Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Hegel had such a talent (I mean, a skilled graphomaniac), and in order to popularize himself, he wrote “easy things” for ladies to read in fashionable saloons. For example, ” What does it mean to think concretely?” – from this pop series essay. Another thing is that his ideas were boring-the kind that could have been stretched into a novel-in fact, religious ideas, so the novel would have turned out to be boring and not popular.
Kant, on the other hand, would not have explained it. He didn't really want fame, so what did he care? Sometimes he had beautiful passages in his compositions, but rarely. He didn't try to do that. Stylistically, he inherited the great medieval scholastics (such as John Duns Scott, for example), he even has a terminological apparatus for 90%. “scholastic.