/lit/ - Literature

>>16169800
I am currently reading about the inverted world and I don't quite understand the concept. Can somebody explain it?

why does he write like that? Looks like a schizo word-salad.

>>16169826
Terry Davis explains this phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0qmkQGqpM8

How does it feel that own pretensions keep Hegel from being more popular?

>>16169812
the inverted world is idealism. Kant inverted it

>>16169800
dude was a fuckin moran THINGS ARE REAL. YOU ARENT PLAYING PRETEND.

>>16169800
fuck this bitch nigga

>>16169800
I just read his introduction to phenomonology of spirit.

WTF you guys? you make him sound like some sort of schizo when hes not. He has a lot of really interesting concepts just there.

>The idea of Truth being a process rather than a concrete thing (i really like the aligory of a flower in bloom being just as much a flower as one that is buding)

God as the personification of being, and giving a consious nature to the absolute.

His use of the differenrence of absolute and particular to frame things in a universal perspective.


WTF this is actually really interesting. why did you guys lie to me and call him a schizo?

>>16170584
stfu schizo

>>16170602
Is this the curse of understanding Hegel then? to be eternally labeled a schizo?

I guess it makes sense.

>>16170584
No one denies he's one of the greatest philosophical geniuses, but if you actually start reading the POS past the introduction you'll see how schizo he gets. Or not schizo, more just incomprehensible in individual sentences.

>>16170625

yes, absolute spirit is a code word for schizophrenia

>>16169842
In this context he is wrong, but generally he is right, is he by any chance a Schopenhaurian?

>Slavery was a choice

>>16170646

no idea, but I think Shopenhauer idea that music is a way of comprehending the thing-in-itself is dumber than any carp Hegel has ever produced.

>>16170654
The Haitian revolution proved it.

>>16170662
tru.

>>16170654
It was, just not a choice made by the slaves.

>>16170635
Ok. ill get back to you when i get there. He did have a decent amount of
>THe absolute of the particular is the particular of the absolute
kind of speak in the intro, which i kinda understand given how abstract the concepts he talks about is and his dialectic method, but i could see it being a good bit of a slog as i go along. I might need to have a paper next to me to record the amount of verbal negations to get to the point he is talking about.

I'm a retard and I didn't get his concept of history… is it really a teleology ?

>>16169800
I want to read the Phenomenology of Spirit, but I've only read a bunch of Plato and Aristotle. What works would you guys recommend to prep me for Phenomenology of Spirit?

>>16170762
pretty enjoyable and well done explaination of it. also goes into marx too, but you can skip that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SUYhdivn0

>>16170771
Kant so that when you read Hegel's PoS you can scream "wow what a fucking idiot" after every page

>>16170771
Kant is THE most important after those big too.

But it wouldnt hurt to be familiar with descarte, hume, and some basic theology and the rationalist/empiricist devide.

>>16169800
who the fuck is hegel? lmao more like BAGEL, also look at that hairline LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>16170786
You should have FUCkING said KEGEL Brainlet, that would have been funnier lol.

>>16170658
That's not really what Schopenhauer said anon, it's sort of jumping from Kant to Schopenhauer disingenuously, if you were aware of that anyhow. He said that Music is the most transcendent of the arts for obvious reasons but also for reasons that would only sidetrack, and that it also is expressing our experience of the thing in itself in the most pure sense... I guess. But he also said that being the most transcendent makes it the most powerful and moral in the effect of the self-abnegation it produces in the individual, greater than any of the other arts where the viewer is gone by the contemplation and viewing of it, or "in timelessness and spacelessness", we are most comforted, and that is will-less contentedness.

>>16170689
>kind of speak in the intro, which i kinda understand given how abstract the concepts he talks about is and his dialectic method, but i could see it being a good bit of a slog as i go along.
Yeah that's not even quarter of it man, some parts the individual sentences are utterly incomprehensible, and only make sense in the collage of these abstract terms on the page. The terms are very important to remember, so yeah write down anything you think is important or your current thoughts on it.

>>16170796
hahahah you are right, that is pretty funny HAHAHAHHAHA KEGEL LMAOOOOOO

>>16170771
You also need to read the pre-Kant stuff, so be VERY familiar with medieval theology and philosophy including neoplatonism, and their art to understand Christianity then, and then cover all the most important poets and philosophers between Descartes and Kant.

>>16170804
>ah that's not even quarter of it man, some parts the individual sentences are utterly incomprehensible
Im actually pretty good at abstract thought and wording like this, so i have been excited to get into hegel. so far at least its been a joy, if a little demanding at parts. If everything after becomes a disappointment, i still can say the introduction is thoroughly worth reading as a thought piece, regardless of the content of the book proper. The way of thinking is so novel that its worth it in itself.
>>16170807
HAHA TRU
>HEGEL DOES KEGELS WITH ENGELS EATING BAGELS
haha

>>16170780
>>16170782
>>16170809
Any specific reads or should I read whatever works interests me by these writers?

