Kant in his three critiques limits what we can know and what we can reason about. [That is things that fall into the category of conditions of possible experience. Outside of that are "things in themselves" Hegel takes this into account in order to determine how to stretch these boundaries.
Both seem important but to understand Kant I would go with Kelley Ross [the Friesian School.]
To understand Hegel I would go with Mctaggart.
Hegel is important because you want the big picture. What is the universe all about. Without that question there is absolutely no point to philosophy at all. So Kant can limit what we can understand but you still after him to see what is possible to understand in the big picture but to attempt that understanding taking into account Kant's point about how far human reason can go.
Kant limits what you can build. The reason is limits on reason. Hegel gets around those limits in order to build based on a process of dialectics based on what you see in Plato and Socrates. But with Hegel you get to conclusions that do not end until you get to God. That is he starts with Being and gets up to God. The Friesian approach has faith [non intuitive immediate knowledge] so in that way gets to God in a way, but not like Hegel. [My own impression here is that knowledge does progress. It is not pure empirical nor pure reason. See the paper of Michael Huemer that shows this. But Michael Huemer goes more with probability. [The kind you learned about when new evidence is added to your original probability based on Bayes.]
The Friesian approach needs a bit of study. Probably the best approach is that of Kelley Ross in his blog the Friesian School. The reason is that there are flaws in Fries's approach (that I admit I forgot) that Leonard Nelson corrected. But then in Nelson there were other flaws. So the best seems to be the modified Fries approach of Kelley Ross.]
At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.
Kant limits what you can build. The reason is limits on reason. Hegel gets around those limits in order to build based on a process of dialectics based on what you see in Plato and Socrates. But with Hegel you get to conclusions that do not end until you get to God. That is he starts with Being and gets up to God. The Friesian approach has faith [non intuitive immediate knowledge] so in that way gets to God in a way, but not like Hegel. [My own impression here is that knowledge does progress. It is not pure empirical nor pure reason. See the paper of Michael Huemer that shows this. But Michael Huemer goes more with probability. [The kind you learned about when new evidence is added to your original probability based on Bayes.]
The Friesian approach needs a bit of study. Probably the best approach is that of Kelley Ross in his blog the Friesian School. The reason is that there are flaws in Fries's approach (that I admit I forgot) that Leonard Nelson corrected. But then in Nelson there were other flaws. So the best seems to be the modified Fries approach of Kelley Ross.]
At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.
