/lit/ - Literature

>>21584805
What did you think of this one

I dont get it

My favourite bedtime story as a young child

>>20155525
>bildungsroman <img class="xae" data-xae width="29" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/7a95728b_Gigachad.png">

>>19952947
>reading The Phenomenlogy of Spirit
>getting fed up with all the repetition
>ctrl+f 'Spirit'
> More than 1000 matches
Yeah, no. Nobody actually likes this trash, there's no way. Explain the appeal of Hegel to me, because I don't fucking get it.

Is it actually badly written or is it just that retards who were never meant to read, let alone understand it, are filtered (I consider myself one of these people but would like to try anyway).
I've heard that it's basically overwritten and needlessly complex/wordy with the underlying concepts being relatively simple.
I'd like to tackle Hegel one day when I have a much better grasp of german and have read a lot of other philosophers proceeding him.
Will doing these things make it easier to grasp what is being said or will it still basically be impenetrable without guiding material

>>19864930
they're both pretty longwinded and dry at times. It'd be tough to get in to philosophy with these guys. Honestly, I'd start with Descartes' Meditations, but out of the two you asked about, start with pic rel, and specifically this version because it's got a pretty good analysis at the back that breaks down what hegel's trying to do. That's just me tho.

People always say Nietzsche and Kant are the hardest to read but this almost has me filtered. In shameful defeat I went on youtube to watch a summary and one of the first things mentioned was that Hegel wrote horribly. Why is this? Any tips on getting through pic related?

>>19465644
Halfway through you'll know

>bro, like, everything can be everything, bro, nothing truly matters xD
whoa, a true genius

>>18689537

This is not a philosophical text, it's an occult initiation ritual. Hegelianism is simply the rationalization of hermeticism. Once you understand this, Hegel will become much clearer to you.

About to jump in. Any tips for understanding this? Should I keep notes? Should I read the foreword?

I'm halfway through the prologuue of the phenomenology. I don't understand 2/3 of it. Any tips?

I'm doing a group reading with some philosophy majors, but I can't seem to understand it as clearly as they do.

>>16865156

I just struggled through the preface of this. Any advice on reading this. I’ve read Kant’s Prolegomena for future metaphysic and Spinoza’s ethics as background.

>>16854800
Constantly. The best books are the ones that not only grip you the first time, but upon subsequent re-reading reveal more and more of their inner world to the reader.

How do you study and understand this?

for me it's this bad boy
then the world as will and representation and then human all too human

>>16112651
This, unfortunately. I've tried multiple times, even with the help of Sadler's videos, but still can't get through his rambly style. By the time I get to self-consciousness it's usually already about 20 pages after I've stopped understanding anything n

>>15809916
>the mind cant analyze itself because it is contained within the analysis
yeah, we've known this for over 200 years now. Doesn't mean there can be no such thing as a science of the mind, your definition of science as falsifiability is simply too narrow. How can I prove that a science of the mind is possible or effective? Pretty easily; just as aerodynamics is true because planes fly, psychoanalysis or simply philosophy mind is scientifically valid because it is capable of affecting the quality, direction, and content of thought. When the real work of philosophy and psychology is done, people think differently, which causes them to act differently. What more could you ask for from a science than results?

>>13105887