/lit/ - Literature

>>11520492
I never read Hegel, is this what he's like?

Your brain when you didn't start with the greeks.

>>11520497
Why don’t you read him and find out?

>>11520497
G u m b o B u m P o F l e e p S n o r q

>>11520492
he forgot to take his vitamin A

go back there retard

>twitter communist "memes" philosophers
Why do the always do this

>>11520502
I'm illiterate

>>11520511
based gibberish poster

>>11520516
redpilled response

>>11520499
starting with the greeks is a waste of time

fight me

>>11520497
He's gumbobumpofleepsnorq scrubblemcbubble and anyone who tells you otherwise is lyng.

>>11520499
yodel with jung then afterburn with bergson

>>11520529
The true red pill is starting with the post-moderns and ending with the pre-socratics

>>11520534
what the fuck

>>11520543
>not comprehending the universal totalising absolute-unfolding that precedes from the uncentred centralised and fluctuates into the afrhebingbongdingdong
Confirmed never gonna make it

Has anyone like, *actually* read Hegel and can defend it?

>>11520554
Me

>>11520534
There are words, and these words have meaning, but the combination of words in that excerpt do not seem to produce a new meaning.

>>11520558
what's up

>>11520554
AW post coming in 5...4....3

>>11520534
>>11520559
actually, after re-reading it makes sense. Seems like he's being distrustful of people who prefer the experiential side of self exploration (19th century equiv of people like Terrence mckenna I guess) to formalization, and implies that their self knowledge is simply an illusion.

Absolutely amazing how shitty of a writer he is. What a goddamn pseud I have to say. He could have used 1/4 of the words and still have been as aesthetic in presentation as he wanted.

>>11520554
What do you mean "defend" it? If you think you can surpass Hegel you are saying you can sublate him through determinate negation; you cannot escape the dialectic.

>>11520492
I wanted to follow this guy but he's a full blown commie idiot.

>>11520591
>using twitter
get out of /lit/

>>11520497
He makes up random words and never defines them

>>11520582
he wrote the phenomenology in a month, I can forgive him it. People used to care more about his Logic, but now a days we go back to PoS because even in it's rushed, labyrinthine style, it is still that radically influential to modern thought.

>>11520593
what provoked you to write this?

>>11520600
name 3 words he made up

>>11520604
I'm being oppressed by underage faggot retards from twitter. net

>It's another "/lit/ denounces philosophers they've never read and are insecure about not understanding to maintain their imagined superiority"

>>11520611
are you ok

>>11520615
Not even Heidegger is as obnoxious about making up his own terminology for no good reason. I'm not about to waste brain space for some self obsessed pseud who couldn't be bothered to use three normal person words instead of one retard word like sublate.

Sigh why don't we delve into some actual passages of Hegel to give him the benefit of the doubt and if the proof is in the pudding?

>The recollection of spiritual forms as they are in themselves and as they accomplish the organization of their spiritual kingdom ..., looked at from the side of their free existence appearing in the form of contingency, is History; looked at from the side of their intellectually comprehended organization, it is the Science of the ways in which knowledge appears.

Ok, that doesn't make a ton of sense. But maybe I'm missing the context.


>t is this self-construing method alone which enables philosophy to be an objective, demonstrated science. It is in this way that I have tried to expound consciousness in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Consciousness is spirit as a concrete knowing, a knowing too, in which externality is involved; but the development of this object, like the development of all natural and spiritual life, rests solely on the nature of the pure essentialities which constitute the content of logic.

Hmm ok,

>Everything is inherently contradictory.
Including this statement I suppose?

>The Idea, in positing itself as absolute unity of the pure Notion and its reality and thus contracting itself into the immediacy of being, is the totality in this form – Nature.

Ok, Schopenhauer was right. Hegel is a hack.

>>11520630
he didn't invent the word sublate. Aufheben was used specifically because it's play on the colloquial understanding on the word.

>>11520602
why did both Kant and Hegel do this? "lmao just write it fast and let them figure the rest out"

>>11520640
actually yeah, I may have been wrong on that I guess. Does he just have retarded translators?

>>11520648
they didn't give a fuck about brainlets, they were writing for other philosophers

>>11520650
what is wrong with using the world sublate? If you want another option besides the Miller translation, read the Pinkard.

>>11520657
Sublation is a term I use frequently as an environmental STEMfag so it confuses me. ideas are not evaporating ice

>to smart to get hegel

>>11520663
doesn't science do this with words literally all the time though? e.g. force in physics means something aside from it's colloquial usage. why can't philosophy do the same thing (you guys borrowed the method of us anyways)

>>11520534

schopenhauer was right

>>11520543
>>11520559
>>11520695
he's against mysticism; that's the long and short of it. it is a quick working out of how knowledge based on (forgive me for philosophizing with a hammer) pure subjective experience will never achieve the lofty goal of Science. it makes sense if you understand his system

>>11520687
>you guys borrowed the method of us anyways)
science is just seeing if the same thing keeps happening if you repeat the same conditions. People have been doing that since before we were even homo sapiens

>>11520725
>pre-human science
What ideology is this?

>>11520725
>an organism that learns from its environment is a scientist
Lmao wat

>>11520793
i mean, isn't that a perfectly valid example of a proto-scientific method

>>11520664
based and redpilled

>>11520801
So my dog is doing science because he knows that if he comes up to me and gives me a sad look that I’ll give him a treat

>>11520733
>>11520793
you guys just not going to address my point or what? The scientific process is that you do some experiment, and you get a result, and then ideally someone else comes and reproduces your experiment to see if they get the same result. It's just codification of trial and error that is common to any organism that can learn

the revolutionary thing about the Royal Society was honestly the social contract they had, not the idea of science, which everyone can grasp. It was that they all agreed to play by this set of rules and actually use the simple method of reproducing studies to come to conclusions about stuff. compare this to how humans normally argue about shit, which is just sophism and endless speculation and misdirection.

>>11520811
So your point is that “science” is just an extremely refined version of trial and error and learning that occurs with most organisms. Yeah no shit I think we all already know that but you’re being insanely reductive. I could say that philosophy is a discipline that actually occurs in all organisms because all creatures have to have thoughts and ideas to live their lives. If you couldn’t “think” about the world around you then you couldn’t survive. You could use this argument for any discipline if you simplify it enough.

