/lit/ - Literature

>>20609372
Filtered

>>20345981
no

To the Turkish poem anon who asked me concerning Hegel, apologies for my lateness of reply, here it is if you do see this message.

>>19887116

here's a thematically fitting one, translated liberally from turkish:

At night in my dream a ghoul
Used a heavy book as his tool
And knocked me over with a hit
Its name: Phenomology of Spirit

Tied me up, put me in the trunk of his car
In the rear view mirror, a tucked in foulard
His baggy eyes sent from noble heights
A reflected gaze piercing into my Geist

He said, "Son, I have kidnapped you"
The nappies I needed, if only he knew
When we arrived, this he discovered:
That his trunk, in pee, was covered

>>19884202
alright since you didnt name something i can offer you just do it for free-if and when you have the time ofc-i need thou to answer these. hard mode: no "read it yourself." hes like medusa this guy. i can only get at him without direct contact

what does hegel think of the principle of sufficient reason? what in his system makes the rational necessary as to be a limit on reality? why can't the irrational be? whats the ground/reason for the absolute? where can he ground the absolute if he says the ground needs to be external to be sufficient and there is nothing external to the absolute? couldnt the irrational bypass anything keeping it from being through irrational means?

i care less about what his friends thought, since they seem to agree with me

>>19812405
>Without that background you wont even understand the basic terms Hegel is using, let alone all the arguments he is implicitly quoting. To put it bluntly: without that background your understanding will be less than basic.
While it's obvious that reading less will yield fewer results, you can't deny the genius of Phenomenology of Spirit in it being able to be read as a self-contained whole. It starts with the absolute most basic premise that requires no previous knowledge or mental gymnastics "the things in front of me as I see and feel it is real and complete, there's nothing more to it", and ends with absolute knowledge which could be tied back to sense certainty. I absolutely adore that, even more than Kant's surprisingly clear and helpful introduction in the first Critique.
The problem with understanding PoS while reading it alone and as a self-contained whole is that it's also the most complex book ever written about the most complex philosophical system, but that's another thing.

hegel nerds answer this:

what does hegel think of the principle of sufficient reason? what in his system makes the rational necessary as to be a limit on reality? why can't the irrational be? what is the reason the absolute is the way that it is instead of any other way, even an incomprehensible other way? where can he ground the absolute if he says the ground needs to be external to be sufficient and there is nothing external to the absolute?

>>19169580
heheh, now i can add this to my cv as the second meme i made that got posted here by someone else

sound and fury's benji and quentin sections maybe. ive heard people say virginia woolf. i wrote something inspired by shoegaze for &amp but its not smudgy like stream of consciousness. maybe an elliot poem.

>>18484494
>>18484560
no.
>>18484543
ye.

Where does consciousness actually start for him? Fichte's I, let's say, comes through a pseudo-intellectual intuition and thanks to Anstoß determines itself, creates the Not-I and so on. Absolute I, Ego=Ego, etc. The I is the process of self-consciousness.
Where are the roots of Hegel's consciousness?

>say that everything is rational
>also say that the explanations of things need to be external to those things or theyre meaningless tautologies
>there is nothing external to "everything" or "rationality" to explain it
>admit to being a meaningless tautology
>put it at the end of your hardest to read book
>no one reads it

He says real grounding can only happen externally but since there is nothing external to logic in his system, how does he ground it? is it ungrounded and a brute fact?

>>17806488
>Read Hegel, the definition of lively philosophy, really wakes me up trying to spend 2 hours to parse through 2 pages of the Phenomenology.
Finally! You can feel two things while reading him: approach of insanity and mesmerizing sublimity. Nobody has a philosophy as beautiful as his. He doesn't speak of things as "it's like this because of that and that". He talks about the evolution of thought and thinking; how God himself is dead; how self-certainty's destiny is tragic; how stones cry out and lift themselves up to spirit.
His philosophy is as alive as the things he talks about.

>>17741100
ill respond in reverse just to spice things up
>stone turned into block is a question of refinement
the core here is form, which you are imitating
>You obviously will disagree but this is where religious beliefs comes in so I don’t blame you
i dont outright disagree, but what i meant is youre using "reason" to mean that divine order. but in this context of art having order, is us enjoying microcosms of that order in art really strictly reasonable? my answer to this will be somewhat mystical and i suspect yours will be too. i dont see a cold rational reason here, but a fuzzier mystical one.
>poem I wrote a long while ago based on the exact opposite principle
than youve failed cuz the good parts of this poem are sensual
>Others wouldn’t but I do in accordance with my own Will
you only will it bcuz of its sensual nature
>express
>consumption
we would do neither if it wasnt for the sensualness that connects us to ideas
>as I can and do induce much pleasure from contemplation and meditation
sensual pleasure caused by ideals. our only way of connecting to the ideals are through the sensual

>>17718755
does he explain why a thing and its negation cant just coexist but have to become each other? i get that they are void of content and come into existance through their distinction from each other but why imply time by saying becoming. cant they just be forever distinct, or rather cant their distinction be forever?

i think hegel would say that there are no brute facts, since he doesnt believe in arbitrariness, but he doesnt use normal formal logic. is that somehow cheating if it still describes reality? does it only describe reality because reality happens to be that way? is the dialectic "logic" he uses a brute fact itself?

>>17255250
>i know it's hard to think the difference but if the Bythos is just another monism, then we just push the problem back a step. you have to think a difference that transcends any kind of framework of identity
>the One is not onanistic, it is the principle of individuation, not identity
so it is masturbation all the way down and the real One is the rule of masturbation? like not a specific product or producer but the whole function? isnt that a framework of identity? does it transcend even that?
>which circulate around an invisible dynamo
what the hell does this mean and how do we know this?
>a center which Sophia transgresses against in her "passion for access"
do all the aeons do this or is sophia somehow different?
>the demiurge generates difference, the Father DIVERSITY
what

cool pics btw

material conditions vs ideas. body vs spirit. absolute vs abstract. thesis vs antithesis. sides of the same coin. picture a string. it makes sound by wiggleing back and forth. the opposites canceling each other out produces a frequency. then the sound dies out and its silence again. but of course sound and silence have the same dynamic. so when its all silent, sound comes in to fix the inbalance. this way being and nothing can coexist. their existance is made possible by their opposites. they coexist through "alteration." the frequency is geist. the process is phenomenology. the string is everything

hegel was a mystic