/lit/ - Literature

>>11709884
It's mostly geniuses that are well known for disagreeing with him.

>>11709890
disagreeing is not equal to intimidated though

>>11709890
this

>>11709897
No, shit brainlet. The people OP is referencing aren't actually intimidated by them. That's just rhetoric OP is using to reframe the actual situation. I corrected it.

>>11709890
i seriously hope you dont consider yourself a genius anon

who is that you pseudo intellectuals

>>11709988
Kant

>>11709988
Shopperhauer, you can tell by the sideburns.

>>11709988
Bloom

>>11709988
Aquinas

>>11709884
eyebags always intimiate brainlets

>>11709988
Peirce

>>11709988
Nietzsche

>>11709884
Name one important thing that Hegel figured out and give his argument for it's truth.

>>11709988
>>11710003
>>11710012
>>11710024
>>11710190
>>11710370
>>11710380
You're being messed with, buddy. It's either Wolff or Husserl—it's hard to tell when you zoom in that close.

>>11709988
Man-God

>>11709988
Peterson

>>11709890
Only one genius disagreed with him.

>>11710473
Who dat

>>11710494
karl marx

>>11710498
>Marx
>Genuis
An evil genius who kills 100,000,000 million people just by complaining about having to go to work. Yeah, put that in the comic books.

>>11710473
>>11710494
>>11710498
Two, actually.

Hegel got BTFO after pic related was done with him. Don't even know why people bother to read him anymore.

>>11710703
this, kierks was redpilled af

>>11710703
Hegel got BTFO by himself when he wrote that book praising cuckoldry

Hegel literally spawned Communism and Facism, the grub. It's just like when people call others homophobic, like it's not fear it's hate. In Hegel's case I'm more disgusted than intimidated

The hysteric becomes most hysterical when confronted with his polar opposite.

>>11709988
Evola

>>11709988
Kierkegaard

>>11709919
RIP Lenny Cohen

>>11709988
Heraclitus

>>11709988
moot

>>11710498
>>11710703
Neither of these guys thought Hegel should be done away with. They took their own thought in a direction it wouldn't have gone if it wasn't for hegel.

>>11710383
Truth develops historically, and the Conciousness of this allows a teleological mapping of development. So Marx/Lenin took this to express the instability of inhumane conditions for the working class that will and did lead to a revolution that shaped the entire century and to this day. Leo Strauss took this and developed the idea of creating a myth of America as a world savior by spreading liberal democracy, he Alan Greenspan and Aym rand among others banded together to create what is now called the Neo Conservative faction of the Alt right. At the center of this was Leo Strauss, who was a Hegelian.

>>11709988

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Because they do not respect all the league titles he's won

>>11709884
I dont know but his inability to justify the dialectical method is laughable. There is no entailment from one step to the next, and as soon as you recognize it you see that this is the problem so prevalent within German Idealism and the continental philosophy that followed it, specifically, through its methodology

Going from one point to the next for Hegel or some continental philosopher, just ask, "Why this? Why not something else?", and it all comes falling down and shown to be at worst fanfiction of some other philosophy, or poetry at best.

>>11714640
Schopenhauer doesn't use that method

>>11709988
That's Schelling

The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.

>>11709890
I am a genius (146 IQ) and I didn't even understand Hegel lol...

>>11714735
>you see that this is the problem so prevalent within German Idealism and the continental philosophy that followed it

Not

>you see that this is the problem necessarily* within all of* German Idealism and the continental philosophy that followed it

>>11714640
The method justifies itself, which is appropriate, given that its process is one of self determination and identification

>>11715001
>The method justifies itself

It is one thing to claim this, another to justify it

>>11709884
i think that you can see his intelligence in his face

I mean mindlets

>>11709988
your illegitimate lovechild

Is german idealism something you can't skip? I'm about to finish Kant and I can't wait to read schopenhauer and neetchee but I have spent so much time on the critique of pure reason that I'm thinking it would take me at least a year to go through PoS, since I don't give a fuck about marxism, what could Hegel bring to me?

