/lit/ - Literature

*writes anything*
What did he mean by this?

Consciousness has no gender

Why do the majority of people, analytics and continentals alike, say he's hard to understand? Like, negroes, can't you read? He fucking tells you exactly what he means pretty much everywhere.

In the Phenomenology of Spirit's preface and introduction. The tl;dr: don't assume you know anything and just think the content you're given. Does it look like a word you know? Well don't assume you know it until you see how it's used.

Science of Logic: Don't assume the rules of logic, don't assume the meaning of things. If you think you know what it means because it's a familiar term, forget it and just look at the content structure and don't get up in names.

How is this hard to understand? I did just what he said, and in chapter 1 of the Logic I got the method's basics and understood how to think about it. I went on to write logical outlines for the Phenomenology's chapters up to Master/Slave. It has one solid logical argument. Two chapters, 1 and a half weeks of my life, was all I needed to begin writing a solid logical expansion and even commentary on the goddam Phenomenology. What in the fuck is wrong with you if you couldn't even figure out Being-Nothing-Becoming-Existence?

Is Paul Graham right?

>What philosophy books would you recommend?

>I can't think of any I'd recommend. What I learned from trying to study philosophy is that the place to look is in other fields. If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching. Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand (e.g. Hegel).

>It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful.

You see, the problem is that Bertrand Russell also made actual contributions to the world in useful areas like science and mathematics. What he had to criticize in philosophy was what was left over -- the idealists and their nonsense. What's become "philosophy" needs to hold on to these metaphysical musings in order to justify a large part of its existence. You can't justify entire academic departments with experts on Hegelian dialectics based on, say, funding for research in medicine or something, so you have to make people believe it's about something intelligible.
This is not to say that there isn't much that is useful in philosophy, but you won't find it in Hegel or others of his ilk.

Sup senpai,

Where do I start with this nigga
Kant fuccboi recs can eat it

>>6990982
>Attributing great works of collective Spirit to grandiose individuals

Stay unable to develop your mind by testing it against external manifestations