/lit/ - Literature

>>16002978
Didn't filter one man.

>>16002978
yes Hegel is a pleb filter: he catches plebs in his sieve of obscurantist schizo babble, while real intellectuals get filtered out and move on

>>16002978
to be fair, Schopenhauer got filtered by everyone and Deleuze didn't even try to understand it

you know /lit/ is full of pseuds because every Hegel thread is full of

>hegel is bad because i can't understand him

>>16002987
a non-entity so i didn't have to mention him but he got filtered too

>>16003004
idk, i would say its easier to just disregard something rather than trying to piece it together. not that there are not obsurast elements, but i am more inclined to say people who disregard it are more pleb then those who do not.

>>16002978
Deleuze studied Hegel under Jean Hyppolite and the very first thing he published was a review of Hyppolite’s book on Science of Logic. I’m sure that he had a better grasp of Hegel than you do.

>>16003033
or
>hegel is good but I still don't understand him
no one posting on 4chan has read the PoS

>>16003102
yeah but he disagreed with him so he clearly wasn't paying close enough attention

>>16003114
>no one posting on 4chan has read the PoS
no one posting on 4chan has read
here i fixed it for you

>>16003411
This

What are some good commentary/companions/Hegel for dummies/youtube videos/MOOCs/meditation excercices/sexual positions to understand Hegel better?

>>16003411
haha so funny anon

>>16003457
There's nothing, it's the same deal with Heidegger, I have never read anything that even came close to summarizing them into what can be called an intelligible assertion.

Nietzsche is highly over rated. His system can't be improved upon and so it ended with him

>>16003461
oh thank you anon, lurking for a year did pay-off

>>16003474
Nothing....

>>16003474
Has never read Robert Stern's guidebook to the PoS
>>16003457
Read Robert Stern's Routeledge guidebook to the PoS.

Filtered from what? A life of pseuddom?

I read every work of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and everything in-between, including Hegel and Schelling's brief journal and all of Hegel's early writings and essays prior to reading PoS. I read both volumes of Harris's Hegel's Ladder in its entirety along side PoS. At this point I have finished the Science of Logic, Philosophy of Right, and Philosophy of History.

Disagreeing with Hegel isn't being filtered by him. But here are the facts about PoS,

Hegel is not non-sense nor obscurantist babble. But he combines three things which make it appear so:

1. Hegel's language is highly technical. If he says immediate, mediate, universal, particular, singular, ground, posit, essence, reflect, objective, subjective, infinite, finite, contingent, necesary - he is speaking in terms of his own logic as outlined in SoL. A proposition may appear to have a seemingly random conclusion if you don't already have a grasp of his logic, as the specific connection of proposition to conclusion is here implicit in categories he's set up elsewhere.

2. Hegel's style is much like Fichte and Reinhold, in that in some cases his conclusions actually don't follow necessarily from the propositions even when his own logic is taken into account. When you read someone like Fichte you often get the sense of "That's one way it could be, but it's not necessary, it COULD be otherwise". Even if you fully understand Hegel's systematic logic, the assumption that Hegel is always right will confuse you when he isn't, and you'll be left with the feeling that you must be missing something. Sometimes you are missing something but absolutely he oversteps all the time and often is just wrong.

3. Hegel is sometimes obscure in his application. When Hegel is talking abstractly and formally it's often not obvious what content he has in mind. FIchte did this aswell but usually followed up at the end, e.g, after using "x" and "y" in abstract relations to one another for 20 pages without telling you what these are, he will eventually say "and x is space, and y is time". But Hegel will be abstract sometimes without consummating it. Most of these areas are still contentious in their interpretations.

all of that said, PoS is overall a pretty bad work. Kierkegaard is 100% spot on when he said,

"If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic.”

>>16003975
Outstanding post. Do your thoughts reflect Harris's? Is he critical of Hegel?

I get what you mean completely in your second point, that is one of the most frustrating things about reading Fichte and Hegel... I really want to understand what made some of their deductive chains sensible to them, both as a priori true, and like you say, as 'no one could possibly disagree that there's a zig here instead of a zag!'.