>>11520835
what else do you think science is if not just reproducing studies? Isn't that the entire basis of how it works, im not trying to be a dick here i just genuinely dont know what other elements you are associating with it

>>11520835
>philosophy is a discipline that actually occurs in all organisms because all creatures have to have thoughts and ideas to live their lives.
this is also sort of true, in the sense that organisms make a model of the world, and thats what philosophy really is, just the total picture of reality you have.

>>11520534

>>11520849
I’d say that modern science began when said experiments and studies could be written down and therefore preserved. My bigger point is that it’s just fucking stupid to be so reductivist that you couldn’t argue with me if I explained that my dog is a scientist based on your own definitions. It cheapens the meaning of science and what rigours go into it to the point of complete absurdity.

>>11520849
>my dog has a 27 km particle accelerator
>>11520835
>plants have philosophical speculations

>>11520871
your dog is not really capable of doing that kind of trial and error consistently, which was my point about the social contract. I guess I should amend my definition to include the inclination towards using that method above others.

But if we want to be more rigorous scientists what do we do? We reproduce studies, we eliminate variables, etc. It's always based on the idea of repeatedly trying to recreate something by recreating the same conditions.

you say it's fucking stupid but if people cared more about reproducing studies our current science would be much better than it is.

>>11520534
>Don't add poetic meaning to scientific truths, as there is no depth to that poetry.
It's that what this paragraph is saying? It seems like a very simple argument he's making, after the gobbledygook is stripped

>>11520879
My dog is capable of learning and probably learned a lot of shit from other dogs behaviour which seems to fit your definition of science. Also now you’re talking about all this other shit I was just arguing about proto-humans and whether what they did was science. I’d argue that at the stage when we were grugs and grugettes our methods of understanding was probably similar to most other mammals.

>>11520901
i mean strictly speaking yeah, i dont see a difference between the LHC and a dog a learning not to shit inside. We are just much better at it, exponentially better, mostly to do with our social interactions but also of course how much more intelligent we are.

I wouldnt argue this if i thought it werent a valid point, im not just being pedantic. People sometimes act almost mystical about science and i dont like it. It also makes arguments from authority more common, as if the findings are beyond question beacuse of who said them, rather than just another thing to be checked by redoing the study.

>>11520534
What bullshit. Who would take this seriously

>>11520502
This is possibly the worst advice I've ever heard someone give.

>>11520609
Literally just turn to any page.

>>11520912
Marx, and that's the only reason people still read it

If you are doing philosophy which is supposed to be based on logic and reason you should not under any curcimstances make up any words expecially if you are already being obscuratist.

Schopenhaur was right.

>>11520534
He really was ye olde Foucault. Fucking hell, what an absolute pseud.

The whole paragraph can be summarized as, "Those who give themselves wholly over to the power of the Spirit and God gain a self-knowledge from God, who gives them wisdom in their sleep." It sounds absolutely retarded when you condense it down like that, which is why he did the Foucault trick of stretching out a idea thinly over several paragraphs.

I can't believe students actually listened to this fucker over Schopenhauer.

>>11520915
I've read two of his books, that's the point. none of the words in this passage are made up
>>11520534

>>11520927
This. You can read Findlays sum up of the Phenomenology and its all such bullshit once its in clear writing and you don't get of Hegels made up shit.

>>11520929
Thank the translator for that.

>>11520492
Okay, this is epic.

>>11520927
Foucault is even worse, he took "dude we live in a society" and ran with it for his entire career.

>>11520948
there was more to Foucault than that. he had annoying tendencies but he was a perceptive, if kind of insane and degenerate, person

>>11520936
It's literally the opposite of what >>11520630 said, Heidegger wanted to avoid all the confusion Hegel ran into by redefining philosophical/colloquial definitions, and instead decided creating new terms would help avoid the problem altogether. Hegel was not the type of philosopher to just make up random new words -- it's a sign you've never read Hegel. Here, this is a diagram of his system of logic, link me any made up words you find.
http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm#tree

>>11520956
>we live inside a prisonciety

>>11520956
There is nothing more to Foucault than bias. Everything he did was a reaction to being butthurt about having to live in a society

>>11520960
Turn to literally any page of the PoS (piece of shit) in German and you will see how much of a mess it is.

>>11520916
Also all the French Poststructuralists (and Strauss, and the EU) thru Koyeve (and to a lesser xtent Hyppolite and Kovre), and many others through subtle multiform influence even if on the surface they mostly all ADAMANTLY claimed otherwise. This was the point of the Hegel meme, to expose all of 20th century academic """theory""", Verso's whole catalogue, all of it, as a hoax.

>>11520927
this is a famous passage against mysticism and knowledge based on revelation. try based Sadler if you're having this much trouble

>>11520965
see
>>11520602

>>11520968
Sadler is the worst because he teaches Hegel through an Analytic American Christian bias. If you haven't figured that out by watching any of his videos then there is no hope for you.

>>11520973
Not an excuse for being an obscuratanist and inventing new terms

>>11520984
they literally couldn't even read the passage, what do you want me to link them, Kojeve?
>>11520987
>inventing new terms
staaahhp

Literally nobody in this thread has read Hegel. The passage y’all are considering is a clear denunciation of antirational philosophers and y’all are acting like it’s the Zodiac killer’s secret code or something

>>11520994
t. learned Hegel from Sadler

It shows.

>>11520994
>y'all

>>11520987
>can't name a single new term he invented
>shakespeare was an "obscurantist" because he just made up new words
>doesn't know how german language works

>>11520994
>y'all

dumbass american. go eat something

>>11521005
>>11520994
>>11520960
HDF has arrived

>>11520997
not true, I read the first hundred pages of pos then stopped

>>11521013
>only read 1/4 of the book

Then you are not in authority to talk about it

>>11520600
All good authors do this

>>11521021
Philosophers who want to be taken seriously shouldn't

>>11521035
almost all noted thinkers have appropriated terms and played with neologism, its what they do. i cant think of any really that didn't, even the common language types. its like shorthand. again, what words did hegel coin? aufhebung was already a word.

>>11521047
Nearly every page is littered with ill defined words that are utterly meaningless even with the "context" he feigns to provide. If you claim to "get" Hegel you are lying to yourself. Its a bunch of word salad

>>11520534
>>11520543
>>11520559
>>11520883

He's criticizing some of his contemporaries for appealing to an intuition that puts you in immediate contact with the divine. He thinks that the intellectual work of going through all the stages (which he'll go through in the rest of the Phenomenology) has to be done, and that process & its result is what he calls 'Science.'

