/lit/ - Literature

I've actually studied a bit of Hegel.

What I will say is that 99% of people simply don't need go into much depth with him. Firstly, because some of his ideas/foundations have since been proven wrong. Secondly, because it is typically a lifelong pursuit. There are Hegelians who have studied his work for DECADES, and they often go a bit mad/eccentric from doing so - such as with Žižek.

The book I would advise most people to read regarding Hegel is 'Hegel - A Very Short Introduction' (Oxford) by Peter Singer. It is extremely concise and will give you a very good outline for Hegel, which will suffice for the lion's share of instances in which he will ever be brought up.

He is also pleasingly impartial, and dispels a few popular myths regarding Hegel - such as his supposed belief in the innate godliness of the state (a myth made doubly pernicious given that Hegel's use of the term 'state' means much more than just government).

>>8289246

His madness was hereditary, that's all. His dad had it, he had. These sorts of things tend to run in the family. He lived his life in fear of succumbing to that same madness.

Whilst in Turin, it began to take hold in interesting ways. At his lodgings, he used to dance around his room naked and maniacally play the piano to all hours.

This was shortly before the horse incident.

>>8213947

>Nietzsche is the most famous of all recent philosophers to date

>>8183024

He'd have been a tripfag on /lit/, for sure.

>What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying.

Was he right, /lit/?