Your point (if I understand you right) is very insightful about how the actual mental 'move' made by Hegel is hidden within his jargon, and you can't assume a complete 1-to-1 relation between the two. You have to sort of keep all his avowed definitions and categories in mind, while also looking for what he does within and beneath them.

I don't know if I agree with you on PoS being a bad work, but maybe I am sentimental... I was playing around recently with the idea that Hegel's real power was in his categories, that there is real validity in those categories, and they do constitute something like a Hegelian revolution in the history of philosophy, but it's at a deeper more hidden level than Hegel himself intends, and certainly than any of his latter day followers work at. So maybe similar to the Kierkegaard quote?

It's a relief to see someone else with feelings like I had while reading through them. Seriously some of what you said was so spot-on, I thought it was a private hunch I would never see outside my own head.

That's why I wish so much that I could go back and ask them 'ok ok Fichte, but why not a zig instead? why is it NECESSARY that it zags? why is your tone so insistent here, on what grounds are you claiming this clear and distinct insight into the deduction you're making here?' Would he respond 'ah shit, you're right, a lot of this is just posturing and it is more like an experiment, but it's not like I can admit that in the text'? Or would he blow your mind by revealing a level to it you haven't seen? Maybe a level that he's seen, but only in a glimpse, so he doesn't realise he isn't conveying it to those who haven't had it intuitively.

>>16002978
>The Phenomenology of Spirit
I'd rather read Finnegans Wake.

>>16003004
>he cant even parse numbered arguments

Filtered me too tbqh. Whats a good book that will help me understand what the fuck he's trying to say?

Thought I was smart until I tried to read that shit.

>>16002978
Literally everyone writing after Hegel is Hegelian in some sense

He wrote like that deliberately to obscure his work.

>>16003035
>Calls Heidegger a non-entity, while mentioning Foucault and Deleuze
>When Foucault and Deleuze were heavily inspired by Heidegger.

Has there ever been a bigger cope than "he intended to make no sense"?

>>16004967
imo the best way to get unfiltered is to go through the book and summarize the main point of every numbered section in your own words in writing. this will help you figure out exactly where you are confused and then you can look it up or seek help.

>>16005207
this is good advice but sometimes young people misinterpret it as "if you can bullshit yourself into feeling like you're smarter than hegel then you made it"

>he wrote in such a way as to baffle idiots so idiots wouldn't ruin his works by quoting them because they had no clue what the fuck he was on about
seems pretty legit probably

>>16003457
Cheers :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5JGE3lhuNo

>>16005303
>because they had no clue what the fuck he was on about
And neither does anybody else, which is exactly why idiots WOULD quote him.

>>16003457
The book posted in OP has a paragraph by paragraph analysis of the entire PoS in the appendix. If you still can't understand it after that then stick to YA fiction.

>>16004454
I've never seen Harris be critical of him, but I could be forgetting somewhere. When Harris is critical he's critical of people who misunderstood Hegel- he points out several misunderstandings Marx, Fauerbach, Kierkegaard etc have along time way in Hegel's Ladder in reference to various paragraphs. Either Harris is 100% sympathetic with Hegel or Harris didn't consider criticism to be a part of the commentary project.

I've seen Fichte make those kinds of statements all the time and after several times painstakingly sketching out every part of what he's working on, going through it step by step, understanding it 100% and then seeing he is in fact making a leap and I hadn't misunderstood him, I just accepted that he does this sometimes and stopped doubting myself as I read (everything went a lot faster afterwards)

>>16004466
How about reading Harris explain PoS in terms of Finnegans Wake?

>>16007823
fucking hate women, posting unfunny shit like this

>>16005057
That statement is a microcosm of Hegelianism and is precisely everything wrong with Hegelianism.

>>16003114
>I still don't understand him
Because nobody does.

>>16005649

>>16002978
Didn't filter Marx.

>>16003114
>no one posting on 4chan has read the PoS
True. Only billionares have successfully read and understood PoS.

>>16003975
The second point is also what I'm struggling at the moment while reading the third book of SoL. I feel like it's necessary to assume Hegel's right on everything in order to make sense of anything as the parts that are sound are hard enough to understand let alone the one that are not.
Can you name a few specific points where he is wrong/making leaps?

>>16003457
as soon as you can suck yourself off you will understand Hegel, no less.