>>11521092
Thats an insult to science. Hegel literally bullshits his way through the entire book and provides no secondary sources or supporting evidence

>Calls Haiti the most advance nation at the forefront of human rationality

Schopenhaur was right. Need I say more?

>>11520529
You will miss half of Machiavelli's hilarious jokes if you've never read Plato or Aristotle, though.

>>11521113
Forgot picture. Just shows how absolutely wrong Hegel was

All this explains the painful impression with which we are seized when, after studying genuine thinkers, we come to the writings of Fichte and Schelling, or even to the presumptuously scribbled nonsense of Hegel, produced as it was with a boundless, though justified, confidence in German stupidity. With those genuine thinkers one always found an honest investigation of truth and just as honest an attempt to communicate their ideas to others. Therefore whoever reads Kant, Locke, Hume, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Descartes feels elevated and agreeably impressed. This is produced through communion with a noble mind which has and awakens ideas and which thinks and sets one thinking. The reverse of all this takes place when we read the above-mentioned three German sophists. An unbiased reader, opening one of their books and then asking himself whether this is the tone of a thinker wanting to instruct or that of a charlatan wanting to impress, cannot be five minutes in any doubt; here everything breathes so much of dishonesty.

>>11520582

he's not just being distrustful, he's literally equating rapture uninflected by (not reached via a progression through) science/reason to dream-content. he's placing its telos on that dream loop in the om symbol instead of above it, its alleged location

the paragraph is beautifully written and translated, he could've used less words to state our general reading of it, but his explanations seem accurate and nonobvious, like iding the contingency of content as the ruling force in a territory of rapture/dream wouldve never occurred to me, but it's a brief and exact description

stop memeing the phenomenology, Hegel wasn't that bad at writing

>>11521159
what the fuck

>>11520534
writing aside I disagree with this really hard.
Language is imperfect; The relative ease of expressing a given experience doesn't reveal any great substance or depth or reality of the experience. It merely reflects that language's compatibility with that particular kind of experience.
Take descriptions of experiences with psychoactive substances. They all sound so overblown, stilted. I suppose Hegel would be satisfied to say AHA, see, it's all bullshit. But the only way of really understanding something like that is experiencing it first-hand.
And I think everyone understands this principle. An adult speaking to a child, for instance, can never really convey the gravity of some things, but with age we all come to understand these truths of maturity. These are experiential truths. No matter how many words you use, or how emphatically you say them, words are just insufficient in these cases.
The power of spirit is much greater than its expression.

>>11520534
system-building is gay

Hege's the original pseud

>>11521159
lmao, this is borderline unintelligible

>>11521283
Hegel was the Jordan B Peterson of his day. Smart enough to trick people into thinking what he is saying holds weight but too dumb to actually make say anything that is worthwhile. But even JBP doesn't resort to pulling out made up words when he talks himself into a corner.

>>11520492

Hegel has never written anything other than vague statements that are hard to disprove but at the same time don't mean anything. Like "dude over time people get smarter", no shit einstein.

>>11521159
>he makes philosophy into a contemplative act of rationalism rather than a balls-to-the-walls phenomenological overdose of deterritorialized sensations and unconcealment which recognizes the Significant as the World in which all meaning and even human life itself dependently takes place and must be met every second, continually, with the aiding amplification of amphetamines
lmao@urlife

>>11520609
Literally the first page;
"vorausgeschickt, Behandlungen, hereingezogen, Wissenschaftlichkeit, Zusammenhange, Mannigfaltigkeit"

All words he pulled out of no where and refuses to further specify what he means or set any ground rules of why he uses them. It's an embarrassment to the entire field of philosophy and it's why science doesn't take you seriously.

>>11521317
>and it's why science doesn't take you seriously.

>>11521327
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

>>11521293
They're not comparable. Despite how obscure Hegel is, his thoughts are at least original.

>>11521334
But philosophers generally don't assert that anything we perceive isn't real. What they will assert, however, is the difficulty in the creation of abstract concepts from an organic reality.

>>11520635

This is the charlatanic mumbo jumbo that pseudointellectual, oversocialised, limp wristed humanities students attempt to make sense of

>>11520927
>The whole paragraph can be summarized as, "Those who give themselves wholly over to the power of the Spirit and God gain a self-knowledge from God, who gives them wisdom in their sleep."
It's literally the complete opposite

>>11521327
based and redpilled

>>11520534
>>11520927
>>11520912
>>11520559
>>11520543
It's a bad translation, it would have made sense in german with sentence long words and verbs as an afterthought

>>11520534
Those are words, but it feels like he just stapled them in to make himself appear smart, like when a /lit/ post is purple

Four tres two uno

[Will.i.am:]
Listen up y'all 'cause this is it
The beat that I'm bangin' is delicious

[Fergie:]
Fergalicious definition make them boys go loco
They want my treasure so they get their pleasures from my photo
You could see me you can't squeeze me
I ain't easy I ain't sleazy
I got reasons why I tease 'em
Boys just come and go like seasons

Fergalicious (so delicious)
But I ain't promiscuous
And if you were suspicious
All that shit is fictitious
I blow kisses (muah)
That puts them boys on rock rock
And they be lining down the block
Just to watch what I got
(four tres two uno)

So delicious
(it's hot hot)
So delicious
(I put them boys on rock rock)
So delicious
(they wanna slice of what I got)
I'm fergalicious
(t-t-t-t-t-tasty tasty)

Fergalicious def—
Fergalicious def—
Fergalicious def— ["def" is echoing]
Fergalicious definition make them boys go crazy
They always claim they know me
Comin' to me call me Stacy (hey Stacy)
I'm the F to the E R G the I the E
And can't no other lady put it down like me

I'm fergalicious
(so delicious)
My body stay vicious
I be up in the gym just working on my fitness
He's my witness (oh wee)
I put yo' boy on rock rock
And he be lining down the block
Just to watch what I got
(four tres two uno)

So delicious
(it's hot hot)
So delicious
(I put them boys on rock rock)
So delicious
(they wanna slice of what I got)
I'm fergalicious
(hold hold hold hold hold up check it out)

[Vamp:]
Baby baby baby
If you really want me
Honey get some patience
Maybe then you'll get a taste
I'll be tasty tasty
I'll be laced with lacey
It's so tasty tasty
It'll make you crazy

[Will.i.am:]
T to the A to the S T E Y girl you're tasty
T to the A to the S T E Y girl you're tasty
D to the E to the L I C I O U S
To the D to the E to the to the to the
Hit it Fergie

[Fergie:]
All the time I turn around
Brother's gather round
Always looking at me up and down
Looking at my (uh)
I just wanna say it now
I ain't trying to round up drama
Little mama I

>>11521661
>>11521661
It's called the german language translated literally

>>11520492
>Presented without comment
But that's a comment

>>11521673
the original author presented it without comment, OP is reposting the image with an appropriate annotation, you dumb weeaboo shit, what are you even doing on this board you escapist brainlet, go back

>>11520534
He's wrong though. Aquinas was the greatest theological system-builder in history and at the end of life he had a spiritual experience and acquired an intuitive understanding of God that made all his writings seem to him like "straw".