>>11709926
Correct yourself

>>11709988
Zizek

>>11716519
No you can absolutely skip it. Kant is the only one you need to read and that is only because he started German Idealism

>>11709988
Hegel

>>11716519
If you want to get to sadboi and the edgemaster you certainly don't have to go via Hegel. At least not the entire PoS. Speand that time on eastern thought instead.

Because the Absolute pill is the hardest of all pills to swallow - to gaze upon the totality of creation in its Immediate element is maddening. Only through arduous labour with the Negative does one become ready to consume the pill of pills. One most be willing to go through the dialectical process of Spirit in its entirety: to consume all the other pills, to let the Notions contained therein be played out to their conclusion and their inner contradictions thus revealed and overcome. Through this constant process of negation and sublation, Spirit marches towards the consciousness of its own freedom.

When one is finally ready to consume the pill, the phenomenology of Spirit is in doing so concluded. The subject finally sees itself within Substance, and comprehends that Substance IS in its essence Subject, seeing the reflection of the self within the world. In doing so, the Absolute pilled Subject exists in their fully actualized form: as Spirit both in-itself (an-sich) and for-itself (für-sich).

>>11719189
It feels so fucking good to know your school of thought is dead

>>11719233
Guess again

>>11719012
Fuck

>>11719742

>>11714764
that’s not genius level, 150 is the actual threshold and even then if you don’t contribute it means nothing

t. 135 iq haute brainlet

>>11719189
Based

>>11710383
I can't
>>11710703
Hegel was BTFO as soon as he put words on paper, it just took people a little while to figure it out. He's only read because of Marx.
>>11711041
extremely factual post
>>11714573
Literally everything you just wrote was wrong, congrats. I really thought I'd find at least one half-truth in there but it was just all wrong.
>>11714640
Best post in this entire thread
>>11715001
I think even you knew this was wrong when you wrote it
>>11716519
Yes. I spent a year and a half reading PoS so that I could actually understand what Hegel was saying. I understood it, and realized I had wasted all that time for nothing. However, you should read it anyways, because it will help you begin to hate philosophy and see it for the vapid pursuit it is.
>>11719233
It's nice that other people feel the same way as I do

>>11709988
Georgie Heckles, notorious boom-boxer and graffiti artist

>>11720967
cringe and bluepilled

>>11709988
that's me

>>11720967
>spent a year and a half on the phenomenology
>this is all he came away with


lmao godawful my man, never post again

>>11720967
>I spent a year and a half reading PoS

>>11714573
>Truth develops historically

Okay, so this statement could mean all kinds of things. Does it mean that what is perceived as true changes through time? That seems so trivial that it cannot possibly be what is meant by this, as such a trivial idea cannot possibly be an innovation of Hegel. Does it mean that the *actual* truth changes through time? What could this even mean? Does the validity of the proclamations of Hegel that truth develops historically change through time as well so as to become not true anymore at some point in history? This sounds like it's either too vague to be meaningful (more likely) or really stupid since the supposed truth that "truth develops historically" could then "develop historically" and not be true anymore at which point the assertion is defeated by it's own Catch-22. However, this analysis is meaningless as I believe that assertions of this type are meant to be purposefully vague more then they are meant as actual assertions.

>the consciousness of this allows a teleological mapping of development

What does it mean to "telelogically map" the "development" of truth? To fit the truth to a purpose? I have to infer the meaning from the word roots. Why does the consciousness of the fact that truth develops historically lead as a logical necessity to the fact that a "teleogical mapping" (whatever that is) of the development of truth is possible? This is precisely the sort of thing I am trying to ask to clarify the bare bones basics and which never gets explained with people who are enamored with Hegel. It all appears to be bogus word-salad.

