Categories
- Art (202)
- Other (1,946)
- Philosophy (1,506)
- Psychology (2,128)
- Society (535)
Recent Questions
- What happens if the economy ceases to exist?
- With accumulated fatigue, irritability appears and performance decreases. How to deal with it?
- A question for atheists. How do you think the universe, planets, and all living things came to be?
- Talked to a girl for two years, cheated on me, broke up. I can't explain how it is, I still love her, but at the same time it's so disgusting from her. How do I forget it?
- How to learn holotropic breathwork and is it safe?
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.