>>11520867
Stirner was a Hegelian.

>>11521683
wow projecting much
[commented without comment]

>>11521701
He was affiliated with the young Hegelians but he was probably the most non-hegelian out of all of them.

>hegel
Flawless, timeless, irrefutable Platonic system that changed the entire world.
>hegel's critics
duuuhhh gumbobumpo fleepsnorq scrubble mcbubble xD

>>11521102
Because science in German had different connotations to now, you dork. Google 'Wissenschaft'.

>>11521708
>hegel
haven't read, he must be amazing though he sounds smart, german name and all
>hegel's critics
have read, they can't know what they're talking about, they just don't understand him, and neither do I

fixed it for you

>>11520719
>philosophizing with a hammer
poor heidegger, never stood a chance :-(

>>11521721
why does it infuriate you people so much that others get something out of what you're only going to be flummoxed by? stick to cryptic crosswords or something more your speed

>>11521735
I'm pretty sure you never read Hegel, I only have a problem with how much of a poser you are

>>11521735
>that pic
me desu

>>11521746
t. doesnt know about the weltgeist, mad about "muh posers" instead

>>11520968
I get what he's saying, but he provides absolutely zero good evidence against mysticism in that paragraph. Absolutely fucking zero. I get the picture he paints of it in these words, but the paints are all taken out of his frequently fisted, faggot German ass.

>>11521776
hegel was a mystic you retards

>>11520534

it's hilarious that the collective reading level of this board has degenerated to such a point that someone writing naturally at a very high level is accused of affectation and trying to "look smart"

pseuds like the ones that have infested this thread always want everything reduced to soundbytes and think any articulation of an idea beyond what can be communicated in syllogisms and various beeps and tones must be fluff, when it's precisely hegel's point that truth just is the process of its own articulation and not the "empty universals" of your hallmark card kurzegast-tier reddit philosophies

>>11521699
no you goober aquinas may have marked a boundary for faith but those arent valid grounds to accuse him of the "rapturous haziness"

>>11521317
But those are relatively common words.

>>11520534
and to think I was going to jump right into hegel out of my college philosophy 1 course

>>11520991
This is what you get when you donate $1000/month to Sadler's Patreon.

>>11521317
Those are just regular german words

>>11521317
German is full of words you can't find in any dictionary, those aren't even that extravagant

>>11520584
Why do Hegel's defenders only offer cultish non-arguments?

twitter communists are even worse than twitter deep ecologists

>>11521889
It's true though you nit

>>11521913
show me some of those twitter deep ecologists then

>>11521926
don't know but I just found this in my twitter folder

>>11521933
>be me
>watch sailor moon with gf
>secretly desire for my gf to start wearing her highschool uniform again
mfw

>>11521947
>tfw 16 is legal in my country
dream's not dead yet bros

>>11520534
There is absolutely nothing difficult about this passage, are you just pretending to be brainlets?

>>11521952
I feel like age of consent is arbitrary due to different 'blooming'. I hit puberty at 8 and would obviously be sexually active before others who hit it at a later age.

I really only like the schoolgirl aesthetic, we started dating when I was 18ish, and she 16ish. I'd never go out with someone that young now at 20. I do want someone who is mentally and physically mature.

Just my thoughts. Call them out if you think they're immoral, but I do think lots of what we brand 'pedofilic' and guarding of young bodies is uncalled for. On the contrary, I also think that someone at 18 can be immature and prepubescent - and they should not have sex.

>>11521976
Fuck off you fucking faggot

This thread is embarrassing

>>11521979
Go on... tell me hwhy

>>11521947
>be me
>don't watch escapist cartoons for overweight losers
>still alone with no gf

>>11520927
>The whole paragraph can be summarized as, "Those who give themselves wholly over to the power of the Spirit and God gain a self-knowledge from God, who gives them wisdom in their sleep."

Hegel mocks this view in that passage, are you retarded?

>>11521317
Is there any way we can meddle with the brains of STEM people to turn them into the philosophical zombies they so obviously want to be. I am absolutely one hundred and ten percent serious about this. It really is worth considering that we should look into some method of removing all the functions of the brain which allow STEMfags to do anything other than whatever they need for their autistic little field. Honestly. Give me a mathematician and an ice cream scoop and half an hour. Love and passion, nope not using it, you don't need it (*SCOOOP*). Desire for meaning and authenticity, don't think you even knew you had this (*SCOOOOOOP*). Basic ethical and aesthetic sensibilities, well known to any well-adjusted three your old, you certainly won't miss this (*SCOOOOOOOOOOP*). Then we screw the top of his head back on and marvel at our creation: the ideal STEMfag, reduced to his essential part, a human calculator in the case of our mathematician. And I genuinely believe that he would thank me if he could. This is all STEMfags want to be, this is all they're really capable of being.

Give them all to me and with an ice cream scoop I'll fix all their problems. They won't have to worry about any of the dastardly, irritating aspects of life, such as beauty, or religious hope, or virtue, or even sensuality (which will be merely sense-data once I'm done with my scoop).

You really do have to understand, noble reader, that this isn't even in the slightest a cruel thing to do. It's removing from them those things which would do nothing but bother and irritate them till the end of their days. They don't want these things which are so valuable to you and I, noble reader. In fact, their every utterance is a plea to the universe to "reduce" and "eliminate" and simplify and I, and my trusted associates at the clinic, with our scoops would do nothing more than give them that freedom from unnecessaries that they so desire.

It's a perfect solution, which frees us from having to listen to their opinions on things outside of objectively measurable phenomena pertaining to their field and their field alone, and it frees them from the distractions, such as moral intuitions and human consciousness, which they are so disturbed by that they need to deny the very existence of these things.

