MEANING

The lexical meaning of words is dependent on our collective use of them. That's why no one persons individual use or any one groups stipulative or specialized use alters the lexical meaning.

An important difference to keep in mind: 1) what you mean when you use a word and 2) what a word means when you use a word.

REFERENCE

Just because a word has a lexical meaning, that doesn't mean that a word has a referent. The words "if' and "not" are words with lexical meaning, but they are what we call non-referring terms, so not only don't they have referents, they're not even the kind of words that could have referents.

An important difference to keep in mind: 1) What you are referring to when you use a word and 2) if the word even refers to anything (and if it does, does it refer to the same thing you are).

1. I thought the a priori simply dealt with human knowledge. How does that make it eternal? Granted the structure is unchanging, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the knowledge generated through it is; nor does it mean that human beings in themselves are eternal. It is simply a constant for human beings: our consitution is to think in such an such a way.
1.1 Humans continue ad infinitum (through reproduction), but that does not mean that we are eternal, or for that matter that our a priori cognitions are eternal. We are not certain as to whether or not we will encompass an eternity. In fact its absurd to encompass eternity.
2. I will probably read Kojeve at some point; reading the philosophers themselves is infinitely more enriching however. Schopenhauer for instance has helped me understand Kant far better than any other professor has. I would rather stick to reading the players, than reading the spectators.
3. Threads always get of topic. So lets try to stay on topic. Maybe we should create a Kant/Hegel thread. Have you read all of Kant's Critique's? That would be the best start for all of this.

It is both. You have given a possibility under a conditional. It is as such:

1. If I paint the bathroom wall blue, then it be either wonderful or atrocious.
1. (if P, then (Q or R)).

There is indeed the possibility that this is the case or not the case. However, being that we are finite, we cannot determine that it will be actual, as we are dealing with something that is a future event. Possibility and actuality are two totally different categories of the understanding. I grant you that we do assume in this situation (that it WILL be this or this), but that does not take away from the possiblity of the proposition. We are using both logic and assumption, not merely assumption; logic is always constant. Maybe even a priori.

The word "if" for the most part deals with conditional (the if...then), but its not limited to them. You have biconditionals as well (if and only if) which use if.

I do not think there is a mystery here per se; we have words to express the logic of what we want to say. The words themselves function according to our thought, as they are representation of thought. Our thoughts are logical, at least from Kant's Transcendental Categories (Reality, Negation, Limitation), and also others who would assent to our thought being logical (Wittgenstein for example). We can only think in terms of logic. Negation is just another form or thought that we use . Do not see a whole lot of mystery there. Logic is a priori. We cannot think of it being otherwise.

But then again maybe Im wrong haha.

Nice post. While reading it I couldn't help notice the questions. What is the difference between a question and a statement? In that last sentence, for instance, does "What" function like the "x" in a math equation?

What about "Are you working late tonight?" It takes a statement "You are working late tonight" and adds the possibility of a negative sign?

Nice post. While reading it I couldn't help notice the questions. What is the difference between a question and a statement? In that last sentence, for instance, does "What" function like the "x" in a math equation?

What about "Are you working late tonight?" It takes a statement "You are working late tonight" and adds the possibility of a negative sign?

1. What other knowledge is there, for us? Therefore the human "eternal" if it exist at all would presumably be whatever element of his experience does not change.
2. Sure, we might die off.
3. Kojeve is a philosopher himself, of course. And he writes in a clearer style than Hegel. He was hugely influential in France once but is largely unknown these days. No, I haven't all of Kant's critique. As much as I love the guy, there are many many books out there. However, I mentioned his name to make it clear what kind of investigation I was after here. Ultimately it's we who are alive and in a far different age. I admit it's a difficult decision, decided how to spend one's study time. Does one put all one's eggs in one basket? Or does one try to get a more general view?
4. Yes, we should stick to the topic. But admittedly the topic is difficult, somewhat vague. I view this as ideally more a brainstorm than a debate.
5. You and I like the same philosophers. This is good. I hope I haven't in some way put a thorn in your side. I feel a little annoyance in your response here. Like I say, sorry if I have come across in a bad way, or as to eager to mention kojeve. It's just that we all at least know of Kant, but I've learned much from Kojeve and I often feel when I'm misunderstood that it's related to this largely unknown influence. I do intend to read more Kant. I just find myself here, instead of reading.

I understand that Kojeve is a philosopher,
.

I'm not sure what in mathematics corresponds to asking a question. Asking means positing a blank in knowledge.... expecting a change in knowledge. Expecting the self to change... which is contradictory? The self is supposed to be unchanging.

I understand that Kojeve is a philosopher, but he has nowhere near the magnitude of the giants Im referring to: hes a spectator to me.

I dont put my eggs in one basket. I read everything. I just finished locke and now im moving to schopenhauer for the second time, following it up with plato and aristotle.

Ill read Kojeve at some point to see where youre soming from but not now. Hes not worth it. I need the foundation.

Even that is jumping to a conclusion.

A question is a request for information. A statement is a reply to that request.