>>16003975
>>16004454
>>16005637
>>16005649
I have to wonder where modern Hegelians find themselves in respect to Heidegger, considering his connection with the prior, does Harris speak about this at all?

>>16008749
Lmao see>>16005637 pic related

>>16009036
Better get started on the book then

>>16003114
>PoS
nomen est omen lmao

>>16004466
>>16005649
the chapter on anna livia is probably the most 'approachable' in the whole book. really lovely language, imagery. laughing.
only just now realized the women are doing their wash in the river liffey, and that livia=liffey. good stuff.

>Filtered by Stirner

>>16010897
>tfw you filter everyone and have to write a response to the critics

>>16002978
Nietzsche filtered himself by being a shit philosopher and not understanding philosophy.

>>16011147
Sure, anon. Sure.

>>16008878
Yeah, in order to read him you have to take him in good faith and basically assume he's right as you go in order to continue deeper into his system. It can't be helped.

Sure, since you're reading the third book, I'll give an obvious example from where you're at. The biggest leaps in Hegel (as is well known I think) is in his transitions. Unfortunately this isn't a small point since the weight of the dialectic being valid rests exactly on the transitions, since the thesis is that what has hitherto been considered distinct irreconcilable categories actually permeate and contain eachother as a negatively propelled movement, right? Simply describing the phenomenology or internal logic of every gestalt is interesting but the final judgement would have to be in their transition. The transition from quality to quantity is for example a clear one where no leap in logic is made, but that may be why that particular transition has been so clung on to (by Marxists for example). Anyway to return from this digression, in the third book, the most egregious transition is probably from Life to Cognition in Chapter 2.

Here the transition is from copulation to cognition.
"In copulation, the immediacy of living individuality perishes; the death of this life is the coming to be of spirit. The idea, implicit as genus, becomes explicit in that it has sublated its particularity that constituted the living species, and has thereby given itself a reality which is itself simple universality; thus it is the idea that relates itself to itself as idea, the universal that has universality for its determinatness and existence. This is the idea of cognition."
So what's really going on here? What's occured is that throughout the final process of Life we've retraced our steps through the forms of Concept - universal, particular, singular. Hegel's system itself is what is demanding the transition, as having worked through this and returned we must be at a higher vantage point. It's in form alone, the form of the system, that we are at cognition at this point, and in this way Hegel is "begging the question"- the reason why the system does this transition is because it is the system. In terms of content there is no necessity here. The organic genus reproducing itself in copulation may be cognition if we consider it merely formally, but, in this case there is infinite other content which assumes this form which could have just as easily been made the basis of this transition if we are going by form alone.

In the end Hegel's dialectic remains an ought, a sublime idea, but in my opinion remains no different from Schelling's followers who were eager to apply his Fichtean Naturphilosophie forms to any content which could be bent to accept it.

There is no "one" reading of Hegel. Even though it's great we have that one anon thats done the task of going very deep with him you might come out with a completely different result. This is why he said on his deathbed "Only one person understood my work. And even then not quite."

At a certain point you have to just become a scholar and read it in the original German to go further. Some find the Phenomenology to be deeply inspiring and life changing. Only one way to find out.

>>16005110
"Yes"
they weren't heavily inspired by him
the only reason people started picking him up again was because of derrida

>>16012301
you should probably read it just because it's an influential work that is mentioned a lot, that's reason enough

if any anons here found PoS to be life changing I'd like to know which parts did that for you

if you "understand" hegel, it means that you don't know what understanding something looks like.

>>16011204
He does misunderstand a lot.
He actually thought stoicism was supposed indifference to events in life.
If you fail at understanding some pretty basic bitch shit then it goes to show why there is no metaphysical discussion in his "philosophy"

>>16012933
profound

>>16012965
>He actually thought stoicism was supposed indifference to events in life.
what is apathia if not indifference i.e. equanimity

>>16012965
Yeah, Nietzsche failed at understanding some pretty basic bitch shit. What an idiot, unlike us guys.

What is it about philosophy specifically that gets anons so ego-invested? I have never seen a philosophy thread on this board without some cringe "so-and-so historical genius was actually a completely fucking idiot," or some big dick swinging argument between a few anons about which of them more perfectly grasped some dead guy's point.

