/lit/ - Literature

>>17268366
no in my experience. maybe for the most difficult passages.

he is too wordy to make convenient use of. the point is lost in the volume of his content.

i really really like the commentary in the back of op translation

i finally got to Lordship and Bondage. is there anything really insightful or informative past this?

>>15863668
aesthetically it is a nice shirt though

>>15725815
read miller's translation of phenomenology of spirit 20 or so paragraphs at a time, and for each block read the commentary by findlay in the back to test your knowledge and comprehension.

the preface is extremely hard, but then it gets easier. (he wrote the preface last, the rest is a procedural development of the ideas he writes about in the preface)

good luck and dont get too intimidated!!!

>>15591822
because he was an egghead who couldn't be bothered enough to self edit

>>15591899
>>15591928
>>15592018
>>15593752
This paragraph comes fairly early on in the Preface (which was written after the whole work was completed and is even more unintelligible than the main text (because hegel is SHIT at writing))

This is part of where he's saying this:
> One mechanism we have for examining and apprehending truth is a "scientific" one, that involves axioms, systematization, things like that. It is useful for the specific knowledge it examines, but basing your entire philosophy on this methodology is ultimately really shallow and will never reach a whole satisfying concept of reality, spirit and consciousness. It draws a veil over such things.
> Opposed to this we have this vague new-agey feelings-type stuff, which recognizes the shortcomings of science, but totally lacks the qualities of science that make it useful. It lacks things like rigor, precision, falsifiable-ness. For example like, charismatic cults or hippies, where if you "don't feel the vibes" then the fault is in you because you "just dont get it".
> Such minds, when they give themselves up to the uncontrolled ferment of the divine substance, imagine that, by drawing a veil over self-consciousness and surrendering understanding they become the beloved of God to whom He gives wisdom in sleep; and hence what they in fact receive, and bring to birth in their sleep, is nothing but dreams.

He's criticizing both science and its antithesis as being fundamentally flawed ways of understanding the world.

I'm not just projecting my own understanding onto his shitbabble of words either. Sadler has this interpretation, so does the Findlay commentary in the back of Miller's translation.

>>15592377
yes

>>15367229
>>15367207
are L&L actually any good

I just read VI Arnold's mechanics textbook and he shit on L&L & made fun of it all the time in it, said a bunch of their proofs are wrong