Jump to content

Talk:Benedetto Croce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.72.63.96 (talk) at 23:50, 22 October 2016 (→Atheist?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Empty words

In the "Philosophy of spirit" section, the concepts of "idea" and "concept" are not distinguished from each other. The relationship between "concept" and "perception" is not clarified. As a result, this section of the article conveys no thoughts and is simply wordplay.Lestrade (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Pronounciation

How is his name pronounciated? I don't think that is quite obvious. Can someone add phonetical writing of the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.158 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably pronounced "crow–chay." But, even more important, what were his main thoughts?Lestrade (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Categories

In the "Philosophy of Spirit (Mind)" section, the explanation of Kantian Categories is typically uninformative. "…Kant's categories, which are concepts like quantity, quality, evolution, more or less any idea we have that can be described as a universal idea." Kant's list of categories is simply a list of the characteristics that every and any object must have if it is an object. In other words, they are the qualities of an object in general. By the way, Kant never claimed that "evolution" is a category.Lestrade (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Journal

What about his collaboration with Giovanni Gentile in the journal La Critica ?Lestrade (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

He also wrote the preface to G's Reform of Education that details their relationship further. They were BFF's. Guinness4life (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

As an historian, wouldn't it have been in Croce's interest to glorify Hegel? That philosopher valued history as being the most important field of intellectual endeavor. In contrast, Croce would naturally dismiss Schopenhauer, who thought that history merely showed the variations on the basic judgment that the world eternally consists of beings who are characterized by will, impulse, desire, and craving (which is why we can be interested in Homer's 2,700 year–old epics).Lestrade (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

False dichotomy. There are interpretations of History that aren't Hegelian that assign a great deal of import to the historian. Like Croce's, wherein history is no longer subordinate to philosophy but vice versa (Croce: My Philosophy 19). Croce doesn't seek the singular grand unity of the Hegelian system but 4 independent unities (Croce: My Philosophy 18).
See also: cyclical types like Toynbee, Spengler, Vico and Joyce. I'm not hugely familiar with Croce (I've never read his longer multi-volume systematic works) but that's what I think he's getting at insofar as I'm aware. Incidentally, Croce was a scholar less interested in his interests or schools of thought than the pursuit of truth. Funny thing, nowadays, right? Guinness4life (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croce's philosophy of spirit and absolute historicism

The section entitled "Philosophy of spirit" is so confused it states the absolute opposite of Croce's philosophy. Croce's epistemological idealism is not to be confused in any sense with ontological matters, and Croce holds to historicism and immanentism which, to put it simply, states that history and the moment of actual experience is all that "actually exists". In fact, the abstractions of thought and analysis fail to approach in any meaningful sense the object of reality. This confusion is easily understood when one realizes that taking Kant's work as an ontological commitment or dualism is a common error, and this fundamental mistake colors everything one engages with thereafter. In any event, I'll edit, and I'm just explaining the massive changes. PRSturm (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the statement that "Croce's epistemological idealism is not to be confused in any sense with ontological matters," it is very difficult for people to clearly distinguish between the epistemology of idealism and the ontology of realism. Part of the difficulty may result from an author's failure to write in order to be understood.Lestrade (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Atheist?

To call an absolute idealist an "atheist" is a bit of a stretch. GeneCallahan (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German Idealism Wiki article mentions the close, if not equivalent, relation between the Absolute and God. Absolute Idealism was an attempt to retain the concept of "God" after the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment rendered it empty. Just as Spinoza was called an atheist because of his portrayal of God as an indifferent universe, Croce's Absolute is a God who is unlike the anthropomorphic Abrahamic God in the Hebrew/Christian/Islamic religions. As a result, Croce would be considered, by persons who believed in these religions, to be an atheist.173.72.63.96 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Scott Anaximander[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benedetto_Croce&oldid=745730900"