>>16013009
>I have never seen a philosophy thread on this board without some cringe "so-and-so historical genius was actually a completely fucking idiot,"
Actual philosophers do that to each other too, the whole nature of the discipline, its ambiguity and the way different perspectives radically reorder understanding of each other, kind of lends itself to that.

of course with anons it's also just people being hostile and arrogant for no reason because its 4chan

>>16003477
>complaining about a philosopher because he finished philosophy

>>16013096
He most definitely did not finish it.

>>16005637
> I've seen Fichte make those kinds of statements all the time and after several times painstakingly sketching out every part of what he's working on, going through it step by step, understanding it 100% and then seeing he is in fact making a leap and I hadn't misunderstood him, I just accepted that he does this sometimes and stopped doubting myself as I read (everything went a lot faster afterwards)
the difference between fichte and hegel/schelling is that the former is a bad rationalist, while the latter two are pure irrationalists. dialectical logic is not logical, so there is no point in trying to frame it into a logical perspective, but
while fichte is critical towards formal logic (and thought wissenschaftslehre to be the foundation of logic itself, and not the other way around), one perfectly understands what he writes due to his strong kantian ascendent. fichte wrote so that a man like kant could understand what he wrote, and his genuine aim is solving the noumenon problem. hegel and schelling instead wrote AGAINST kant and his way of philosophizing. hegel and schelling just fabricated meaningless apologies for religion and especially the romantic religion, they are apologists not honest yet bad thinkers like fichte was.

>>16013178
how would you situate schopenhauer vis-a-vis these three?

>>16013202
schopenhauer is a kantian, as he himself likes to repeat over and over. he is 100% part of the 1820s german movement reacting against idealism, which for instance included the neo-kantian herbart (disliked by schopenhauer).
so metaphysically speaking schopenhauer is nothing new. but he is possibly the greatest german philosopher with leibniz, not due to his system but to his particular acute observations.

>>16013256
yes, i would agree he is at his strongest in his critical mode. original contributions to aesthetics, as well. i believe the subtleties of his conception of the will as a metaphysical category are flattened by the conceptual scheme he adopted and, possibly, his own disposition and what are essentially aesthetic preferences. i am not sure how to explain what i mean, but that is my feeling. he is often described as a precursor to vitalist theories of nature which i think further clouds the picture, even when it is accurate. misinterpretations of vitalism do not help. i see in him some intimations of whitehead which i hope to develop with more study.

>>16013344
> the will as a metaphysical category
this is one of the foremost problems with him. the "will" is an extremely coarse and picturesque metaphysical category. but when he uses the "will" as a synonym for the conservation of the species (that is, will to reproduction regardless of the interests of the individual as an individual) he clearly anticipated darwin's intuition (most clearly when he made the example of the reason for animal/human screaming) and most importantly he philosophized it, turned it into a humanistically meaningful concept.

>>16013178
Hegel was not really an apologist for the romantic religion. In fact most romanticism is rooted in Fichte.

>>16013434
if you read carefully you can notice i didn't say that fichte is not a romanticist.

>>16013460
if you read carefully you can notice i didn't say that you said fichte is not a romanticist.

did schopenhauer actually read Hegel or just get it second hand?

>>16014655
schopenhauer read everything. they were contemporaries and taught at the same university, however briefly. yes, there is the scent of jealousy and resentment in schopenhauer's treatment of hegel. but at the same time, his criticisms are well-founded in that they are aimed at the anti-kantian nature of hegel's philosophy. that hegel is abstruse whereas schopenhauer is perfectly clear in his writing is another point of reasonable difference that schopenhauer is not shy of indicating.

>>16002987
Stirner?

this is probably the most valuable thread on /lit/ with these amazing posts on Hegel and others

>>16015017
A rarity

>>16002978
any of you guys here read phenomenology of spirit without reading much philosophy before it?

How exactly did he filter Nietzsche? Nietzsche is unfilterable.