>>16170820
>HEGEL DOES KEGELS WITH ENGELS EATING BAGELS
HOLY SHIT ANON I'M KEKING HAHAHHAHAHA OP IS A FAGGOT AND THIS IS UR THREAD NOW KEKEKEKEKEKK

>>16170654
>oppressed people always have the right to revolt
Based revolutionary Hegel

>>16170776
>Peter Singer talking about Hegel
Fuck you for posting that shit

>>16170809
This is true only if you're planning to write a PhD dissertation on Hegel. For a first approach, Aristotle, Kant, and a cursory knowledge of Fichte's and Schelling's philosophy will be enough to understand Hegel's main texts

>>16170809
>VERY familiar with medieval theology and philosophy including neoplatonism
Not that necissary really. dont know why you said it. knowing the major currents of early modern phil is enough. maybe read aquinus to to get a general sense of theological thought, but not much more than that is necessary. Yes hegel studied theology, but, most of his work is firmly in the vein of the philosophers of his time, ie rationalists and empiricists.

>>16170825
prolegomena by Kant is the bare minumum. Critique of pure reason is something you can do to have a fully achademic sense of Kantian Logic, but its not all together necissary and is a slog.

Hume is also good for the epitomy or empericism

Descartes meditations is also good.

So minumum is
>Mediations
>prolegomena

>>16170840
sorry, im just talking about how he presents hegels conception of history, not all the other stuff.

>>16170776
Hatfield on the philosophy of McCoy

>>16170825
critique of pure reason

>>16170762
“To be consistently Hegelian, however, we must take a crucial step further and insist that historical Necessity does not pre-exist the contingent process of its actualization, that is, that the historical process is also in itself “open,” undecided—this confused mixture “generates sense insofar as it unravels itself”:

>It is people, and they only, who make history, while Spirit explicates itself through this making … The point is not, as in a naïve theodicy, to find a justification for every event. In actual time, no heavenly harmony resonates in the sound and fury. It is only once this tumult recollects itself in the past, once what took place is conceived, that we can say, to put it briefly, that the “course of History” is a little bit better outlined. History runs forward only for those who look at it backwards; it is linear progression only in retrospect … Hegelian “providential necessity” has so little authority that it seems as if it learns from the run of things in the world which were its goals.

This is how one should read Hegel’s thesis that, in the course of the dialectical development, things “become what they are”: it is not that a temporal deployment merely actualizes some pre-existing atemporal conceptual structure—this atemporal conceptual structure is itself the result of contingent temporal decisions.”

Excerpt From: Slavoj Zizek. “Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism.”

>>16171262
isn't Hegel just describing the way memory sacrifices truth to have a functional narrative that supports the bias of the rememberer?

>>16171291
yes.

>>16169800
Legorhhoa

>>16170762
>>16171262
“Hegel’s dialectic itself is not yet another grand teleological narrative, but precisely an effort to avoid the narrative illusion of a continuous process of organic growth of the New out of the Old; the historical forms which follow one another are not successive figures within the same teleological frame, but successive re-totalizations, each of them creating (“positing”) its own past (as well as projecting its own future). In other words, Hegel’s dialectic is the science of the gap between the Old and the New, of accounting for this gap; more precisely, its true topic is not directly the gap between the Old and the New, but its self-reflective redoubling—when it describes the cut between the Old and the New, it simultaneously describes the gap, within the Old itself, between the Old “in-itself” (as it was before the New) and the Old retroactively posited by the New.”

>>16170820
>If everything after becomes a disappointment, i still can say the introduction is thoroughly worth reading as a thought piece
Nahh it'll definitely be worth it, far more so than the introduction, but the introduction is one of the most enjoyable parts since its aim is to lead onto everything else.

>>16170851
>Not that necissary really. dont know why you said it.
For his understand of History, which will always greatly inform his understand of the current Thinker he is reading. The most obvious example being that Kant is said to have refuted Aquinas.

>>16171291
Hard No. But sort of maybe, except that's a non-dialectical notion of truth, and "the rememberer" is the study of history proper, so we aren't dealing with memory so much as adequate conceptualization, and there's no bias against narrative (conceptualization) as such, but the narrative must include the cuts and be subject to change, not present itself as either complete or the final word, only the state of truth as it currently stands (though still not a relativistic truth).

I have read in detail, and completely understand, the first 20 numbered sections of the preface to the phenomenology of spirit.

>>16170851
>>16171226
Thank you bros, I'm really excited and can't wait to start.

>>16169800
haven't read hegel but currently rounding off kant
which of his works should i start with to work up to phenomenology of spirit?

>>16171582
wait i didn't even read the thread nevermind
i should be fine desu

>>16171417
>completely understand

"One must grasp the subject matter’s concrete and rich fullness according to its determinateness, and one must know both how to provide an orderly account of it and to render a serious judgment about it..."
"The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of that truth."
"The inner necessity that knowing should be science lies in the nature of knowing, and the satisfactory explanation for this inner necessity is solely the exposition of philosophy itself."
"...at this stage such an explanation can amount to little more than the same kind of dogmatic assurance which it opposes..."