>>11720967
>I understood it

You obviously didn’t because your still retarded

>>11721085
Youre not gonna understand shit because you’re a fucking idiot

>>11721099
i.e There's no plain way of explaining any of Hegelian word salad because it's vacuous.

>>11721103
nah. apply yourself.

>>11721085
Try reading this book

>>11721108

Okay, since I'm so stupid I am asking you or literally anybody else that likes Hegel to spoonfeed me his ideas and their justification in plain terms.

>>11721114
So you like being spoonfed?

>>11721085
I don’t think you should be reading philosophy

>>11721122
Being spoonfed is good if it provides clarifications. You just like to appear sophisticated.

>>11721131
>Being spoonfed is good
Ok ur done

>>11721114
his system is basically the idea that truth can't be spoonfed, that the truth that's worked out bit by bit will always be fuller than the truth reduced to soundbite precisely because it was worked out bit by bit.

if you lived for millenia, you'd obviously be smarter than you are now just because you would be the self that you are that lived for millenia. get it? hegel is saying truth - God - just is this process of endlessly articulating itself through time, not becaus he pre-determined it, but just because it's happening and keeps happening. but this is just a fraction of a fraction of what he's saying.

>>11721127
>>11721108
>>11721099

Notice how there are no refutations, clarifications, or explanations in any of these posts.

>>11721144
>this guy is an idiot
>ok can someone just tell me what this guy is saying

U r a dumbass

>>11721141
What on earth is "truth reduced to soundbite" as it compares to truth worked out "bit by bit" and how are different truths distinguished in their "fullness"?

>hegel is saying truth - God - just is this process of endlessly articulating itself through time

Evidence pl0x.

>>11721167
I am asserting that nobody who has replied to this thread actually knows how Hegel justifies any of his assertions.

>>11721114
Hegel is essentially trying to get smart people to band together and show them that all of history is leading up to us recognizing ourselves as humanity and to once and for all commit genocide on retards like you so that there can be peace in the world

>>11709884
because hegel contributed literally nothing to philosophy. people who read hegel contributed to philosophy, but hegel just blabbered incoherently for a while and philosocucks did the "oh hegel you're so wise hegel" thing. his works are so bad and so open to interpretation, nobody who's "a hegelian" actually reads hegel, they read critiques and interpretations of him.

no, i am being serious, this is an actual problem in hegelian philosophy right now. you can disagree, but you're entitled to choose to be wrong. should you disagree, please by all means go and actually talk to actual philosophy departments and mingle with classes. people read hegel, say "wtf did i just read i should look it up so i seem smart" then regurgitate whatever they find that pleases them. hegel's a big fucking meme right now because nobody's willing to challenge anybody because nobody's read the fucking original texts because they're literally the ramblings of a madman.

>>11721173
>>11721178

>dude evidence lmao

come back when you graduate from positivist sunday school. yawn. git gud

>>11721190
"No."

>>11721196

Ur a dumb dumb

>>11709988
socrates

come back after you have read "Philosophy of History" and then gone on to get a four-year education in cultural anthropology, biopsychosocial anthropology of religion, ethnology, and urban sociology from some of the best-trained cultural anthropologists on offer. even reading a few ethnographies -- malinowski, clifford, geertz, crapanzano -- and having a general feel for the whole thrust of critical theory will make subsequent readings of hegel unpleasurable for you

>>11721113
i love that every time hegel is brought up on this board, at least 1 someone if not everyone posts the wrong translation of pos.

>>11721085
what was true for the Greeks is no longer true for us

>>11721173
uhh, read the book?

>>11721190
>people who read hegel contributed to philosophy, but hegel just blabbered incoherently for a while and philosocucks did the "oh hegel you're so wise hegel" thing
so they took his system and used it to contribute to philosophy, but it was nonsense all along? were the contributors retarded or are you?

>>11721245
Which one is the right one

>>11721245
Miller is alright.

>>11721250
Lol so this basic bitch fact that probably everybody in history with a lukewarm IQ knows was a Hegelian innovation?