>spend months reading kant's three critiques
>understand the arguments
>forget them months later, don't even remember the critique of judgment
>read Hegel
>finish the PoS
>start the doctrine of being
>forget the arguments of the PoS
>read it again
>forget the transition from spurious infinity to complete infinity and what the ought-to-be is about
>read the doctrine again
>get to the doctrine of essence
>forget both the PoS and the doctrine of Being
Fucking hell is this Alzheimer?

>>16016388
Take notes. Or live like those who only claim to have read them, 'remembering and knowing' only the conclusions.

>>16002987
>>16003035
>>16005110
>>16012315
Reddit contrarianism. Importance:
- Greeks
-
- Descartes
-
- Kant
- Hegel
-
- Nietzsche
- Wittgenstein
- Heidegger
-
- Schopenhauer
-
-
-
-
- Kanye, et. al.
-
-
- Ayn Rand
-
-
-
-
- Deluze, Derrida
-
-
- Foucault

>>16011851
Thanks for the elaboration.
Incidentally it's mostly the transitions where he often loses me. He often becomes very opaque towards the ends of his chapters. Will keep a critical eye on that.

>>16002987
This.

>>16013096
Consciousness has changed since Nietzsche

>>16016913
Or just read commentaries like any sane person would.

>>16003457
Another good one to read is Alexander Kojeves introductory lectures. All the frenchies took the course that lectures are from and basically just used Kojeves interpretation rather than reading Hegel themselves. So if you like the fenchies, or want to know how they were reading hegel, its a good one.

>>16019243
I'm doing both actually, I just keep forgetting soon after i go to something else

who the fuck do I read before 1950s if I only read baudrillard

>>16016388
I know this feel. It's probably because the way we use cellphones/internet as a second brain we've gotten really good at remembering *where* things are and *how to get to them* but not content. So if you wanted to remember something specific about Kant's schematism I bet you would know the exact place to turn in the Critique. We're just really good at mentally bookmarking since we're outsourced actual storage of specifics

>>16019707
Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte

>>16020361
when I said before 1950s I didn't mean the god damn scone age

>>16020471
oh ok. Here's what you should read from 1900 to 1950.

Simmel's The Philosophy of Money - 1900
Husserl's Logical Investigations - 1900 (Main phenomenology)
Kjellén's Introduction to Swedish Geography - 1900 (coined "geopolitics", student of Ratzel)
Ratzel's Lebensraum - 1901 ("living spaces")
Kropotkin's Manual Aid - 1902
Bergson's Introduction to Metaphysics - 1903
Giovanni's Theory of the Pure Act - 1903
Frege's What is a Function? - 1904 paper
Mackinder's Geographical Pivot of History - 1904 (founding moment of geopolitics)
Bogdanov's Empiriomonism - 1904-1906
Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - 1905
Mach's Knowledge and Error - 1905
Bergson's Creative Evolution - 1907
Jame's Pragmatism - 1907

Mach's Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory - 1910 essay, anti-atoms, etc
Husserl's Ideen (three books, massive) - 1913
Freud's Totem And Taboo - 1913
Bogdanov's The Philosophy of Living Experience - 1913 Midway point between Empiriomonism and Tektology
Bogdanov's Tektology - 3 Volumes from 1913-1917, first is translated, not sure about the rest
Saussure's Course in General Lingusitics - 1915
Freud's Intoduction to Psychoanalysis - 1916
Spengler's The Decline of The West - 1918
Weber's Politics as a Vocation - 1919 Essay
Schmitt's Political Romanticism - 1919 (Refers to fichte, schelling, hegel, etc)

Freud's Beyond The Pleasure Principle - 1920
Guenon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines - 1921
Wittgenstein's Tractatus - 1921
Weber's Economy and Society - 1922 (postuhmous Magnum opus)
Schmitt's Political Theology - 1922
Giovanni's The Theory of Mind as Pure Act - 1922 Translated by H. Mildon Carr
Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness - 1923
Freud's The Ego And The Id - 1923
Heidegger's Being and Time - 1927
Guenon's Crisis of the Modern World - 1927
Mises' Liberalism - 1927
Evola's Pagan Imperialism - 1928
Heidegger's Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics - 1929
Whitehead's Process and Reality - 1929
Giovanni's The Reform of the Hegelian Dialectic -1929 t. A. MacC Armstrong (in Idealist Studies 11:3)