Just picture it, thousands upon thousands of STEMfags walking out the clinic back towards their test tubes or whatever they do. Imagine the grotesque rictus smiles on their chinless anglo faces. "I'm finally free", they would think, were they not indeed finally free from that thing which they felt most keenly to be a burden on them, qualia, human consciousness, and all the beauty, passion, love, emotion, all the duty, the sense of virtues, the religious hunger, the ups and downs and bends and curves of being *human*, all that aesthetic, moral, spiritual... noise, which plagued them like tinnitus until my act of kindness.

To do anything else, would be utterly inhumane.

>>11521983
>>don't watch escapist cartoons for overweight losers
Maybe your highbrow demeanour scares away the would-be waifus. It makes far more sense to become cultivated and cultured, while using popular media as a gateway to touch the unwashed. You shouldn't want to be alienated by the masses.

>>11521988
Delete this, you're doing it wrong. Use the pasta somewhere else, where it actually applies, over-saturation will cheapen it.

>>11520534
no idea what he's talking about but the ending of that paragraph is strong.

>>11520554

You don't read Hegel. He reads you.

>>11521287
No it isn't its easy as pie, what are you mongs doing on a literature board

Translation: only time affords us the distance to be able to see a present state of things for what it is, to have a determinate notion of the order of things. You're seeing it now with Trump, he's riding that wave, neoliberalism has come into its Notion. Hegel's saying true philosophy comes at the end of processes as the self-appropriation of those processes, and Science is just knows this at a dialectical level

>>11522048
Hegel is dead. His philosophy even more so.

>>11521988
I'm taking a shit right now, and I'd really love to be doing that over Krauss and force his nose into my anus repeatedly as I squirt diarrhea all over his cunt face

>>11520534
OK I NEED SOMEONE TO GO OVER THIS LINE BY LINE OR I DROP MY CHICKEN TENDIES RIGHT NOW

>>11522052

This makes approaching Hegel all the more propitious. It was his legacy that was bad. The man is quarry for philosophical thoughts. Forget the adumbrations of his interpreters. Engage the man without notion or pretense; as if he were some strange alien hologram. You'll find yourself thinking strange and wonderful things.

>>11520948
>>11520962
>dude just accept that it is what it is lmao

>>11520962
>>11520948
t. Barrelposter

>>11521721
Anyone under 30 must be banned from discussing literature and philosophy.

>>11520492

twitter: lorem ipsum + all yall lil lol + random pictures of rappers = 6 digit retweets

>>11520492
>trance twitter marxists
Kys

This is Hegel. Say something nice about him

>>11520927
>The whole paragraph can be summarized as, "Those who give themselves wholly over to the power of the Spirit and God gain a self-knowledge from God, who gives them wisdom in their sleep."

That's precisely what he's NOT saying.

>>11520927
>>11522220

It's also ironic that you are a perfect example of the empty depth Hegel speaks of.

>>11520534
>/lit/ actually finds this passage difficult

Bunch of pseuds

>>11521988
this but please leave the biologists alone

>>11520534

>>11521926
look for the ones with pine emoji.

>>11520534
new translation

>>11522391
What translation?

>>11521102
>Asking for secondary evidence in the work of a systematic philosopher
You probably shouldn't be discussing big boy topics, anon

>>11521102
>m-muh sources

haha come on dude. read words and comprehend them, its that easy hahahaha

>>11520927
10/10 bait

>>11522085
ffs, give me a couple mins to wake up. what happened to the /lit/ that loved Hegel and enjoyed difficult literature?

>>11520534
this is actually pretty woke, he is saying that if you think you have found a deep truth, but have to deliberately obscure aspects ("rapturous haziness is superior to science", "draw a veil over your self-consciousness") of it then you are a deceiving yourself

>>11520534
>>11522085
>>11522837
[slightly different translation for sake easier of copy/pasta. keep in mind this is very reductive and meant to provide the sort of edification this very passage is against]
>Still less must this kind of contentment, which holds science in contempt, take upon itself to claim that raving obscurantism of this sort is something higher than science.
The "this" that Hegel speaks of here is Divinity and the a form of "edifying" philosophy, or, philosophy in which you only need to learn a certain set of facts of tables without any deeper experience or context to nest them in.
>These apocalyptic utterances pretend to occupy the very centre and the deepest depths; they look askance at all definiteness and preciseness of meaning; and they deliberately hold back from conceptual thinking and the constraining necessities of thought, as being the sort of reflection which, they say, can only feel at home in the sphere of finitude.
These people say you don't need to worry about the "real world" (determinitness) and actively resists engaging with the way it presents itself to us (Notion and Necessity) and instead focuses on empty subjective interpretation (that the world out there exists only in/for their subjective reflection)
>But just as there is a breadth which is emptiness, there is a depth which is empty too: as we may have an extension of substance which overflows into finite multiplicity without the power of keeping the manifold together, in the same way we may have an insubstantial intensity which, keeping itself in as mere force without actual expression, is no better than superficiality.
A deep revelation or "you would know if only you had been there" approach cannot be scientific. Denying it can be expressed is just as bad as a "broad" yet superficial expression of the same content.

>>11522929
>>11520534
>>11522085
>>11522837
>The force of mind is only as great as its expression; its depth only as deep as its power to expand and lose itself when spending and giving out its substance.
Science doesn't exist in some objective vacuum or biological process, it only exists to the degree to which it has been worked out
>Moreover, when this unreflective emotional knowledge makes a pretence of having immersed its own very self in the depths of the absolute Being, and of philosophizing in all holiness and truth, it hides from itself the fact that instead of devotion to God, it rather, by this contempt for all measurable precision and definiteness, simply attests in its own case the fortuitous character of its content, and in the other endows God with its own caprice.
These people don't just get things wrong, they actively work to mystify being, bring it out of the realm of the intelligible into something "hazy". The self is reduced to something simple, where as Hegel saw consciousness as necessarily wrapped up in contradiction (more on that in sense certainty). Their explaining away does more harm than good.
>When such minds commit themselves to the unrestrained ferment of sheer emotion, they think that, by putting a veil over self-consciousness, and surrendering all understanding, they are thus God’s beloved ones to whom He gives His wisdom in sleep. This is the reason, too, that in point of fact, what they do conceive and bring forth in sleep is dreams.
By giving up on the process of science and instead falling to one of the superficial paths to knowledge, you are like someone who sleeps. you may feel you are making real progress, gaining true knowledge, but, like knowledge gathered in a dream, it will all be dust in the wind when you finally wake up

>>11521988
Do assblasted philosophy major brainlets actually believe this?