>>11721235
That sounds like a terrible waste of time, I’m sure everything beyond that point would be unpleasurable

>>11721306
Are u a woman? That maybe thee issue

>>11721252
Lol the book is a translation of Hegel trying to explain it himself in really incomprehensible terminology which nobody can explain outside of the book, so then when they can't explain it they just proclaim that you must be a brainlet and to read the book harder. JFL.

Okay, I proclaim that Finnegan's Wake contains all of the secrets of the universe and that if you ask me how that is possible I'll just note that you are a brainlet for not seeing it and to just read the book more intently brah. Just FUCKING lol.

>>11709988
chris chan

>>11721312
Ur face is a butt and ur butt is a face and that is thee issue.

>>11721317
>I don't understand this
this is what it means
>lol how about some evidence?
read the book, that's why he wrote it
>it's incomprehensible no one can understand it
anon, have you ever considered you are just a brainlet?

>>11721322

>>11721327
Reading the book isn't the only way to acquire the justifications. I am asking people to recapitulate his assertions with justifications so we can actually talk about them and nobody can because they only read Hegel to appear sophisticated. You don't understand how Hegel justifies anything either.

>>11721333
No u

>>11721338
Cmon baby girl stop teasin

>>11721327

Name an important assertion in the Phenomenology of Spirit and give a summary of it's justifying argument.

>>11721334
“Let not any one say, then, that while affirming the opposition of not-being to being, we still assert the being of not-being; for as to whether there is an opposite of being, to that enquiry we have long said good-bye — it may or may not be, and may or may not be capable of definition. But as touching our present account of not-being, let a man either convince us of error, or, so long as he cannot, he too must say, as we are saying, that there is a communion of classes, and that being, and difference or other, traverse all things and mutually interpenetrate, so that the other partakes of being, and by reason of this participation is, and yet is not that of which it partakes, but other, and being other than being, it is clearly a necessity that not-being should be. And again, being, through partaking of the other, becomes a class other than the remaining classes, and being other than all of them, is not each one of them, and is not all the rest, so that undoubtedly there are thousands upon thousands of cases in which being is not, and all other things, whether regarded individually or collectively, in many respects are, and in many respects are not.

And he who is sceptical of this contradiction, must think how he can find something better to say; or if he sees a puzzle, and his pleasure is to drag words this way and that, the argument will prove to him, that he is not making a worthy use of his faculties; for there is no charm in such puzzles, and there is no difficulty in detecting them; but we can tell him of something else the pursuit of which is noble and also difficult.

A thing of which I have already spoken; — letting alone these puzzles as involving no difficulty, he should be able to follow and criticize in detail every argument, and when a man says that the same is in a manner other, or that other is the same, to understand and refute him from his own point of view, and in the same respect in which he asserts either of these affections. But to show that somehow and in some sense the same is other, or the other same, or the great small, or the like unlike; and to delight in always bringing forward such contradictions, is no real refutation, but is clearly the new-born babe of some one who is only beginning to approach the problem of being.

The attempt at universal separation is the final annihilation of all reasoning; for only by the union of conceptions with one another do we attain to discourse of reason.“

>>11721343
the idea that consciousness thinking about itself alters itself is technically true and im almost positive introspection, though a laughable and totally unrigorous “look” at “consciousness” probably alters brain activity and in turn consciousness. its extremely stupid and almost meaningless outside of studying behavioral traits and pathological ideation but it is sort of important and interesting. Though it does not mean what he wants it to mean

>>11714573
>what is now called the Neo Conservative faction of the Alt right
The alt right is by definition not neoconservative. Neocons are a mainstream right wing faction, not an alternative one.

"Alt right" has to be one of the most abused terms in politics. It went from being a loose coalition of right wing outsiders opposed to immigration, political correctness, and war... to being a snarl word that meant fascists/racists... to being - apparently - fucking anything, even the exact thing that it is not.