Freud's Ciilization and its Discontents - 1930
Husserl's Cartesian Meditations (Read before Ideen) - 1931
Hayek's Prices and Production - 1931 (central banks)
Guenon's Symbolism of the Cross - 1931
Guenon's The Multiple States of the Being - 1932
Giovanni/Mussolini's A Doctrine of Fascism - 1932
Schmitt's Concept of the Political - 1932
Reich's Character Analysis - 1933
Hayek's The Road to Serfdom - 1933
Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World - 1934

Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - 1942
Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment - 1944
Mises's Omnipotent Government - 1944
Evola's American Civilization - 1945 Essay
Bataille's On Nietzsche - 1945
Guenon's The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times - 1945
Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception - 1945
Giovanni's Genesis and Structure of Society - 1946
Pannekoek's Workers' Councils - 1946
Mises' Human Action - 1949 (magnum opus)

>>16019707
>>16020471
>>16020547
If you want other date ranges let me know. I had to remove some people from 1900-1950 to make it fit.

>>16019707
Bataille, Freud, Saussure, and Mauss. Everything else is worthless garbage.

>>16003457
The encyclopedia is his easiest work, much more readable than the phenomenology

>>16019224
And that consciousness and its changes were circumscribed within the theories of Nietzsche. You really thought your comment was clever, but it just revealed you to be an idiot, which makes you appear like an even bigger idiot, since it demonstrated that you had no comprehension how you could be wrong, and so you fell into smug certainty.

>>16020547
>>16020586
you fucker

>>16020586
What about 2000 to present? (Just your recommendations for general study)

>>16012933
>>16012972
genuinely profound

OP sounds like a troll but everything in the post is true. I'm not sure whether or not he filtered Weininger though, its hard to tell from the brief treatment of him in Sex and Character.

>>16021256
I don't really have anything for the 2000s yet.. there are books I want to read but I haven't added them to my list. This is all I have for the 90s+

Deleuze's Negotiations - 1990
Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place - 1991
Zerzan's Future Primitive and Other Essays - 1994
Zerzan's Against Civilization - 2005

>>16005207
this is the only way to read any serious work in philosophy

>>16020725
you should be able to read this list in less than two years, it's not that bad

Simple, if your dialectic understanding begins and ends with Aristotlean thought, then of course youre not going to understand the 'idea of things'.
Wow, you lot really are babbis first pseudo-cleverbois.

>"Filtered"
>"Filtered"
>"Filtered"
>"Filtered"
>"Filtered"
>Literally everyone in the world gets filtered, except for a single guy on 4chan who thinks "yea I'm basically smarter than everyone in the world".
>There are multiple people who think like that in this very thread.

>>16002978
>>16002987

Was literally about to make a thread asking if I should read Heidegger's lecture on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. I ended up ordering Heidegger's lecture from the library thinking it was Hegel's book.

Does the lecture make Hegel's book easier to understand? Is Heidegger's lecture more "Heidegger" than it is "Hegel"?

>>16024047
It's easy to understand Hegel now that we have Zizek. Just as now it's easy to see how and why those other philosophers erred in their interpretations of Hegel.

>In that way, each individual spirit also runs through the culturally formative stages of the universal spirit, but it runs through them as shapes which spirit has already laid aside, as stages on a path that has been worked out and leveled out in the same way that we see fragments of knowing, which in earlier ages occupied men of mature minds, now sink to the level of exercises, and even to that of games for children.

>>16024176
>now that we have Zizek.
>leftypol intellect

>>16024176
this must be a joke. Where has Zizek ever clearly described any technical piece of Hegel?

>>16002978
No, it's a patrician filter.

>>16024983
His books, pleb.

>>16003477
wrong junger expanded it

>>16026668
show me one instance of Zizek explaining Hegel as anything other than banal "hegel is using black ink to say there is no red ink"

>>16028092
>spoonfed
ngmi

>>16002978
>disagreeing with schizoid babbling is a "filter"

>>16024059
The first part of that lecture series is a shockingly clear attempt by Heidegger to discuss how the Phenomenology fit into the rest of Hegel's system after the Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia were published. The second interpretive part is rougher going, but it's easier than most Heidegger.