>>11521649

There are no 'good' translations of a bad text

>>11522977
>a bad text

It's fine if you don't understand it and don't want to but the people who actually do can see right through your posturing

>>11522973
Not really, most philosophy departments try to appeal to the sciences desperately. My philosophy teacher was surprised I even read Hegel (it was lectures on aesthetics, so not much). They do in my faculty, at least.

>>11522481
Here you go
https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/terry-pinkard-hegels-phenomenology-the-sociality-of-reason.pdf

>>11522996
>filename

very nice

>>11523022
thought it was gonna be the 9781139050494 isbn of Pinkard's translation that published in February this year

Thanks tho

>>11522992
I dunno. I've met several people whose claim to understanding it is legitimate, and none of them could offer any explanation of his worth.

fuck

>>11522992
>It's fine if you don't understand and don't want to
The thing is, it's not fine. If you're going to have a discussion on a text the bare minimum should be to understand on a basic level what the text is transmitting. Not wanting to understand a text goes against the entire purpose of /lit/ as a board for discussion. The mentality that it's okay to trash something without even making an effort towards comprehending it is the basis of the anti-intellectualism which plagues and threatens to nullify this board. The text itself is pretty densely written, sure, but by no means is it nonsensical, and the edition at >>11522391 spells the meaning out even more clearly. Now, if someone has an issue with what's actually being said by Hegel that would be different, but the majority of responses seem to be "I don't understand it, therefore it must not have merit."

What drives people to behave this way? Isn't understanding something always better than the alternative? Sure, there's the slim possibility that Hegel was, in fact, spouting unintelligible nonsense. But given the fact that various philosophers have taken his ideas and expounded and expanded on them there's evidence to believe otherwise. Not that there aren't criticisms to be leveled towards Hegel or the passage, but those should be carried out on a foundation of understanding, not ignorance. Isn't gaining new ways of understanding the entire purpose of philosophy i.e. the love of knowledge?

>>11523097
I agree it's smug ignorance and autism

>>11523088
my bad it’s hard to find

>>11523088
>>11523111
>my bad it’s hard to find

no it isn't
https://libgen.pw/item/detail/id/2188046?id=2188046

>>11523198
based

hint: science used without an adjective refers to the scientific method alone, nothing else.

>>11520582
I think you've got the basic gist, but part of his admittedly turgid style is due to him addressing the academic forms of philosophy at the time, especially Fichte and his old friend Schelling, but also the post-Kantian responses to Kant generally. The more technical terms that He's using were part of that mileu. This is also coming from his Preface, wherein he starts off by saying, "It's kinda fucking dumb to start off with a summary of your work without any of the arguments that defend it in the main part, but plans demand a preface so buckle up fuckers."

The actual introduction is much clearer by comparison.

>>11523217
autism

>>11520600
Oh, really? Such as?

>>11520602
>he wrote it in a month
No he didn't you pseud

>>11521317
Oh, so you mean you don't know German as well as you think, good argument 10 outta 10

>>11520534
i am a brainlet and i could understand this with some thinking really easily.

you people are retarded.

>>11523097
If you can't be fucked to write clearly I can't be fucked to read you.

It's that simple.

>>11523452
right, but this doesn't make you superior or anything, it makes you lazy. why walk into a thread and say: "I find this difficult and do not have the intellectual drive to engage with the material so instead I will posture as if my lack of engagement somehow makes my opinion that much more valid"

>>11523467
based

no one cares junior

>>11523467
>right, but this doesn't make you superior or anything
It means that I'm smart enough to realise the value of communicating clearly and concisely, which clearly makes me smarter than Hegel.

Most academics are shit writers.

>>11523471
Nah the boundaries of your comprehension are not universal, humble up little nigga

>>11523480
>the boundaries of your comprehension are not universal

>>11523471
grab one of those little calendars that give you a kitschy little saying every day; you should have no difficulty reading those

>>11523484
I didn't say I couldn't read it, I just said that Hegel has failed to sell me on the payoff for my effort.

No matter how insubstantial the effort is, I suspect a payoff of 0. Therefore any engagement with the text is a waste of time.

Hegel only has himself to blame.

>>11523489
If you can actually read it worrying about the payoff would be immaterial you drooling little goober

>>11523489
>I blame authours for my ineptness and come to conclusions about book before having read them
you are never going to make it anon

>>11520656
nobody on this board or website is a philosopher (you) included

>>11523508
well in that case I have good news because he wasn't writing for 4chan either

>>11523505
>i am incapable of understanding that the entire life of all human beings is a question about the appropriate allocation of limited time
>i don't understand that if i want people to do things i need to persuade them why they should
This is why your books don't sell, faggot.

>>11523501
>If you can actually read it
I haven't even tried m8. Neither you nor I know if I can read it or not.

I'm gonna start getting ready for work now. Thanks for your time, brainlets.

>>11523516
you came into this thread on your own accord anon. no one was trying to persuade you that you should read it. you thought it would be worthwhile to stop by and tell us you wouldn't even if you wanted us to. well, we don't want you to so no hard feelings. have fun at work anon

>>11523471
Clarity can be of value in writing, but that doesn't mean technical writing isn't appropriate for subjects that require it. He's writing for academics already following the difficulties Kantian philosophy posed; if he wrote a clearer book, it's be at least twice as long.

>>11520534
:thonk:

>>11523567
>if he wrote a clearer book, it's be at least twice as long.
Don't kid yourself. It would be a quarter of the length it currently is. I get that you guys are so afraid of appearing "anti-intellectual" that you'll never question the necessity of these dense styles, but there isn't enough depth in these works to justify it.

>>11523734
There is enough depth you wanker, every subject is minimally differentiated with itself by its being there to perceive determinate content: the tension between the indeterminate nothingness of the cogito and representation. this is the motor of the dialectic as an ideality of witnessing recuperating immediacy to itself, difference in Hegel is the recursion of thought, the whole reflecting itself into itself, self-mirroring Mind

You are like a little baby

>>11523734
And you're saying this from having read Hegel?

>>11523793
Zizek's dialectical turn of Hegel is basically: if our grip on reality is always-already notionally determined - if the weight and solidity we give to the world and our problems in it are just defects in our concepts - this doesn't mean that there is a "perfect" concept to get to. Idealism without a Sun. Zizek thinks reality is "ontologically truncated". He thinks the universe is just a plurality of centers whose experience bears on an absent center, like God as a strange attractor. Like a radical immanentization of Proclus' Henads. But Zizek has his Kabbalistic sympathies as well.

