/lit/ - Literature

>>20697851
It's impossible to understand Hegel without the esoteric underpinnings, read the Hermeticists, and keep in mind that Hegel is not simply using concepts like Absolute Spirit, kingdom of heaven, corporealizing God, etc... in a non-literal sense. Read Boehme, steep yourself in the German Idealists and German literary and philosophical traditions, read up on Lutheranism and Pietist tradition of Stuttgart, Holderlin and Goethe, Spinoza and his relations to Hegel, etc... The dialectic is essentially an esoteric activity of Identity and Difference. Fichte's absolute I = I must differentiate itself into an 'Other' in order to know itself, so we have absolute thetic Identity which is indefinite negating this infinite identity which is self-recursive and producing a difference within itself thus the empirical I is simply Spirit coming to know itself from outside of itself. If you take Kojeves definition the dialectic is some posited state, which is negated through activity of transformation towards a more perfected state and this is essentially a spiritual process intimately connected with the mediated desire for a desire. The main point is that of the contradictions of Identity giving rise to difference which resolves back into itself whilst maintaining or sublimating both the preceding identity and the differentiation or othering, thus the identity of Identity and Difference

ohoho DIOS MIO...

how tf can a schizo who wrote some autistic language masturbation books influence the world THIS much? I mean if you think about it, the world today would be unrecognizable if it wasn't for this nigga

>>12676042
history's been leading up to this baby there's no putting that genie back in that bottle

>>12132834
you got a problem with that, kiddo?

Contradictions=Duality Chokmah and Binah

Position, opposition, composition Affirmation, negation, negation of negation Male, female, species being Man, woman, human beings God, Nature, identity in Humanity Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis

He was never against the concept of anekantavada/"different opinion/perceptions. I wonder from where have u read this. He just tried to prove the supremacy of mind/logics in everytinng. Perceptions/anekantavada/ differing opinions are in them-self just the creation of mind/logics, which hegel himself was endorsing. I wonder why you guys can't understand the obvious. Infact you yourself said that he discussed the concept of "possibilities beyond limits" - this in turn justifies that there will always be anekantavada emerging out of the mind/logic. Hegel gave the theory of thesis(vaad) + antithesis(prativaad) = systhesis(samvaad), here antithesis(prativad) in itself are "anekantavada"/differing opinion

>analytical philosphy

Make a top 10 of hardest philosophers to read, /lit/.

>>11084363
Forgot the pic.

>>11046952
The destruction of any discourse relies on the revealing of its interior contradictions

>>10368164

>>10243301
>I laugh at people who -
Just try it kid

What are some good secondary sources on Hegel? Help me lads

Hegel seems like one of the most polarizing figures in philosophy. What do you think of him, his ideas, his work?

Is LGBTTQQFAGPBDSMNC2SAP-rights a part of the historical consciousness of freedom?

*gets everything right*

The blood rushes. I fear to look downwards
At lusts already lit, at pants already tented.
All that matters is I read! Oh dear Hegel,
Grace me with more dialectics, so that I know I am
a phenomenological spirit. And that I am not the sort
That is unactualized in orgasm. Oh fuck.

Prove him wrong,

Pro tip: You can't

Why is it that philosophers, with a few notable exceptions, always use the most convoluted language possible? Is it to make their ideas seem more profound than they are? I have read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza and felt like I understood their ideas quite well: they were succinct (or at least enjoyable and clear in Plato's case), and gave clarifying examples.

I moved on to other philosophers and found myself completely lost. Lots of time is spent simply deciphering their words rather than meditating them. I've used supporting essays to find their meaning, and the ideas aren't that profound and could be expressed far more easily, so I don't understand why they don't just do that, rather than meandering and using masturbatory language.

There once was a man from Berlin
Who's mind's eye gazed within
Contemplating sublation
He made masturbation
The main intellectual scene

Alright, roundabout way to come here. I was listening to Karl Pilkington's Diary, thinking about comparing him to Andy Kaufman. I look the correlation up, and no one's said anything about it. Though, someone related Pilkington's consciousness to Hegel's master-slave dialectic.

So, I'm looking through it, and to an outsider with no background or build up to his beliefs, it makes absolutely no sense. Last time I saw Hegel on here, he was being praised for I presume logical and insightful content. But... I can't see how this dialectic would work in any context. Why would the first human drive be to kill to gain that consciousness? Why would a master/slave relationship be the first thing to fit, and not any other kind of relationship?

If anyone could explain to me the dialectic, or send me some quality material that doesn't over-simplify to the point where it's erroneous, it'd be greatly appreciated.