>>11721358

Cool, I can google the text and paste something from it here too. Summarize in plain terms A) what assertion he is seeking to demonstrate and B) step-by-step how he seeks to justify it.

It appears he is trying to assert the being of "not-being". He then asserts that whenever anybody analyzes the definability/being of "non-being" (the opposite of being) that:

"he too must say, as we are saying, that there is a communion of classes, and that being, and difference or other, traverse all things and mutually interpenetrate, so that the other partakes of being, and by reason of this participation is, and yet is not that of which it partakes, but other, and being other than being, it is clearly a necessity that not-being should be."

But this seems to just be concluding that not-being will be because... not-being will be. It's not a good argument so much as a really vague appeal to intuition by clawing for the vocabulary to restate the abstraction. Hegel is dumb: his "argument" is just a recapitulation of his conclusion in different terms. "Being" and "other" are associated to all objects, so that "the other partakes of being" therefore "it is a necessity that not-being should be" - i.e. non-being has the the property of being because it has the property of being.

Just FUCKING lol. What he is trying to say is clear but not innovative but he doesn't give arguments for anything.

>>11721396
That’s Plato

>>11721409
Wow Plato was also really bad at arguing.

>>11721423
>could I be retarded?
>no, it is the philosophers who are retards
not looking too good for you, Skinner

>>11721439
you’re making yourself look so fucking bad man and so is everyone calling the critics stupid especially when they say they’ve read PoS

not PoS and Piece of Shit share an abbreviation

>>11721439
Explain why my assessment of Plato's argument for the "being of non-being" is flawed and clarify it.

>>11721439
>I'm so into philosophy guize I'm a r8 good philosophur
>Oh by the way philosophers are right because they have an academic reputation, literally a formal fallacy, but I'm a ph1l0$oph3y connoisseurrrrr

>>11710714
That quote took me 10 minutes to dissect. Am I a brainlet?

>>11721447
>>11721483
if I went off on a criticism of a philosopher only to find out the passage I was critiquing was actually written 2 millenia earlier by literally the most famous philosopher ever I would be embaressed for my intellectual dishonesty not indignant.

>>11721510
but everything he said in his critiques is true and earlier you people just called him and the others brainlets without any justification or counterargument. It makss (you) look like a pseudointellectual and a massive faggot

>>11721510

So?

>by literally the most famous philosopher ever

Oops there's that pesky outright-first-day-of-reasoning-101 formal fallacy again.

>>11721521
>things other people do reflect on me
okay anon
>>11721523
I never appealed to athourity because I wasn't defending any argument. do you understand how falacies work? I'm saying if someone posted a verse from the bible and you go off claiming "this is why I hate dostoyevsky", you are going to look like a brainlet. but considering the fact you seem to be unable to grasp even the most simple logic, I really doubt you should jump into Hegel.

>>11721182
sums up hegels whole philosophy and why people are afraid of it

>>11721306
You know this conception of truth runs directly contrary to almost every other conception of truth, right? Most people think of truth as something eternal (e.g. 2+2 has always equaled 4, regardless of what people knew throughout history). process philosophy was literally dead between the Presocratics and the German enlightenment, and today it gets very little respect outside of continental philosophy classrooms. pretending "everybody in history with a lukewarm IQ" practiced hegelianism is about the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Congrats, his thread has given me more than one form of cancer.

>>11721567
This thread has given you a historical cancer actually. A cancer which sublates itself once it comes to the self-determinate knowledge of itself through world-spirit. Through consciousness of your cancer you negate the absolute cancer-in-itself and come to the self-realizing phenomena of cancer as can be seen. The subjectivity of the cancer as phenomenal and the cancer as noumenal is unified into one all-encompassing cancer-ness that pre-determines all previous cancer moments. Through this process you are initiated into cancer as it is for itself

>>11709884
Is this thread something to expect if studying philosophy in grad school?