>>11523835
plus he likes mother/son incest; based af

>>11520534
Someone with no context for Hegel here. From what I can tell it's against people who put mystical woo above science because the latter is "limited" by its strictness. He's saying that by abandoning strict standards, you don't achieve higher knowledge, you just end up believing bullshit. Doesn't seem that hard to understand unless I've gotten it completely wrong.

>>11523097
You can't just denounce it as anti-intellectualism. We're not denouncing the text because it's a text. We're denouncing the text because it's a bad text.

>>11523889
I spat my drink when he said that shit.
(movie is not that great though. I was kind of nauseated with french people by the end)

>>11520602
>him it
> labyrinthine

>>11520962
I don't think you understood Foucault.

>>11520534
could have been written without sounding like it was generated in dwarf fortress

>>11520609
"This"

>>11523889

>>11524404
his analysis of Sound of Music is better (and Westside Story)

>>11520534
markov chain anyone?

>>11520538
Then you realize that the logical antecedent of the pre-socratics is the philosophy of the post-modernists so you go for one more spin on the intellectual ouroboros

>>11521785
Literally NO ONE talks like that, and hegel is also very confusing for just about anyone regardless of their high level reading skills because of the fact that hegel's philosophy is so fucking convoluted that it really shouldn't matter.

>>11520534
This isn't difficult to parse at all, and in fact it's so relevant to post-nuCatholic/trad /lit/ it's possible you're a Hegel scholar trying to subtly induct followers with something instinctively relatable

>>11525467
the passage in question is simple. you're all brainlets

>>11525469
>trad
so you guys got cucked by pol too then. it's funny that the center of 4chan is now dictated by dumbasses with 88 tattoos on their necks the same way the left ultimately suck marxists' dicks

>>11525470
>the passage in question is simple
Simple in content, not in style.

This, ironically, is the worst way to write.

>simple content simple style
Nothing wrong with that. Working-class literature for the masses.
>complex content simple style
Absolutely B A S E D, though it does sacrifice some artistry
>complex content complex style
Masterpiece tier.
>simple content complex style
Consider suicide.

>>11521785
>it's hilarious that the collective reading level of this board has degenerated to such a point that someone writing naturally at a very high level is accused of affectation and trying to "look smart"
You'd have to be a fool to believe anything that shill for the Prussian crown did was natural, especially his writing.

>>11525739
It's not simple in content. He is simultaneously critiquing a philosophical method while at the same time introducing the mechanics of his own system. He's not simply providing exposition, he is already using the system itself to work through the exposition (hence the use of his yet undefined terminology like Notion and Necessity). Yes, Hegel is hard to read. No point in getting upset about it. Either dive in for a year or two and really get inside the rabbit hole, or ignore it; no point trying to prove to yourself it's not all it's cracked up to be.
>>11525748
>t. didn't read the preface to PoR

>>11525766
>It's not simple in content
Yes it is.

Let's go through it line by line.

As you can see, most of it is fat that can be cut, and what's left is not complicated.

>"B-B-B-BUT"
I'm not interested in quibbling over my word choice here. If you think I have gotten something substantial wrong in my 'translation' then sure, I'm happy to talk about it, but I think I got across the gist and more, and that's all that's worth preserving of this passage.

>>11525790
if you can't see that this is asking edification from philosophy (the very thing he is warning you against) then we are talking past each other. I'm the anon that did the (more nuanced) line by line breakdown here >>11522929 , by the way, I'm not pretending this passage is something extraordinary; but saying it's simple content is nothing more than posturing.

>18th century Phil class in college
>absolutely love Schopenhauer's will and representation. Slave for whole week on passionate essay analyzing it.
>C-
>don't understand a single thing Hegel is trying to say
>write half-ass essay regurgitating Hegelian phrases
>A

Fuck me

>>11525810
Your line by line breakdown is poor. It's not a translation but an explanation, and you use your additional knowledge to provide additional information not relevant in the text.

That may be what Hegel is trying to say, but it is not what he's saying in those words.

My line by line breakdown is superior, and in no way inaccurate except that you could, perhaps, be more specific in the very last segment, but not it doesn't matter enough to be worth a full revision.

Hegel (let's pretend that Hegel wrote this translation) is a bad writer. Most academics are. Most philosophers are. Writing and philosophy are not the same skill. You can be a good philosopher and also a bad writer. This is bad writing. You can tell it's bad writing not just because of its objective lack of merit (>objective), but also because this argument is happening at all. If this writing was good, there would be argument about what it means.

>>11525830
>not relevant in the text.
not extant*

Sorry, I'm smashing these posts out in between rounds of WarThunder.

>>11525830
>superior
yeah, real big brain over here. hey, post some hard philosophy so I can really get started.

>>11525836
>concise = bad
you = dumb

>>11521327
The most ironic thing about this picture is that some statements on the right are actually quite legit. Like Dawkins saying about a philosopher that he doesn't take common sense for an answer or that Bill Nye guy (haven't heard of him) saying that what we percieve as reality is actually (sort of) real.

>>11525840
I really hope you are trolling my dude

>>11525846
It's not a line by line translation, it's a line by line replacement. If you take that single section out of all context (which you have done) of course it seems overly reductionist. This is because my line replacement depends on the line replacement before it.

In the attached context, i.e. in its proper context, the replacement is proper. Hegel is writing a long and pointless flowery description of shit nobody cares about.

>>11520534
These are thoughts you cant express in a simple, vulgar tongue like english.

>>11525869
This
How anyone could call himself an intellectual speaking only the language of the salmon is beyond me.

t. German, English, Latin, Ancient Greek and a little French

>>11521269
fuck you

>>11525827
me_irl

>>11521983
Nobody likes elitists, especially not other elitists.

>>11520534
It's a critique of Neoplatonism and negative theology. Makes sense if you understand the theory of procession from, and return to, forms; and the negative theology of Plotinus, Dionsyus et al.

>>11520927
He's critiquing that negative theology as a delusion: "nothing but dreams."

>>11520927
Foucault is a lot more comprehensible than Hegel tho

i don't know what it is but i can't stand goon humor
something about the tone just evokes tremendous douche chills
difficult to convey, honestly

>>11525790
>it just leads to nonsense
The entire paragraph is Hegel admitting he is too dumb to understand Platonism.

>>11521776
This. All Hegel does here is confess he doesn't understand Plotinus, Proclus, Dionysius, Eriugena etc.; it's an expression of his bafflement at their system, not arguments against it.

