadequate ways of understanding reality, which are transcended through dialectical processes. Similarly, Chomsky’s critique could be seen as challenging the contradictions in our current materialist understanding, with the possibility of overcoming them through scientific and intellectual evolution. McGinn’s New Mysterianism offers a stark contrast to Hegel’s belief in the progression of knowledge. Where Hegel is confident that all contradictions can be transcended, McGinn believes that some contradictions (such as those inherent in understanding consciousness) are ultimate and irreconcilable, bound by the limits of human cognition. Chomsky, though critical of traditional views on matter, seems to fall somewhere in between, acknowledging our cognitive limitations but suggesting that new approaches or paradigms might help us overcome current misunderstandings. In brief Hegel’s philosophy provides an optimistic framework that views contradictions as temporary and solvable through intellectual effort, even in fields like metaphysics. Where McGinn posits that some contradictions are permanent due to human cognitive limits, particularly in understanding consciousness. While Chomsky acknowledges cognitive limitations but critiques the frameworks we use to understand matter, suggesting that there is still room for progress as our paradigms evolve. In a sense, McGinn’s view of permanent cognitive closure could be seen as a limit Hegel would attempt to transcend through dialectical reasoning, while Chomsky represents a middle ground-acknowledging current limitations but holding out hope for future progress. Hegel emphasizes contradictions as more important than traditional logical consistency. McGinn focuses on logical arguments to define the limits of understanding, with contradictions marking cognitive closure. Chomsky values logical critique, accepting contradictions as flaws in current paradigms that might be resolved through better logical frameworks.
Hi bro i want to ask question did there is any relation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and logic arguments which is more mentally demanding?please answer thank you
Both McGinn and Chomsky acknowledge the limitations of human understanding, especially concerning metaphysical questions like consciousness. McGinn asserts that some problems are inherently beyond human cognition (e.g., consciousness), while Chomsky is more open to the idea that our conceptions of the physical world (including matter) are flawed or incomplete, implying that progress might still be possible, though difficult.
Hegel sees contradictions as forces driving progress toward greater understanding. For McGinn, however, contradictions like the mind-body problem represent an endpoint where human cognition hits an insurmountable boundary. Chomsky’s view shares some of Hegel’s optimism, though he’s cautious: while we may be limited by the current scientific paradigms and misunderstandings of concepts like "matter," there’s still room for revision and progress.
Chomsky’s critique of our conception of matter echoes a Hegelian skepticism toward fixed or rigid categories. Hegel believed that what we perceive as contradictions often stem from inadequate ways of understanding reality, which are transcended through dialectical processes. Similarly, Chomsky’s critique could be seen as challenging the contradictions in our current materialist understanding, with the possibility of overcoming them through scientific and intellectual evolution.
McGinn’s New Mysterianism offers a stark contrast to Hegel’s belief in the progression of knowledge. Where Hegel is confident that all contradictions can be transcended, McGinn believes that some contradictions (such as those inherent in understanding consciousness) are ultimate and irreconcilable, bound by the limits of human cognition. Chomsky, though critical of traditional views on matter, seems to fall somewhere in between, acknowledging our cognitive limitations but suggesting that new approaches or paradigms might help us overcome current misunderstandings.
In brief
Hegel’s philosophy provides an optimistic framework that views contradictions as temporary and solvable through intellectual effort, even in fields like metaphysics.
Where McGinn posits that some contradictions are permanent due to human cognitive limits, particularly in understanding consciousness.
While Chomsky acknowledges cognitive limitations but critiques the frameworks we use to understand matter, suggesting that there is still room for progress as our paradigms evolve.
In a sense, McGinn’s view of permanent cognitive closure could be seen as a limit Hegel would attempt to transcend through dialectical reasoning, while Chomsky represents a middle ground-acknowledging current limitations but holding out hope for future progress.
Hegel emphasizes contradictions as more important than traditional logical consistency.
McGinn focuses on logical arguments to define the limits of understanding, with contradictions marking cognitive closure.
Chomsky values logical critique, accepting contradictions as flaws in current paradigms that might be resolved through better logical frameworks.