/lit/ - Literature

>>13034205
Im glad we agree.

>>13023817
No you.

>>12987807
Oral phase

>>12988319
Honest answer. I read the phenomenology and thought most of it was complicated in an unnecessary way such that Hegel seemed to be convoluting and obfuscating with rhetoric things he didn't have much comprehension of. Some passages were quite interesting don't get me wrong. Then i just happened to be finishing of a Schopenhaur essay, on the freedom of the will, and he absolutely excoriates Hegel in it. I think his "system" largely amounts to a mystification of th banal, the teleology of the superficial, the universalisation of the mundane and the spritualisation of the status quo. I'll read more but i sense he was seriously just a romantic charlatan who new that he could use sophistry be influential. He does have actually deeply interesting ideas. Hes just made them harder to understand deliberately to create this character for himself as obscure and deep. Its fair to say that i could use Hegels notions and schemas to express my own worldview, that there are similarities etc. This arises because his ideas are so general and so encompassing and yet do manage to relate back to a particularity of sorts. Trying to be as honest as possible, there was something dissatisfying about read in and i think it comes from the sense that the text was just a tool to win people over with a sense of profundity. I thought less than half the sections really seemed to add anything to his points and most that did could have been expressed in ten or twenty pages instead of fifty or sixty. What would lit say i should read next by Hegel and when?

>reading psychoanalysis for fun