>>11520534
With embellishments removed.

>>11526197
Lol no it fucking isn't, holy shit, it's a critique of the Romantics dude

>>11526305
HEGEL WAS A PLATONIST

>>11526500
No.

>>11526482
No.

>>11526381
Nice
Can you translate the entirety of PoS too?

>>11520960
Wtf is this website

>>11525869
Yeah he chose a different barbaric language for his thoughts instead.

>>11522934
What a fucking pseud desu, sounds like Hegel just didn't have cool enough dreams to be a prophet.

>>11520927
>REAL PHILOSOPHY is nothing pithy aphorisms
Okay now this is epic

>>11525888
k

he wasnt writing in hopes of making commoners understand him. he had his own scene with giantbrain friends so he tried to throw something onto the table that wasnt the typical circlejerk language system. so if youre a contemporary brainlet no shit it would take more effort and time to parse. and this is apart from disagreeing or agreeing with his views altogether.

>>11524150
I'm not referring to the people who take issue with the text. I'm referring to those who don't even bother to make a first effort towards understanding the text while simultaneously dismissing it. That is absolutely anti-intellectualism and a despicable attitude to take in a board for discussion. It adds nothing to the conversation and serves only to stroke your own ego. If you see a topic of conversation on a text or author you know nothing about and have no interest in reading and decide that disparaging said text or author is the best course of action, then you are directly complicit in the slow murder of this board.

>>11523097

Unclear writing betrays unclear thought.

Life is too short to bother with bad books

Hourly reminder

>>11527562
Unclear by what standard? From the perspective of someone steeped in Leibniz, Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, Plato, and Aristotle, he's dry and dense, but otherwise clear.

Or did you mean he's unclear by the standards of Wikipedia scholars who need their philosophy to be twitter-sized?

>>11527589
>

>>11527728

HIDF pls

>>11527712

He's the opposite of clear. Many passages in POS are indecipherable, even for actual scholars of his philosophy. It's reminiscent of Kant's schema of the pure concepts, which is notoriously abstruse and ultimately mistaken.

>>11527589

This was a good discussion on /his/

It won't get anything but memes on here though

>>11527589
>>11527780
Can someone link me to that discussion?

>>11527788

It has been posted multiple times, I can't find the best thread

Here's a post I saved from the original though

>>11525411

>>11526110
Thanks for this blackpill, i will reconsider my decisions.

>>11527589
The good way went from Schopenhauer to Wittgenstein. Nietzsche was nothing more than a talented poet.

>>11528670

>shittgenstein

Go playing your word games somewhere else

>>11525827
Damn this made me sad.

>>11525827

Prof sounds like a pseud

>>11520511
Reminder that all Communists are deeply insecure about not understanding Hegel and you should always accuse them of: "if you properly understood Hegel then XYZ."

>>11520873
>plants have philosophical speculations
Is Wittgenstein's comment on the talking lion meant to say that lions have no philosophy or just a different kind of philosophy?

Plants have insanely complex communication and responses to things, and are an incredibly diverse group. It's not Shamalamamam's The Happening, but maybe it's not totally crazy to think some plants could do something like have a philosophical thought and that we wouldn't understand it. At least not yet.

>>11520534
Based AND redpilled

>>11520534
>Facts and specificity are important. Without them, all you have are feelings. And unless you’re God, your feelings aren’t reality.

There you go. I condensed your shitty paragraph into three sentences.

>>11520497
>>11520499
>>11520502
>>11520504
>>11520506
>>11520511
>>11520514
>>11520520
>>11520529
>>11520534
>>11520537
>>11520538
>>11520543
>>11520547
>>11520554
>>11520558
>>11520559
>>11520576
>>11520581
>>11520582
>>11520584
>>11520591
>>11520600
>>11520602
>>11520604
>>11520609
>>11520615
>>11520626
>>11520630
>>11520635
>>11520640
>>11520648
>>11520650
>>11520656
retards

>>11525869
>>11525874
Why do you think english is vulgar? Why can't it be beautiful?

>>11529348
Thread killer

>>11529331
Wait that’s what it meant?

>>11529435
yeah just like the bible just meant love your neighbor and how the CoPR just meant everything's noumenal bro. in fact, if you ever try to engage with a philosopher's primary text you are a mary and a psude. grab a copy of cliffs notes, and open yourself a monster energy; obviously that's the proper way to practice philosophy.

>>11529448
Consider how your position that nothing is reducible conflicts with the paragraph we are talking about. If you can read it, that is. ;)

>>11529435
He is also (ironically) rallying against half assed reductive approaches to philosophy that skim the surface rather than try to enter the system and understand it from it's own perspective. He is also setting up distinctions which will be explored let in the PoS (eg. between determinateness and Notion and Necessity). He also differentiates between "mystic" and "reductive" approaches to philosophy (eg. breadth and depth).
or, you know, he's just a dumb dumb and the smart people of /lit/ have cracked the code so we can abandon the 200 years of Hegelian studies (thank god because that shit is hard; I like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard because they write like "real literature")

>>11529487
except he literally says "just as there is an empty breadth [mysticism], so too there is an empty depth [reductivism]"

>>11529502
The fact that there are limits to which phenomena can be reduced while retaining their original meaning doesn’t mean that they can’t be somewhat compressed. Like, for instance, taking a horrifically turgid paragraph and condensing it to three sentences. Your boy here isn’t throwing down a gauntlet. He is calling for less extremity in the positions of both positivists and essentialists.

>>11529528
>The fact that there are limits to which phenomena can be reduced while retaining their original meaning doesn’t mean that they can’t be somewhat compressed.
this is a non-sequiter. the question isn't "is anything reducible", the question is "are reductive approaches the proper way to practice philosophy". If you are an analytic, of course you would say yes (based on Russell's interpretation of certain philosophers, one wonders if he did go by cliff notes). But Hegel isn't playing that game.

>>11529556
Then what game is he playing—working in the purely a priori or producing a philosophy in which all uncompressed phenomena are accounted for?

>>11529587
he's literally telling you the game he's playing at the very beginning of the preface. this is literally a cherry picked section out of the part of the book where he lays this out. have you read the phenomenology, anon? (to answer your question it's far closer to the latter, although sublimation does act as a sort of compression (never as reduction though))

>>11520534
I actually understood that. He's denouncing the "philosophy of intuition" as the bullshit it is.

I'm pretty sure this is the preface too.