>>16171618
Yep, those are just a few examples of sentences from those sections. I've already come to utterly comprehend them.

>>16170584
Because they are unwilling to learn to read. Reading is hard. Also because they seek intuitive knowledge and are little babbies like Hegel points out in the introduction, that intuitive knowledge only contains itself as a positive, and so lacking a mediation through itself in its own negative form never engages in a process of becoming itself in being.

Duh.

>>16170677
>It was, just not a choice made by the slaves.
I refer you to the concrete and particular example of the example of the object becoming the subject, namely the Haitian slaves murdering the plantocracy.

Slaves choose to be slaves. Men choose to be free. While slavery could introspect itself towards freedom, it is far easier for the subject to recognise themselves in object conditions, and sublate their slavery through cutting a planter's daughter's skull open with an axe.

>>16170771
>I want to read the Phenomenology of Spirit, but I've only read a bunch of Plato and Aristotle. What works would you guys recommend to prep me for Phenomenology of Spirit?
Preface to Phenomenology of Geist
Introduction to Phenomenology of Geist
Phenomenology of Geist
then,
importantly:
Phenomenology of Geist

You're probably ready to read Phenomenology of Geist now.

>>16170762
>I'm a retard and I didn't get his concept of history… is it really a teleology ?
History is the concrete being of spirit in time, in effect it is a particularisation of universal concepts of an epoch in the happenstance of the interaction of individual subjects.

History is the movement of categories of possibilities of thought, which may be represented to the thinking subject as instances of the movement of the categories of thought, ie actions, ie sense experience; but, the core of history is the *eternal* coming into being of absolute knowledge in a historical particular.

History is will to god, as specific concrete instances of generalised categories of spirit.

And only White Prussian Men can truly enter it through philosophy. Mathematicians, theologians, idealists and actual historians are incapable of perceiving history.

>>16171291
Historian Here. Hegel does not mean "the human interpretation by discourse of the documentary record of the past," which is what Historians mean.

Hegel means the force of God which is all things becoming itself by critique of itself in reflection through action in the world in the particular form of particular men doing particular things, especially in the world of knowledge, as interpreted by the modes of knowledge in conflict with itself.

History *includes* all human actions, but it isn't a punch bowl full of random, it is systemic action towards the totality's capacity to contemplate itself which is ever immanent.

It is beyond an individual's memory, but because he's doing it phenomenologically the individual is a useful *example* of how History can work upon the world.

also what this guy says regarding totalities >>16171308

What actually happens to things-in-themselves after Kant? Noumena as the ground for phenomena, something beyond our experience. I know that even Kant saw it as a problematic idea so he didn't focus on it too much after the first Critique, but from Fichte onwards I'm fucking lost.

Also, can someone help with the concept of identity? I know that Identity of Subject-Object is the I from Fichte, but it keeps getting more vague after that.

Thank you all.

>>16169800
What did Hegel invent that wasn't already said in the past clearer by someone else?

>>16173149
The Historic being of man(as far as I know Vico didn't do it so metaphysically), the relation of consciousness to Object and Experience, Self-development, the Dialectic, Essential being are a few.

>>16173149
1. Establishing philosophy as science by using a strict method that justifies itself along the way. 2. Critiquing all philosophic systems before him and integrating them into a logical order and history. 3. Explaining his result, a monistic Idealism, as a worldview that basically solves all disciplines of philosophy such metaphysics, logic, and epistemology.

>>16173149
though not necessarily he clarified a lot of kant's claims to a profound degree

What was Hegel final take on Platonism (including ''neo''platonists)?
Like >>16170584 quoted: >The idea of Truth being a process rather than a concrete thing (i really like the aligory of a flower in bloom being just as much a flower as one that is buding)
Does this mean that not the result of self-conversion is true, but the entire process? Like not the One is truth, but the process of emanation from the One and return to it?

>>16172299
>>16171408
I think you guys just wanted to disagree I don't see how you did anything but make additions to what I said but with larger words

>>16173524
You can reconcile Hegel with neoplatonism, but you can't make Hegel a neoplatonist
Even though Hegel had some inspiration from them, even Feuerbach calling him the "german Proclus"
Since there is some theory that the hole science of logic is just the ontological argument, you can really imply that he believed in such immutable concepts, but that's a theory and SOL is much worse than POS

>>16173553
I have skimmed over his SOL and I don't know if the idea that Being and Nothing devour each other and make becoming (which would be a central notion in SOL I humbly guess) resonates with Platonism at all.

bump

HOW THE FUCK DO THE TRANSITIONS IN SOL WORK
HOW DO YOU GET FROM THINKING BEING --> NOTHING AND NOTHING ---> BEING TO BECOMING
AREN'T YOU JUST INTRODUCING NEW SHIT ARBITRARILY
AND EVEN IF YOU PUT A BOX AROUND THE WHOLE MOVEMENT WHICH IS BEING -> NOTHING -> BEING -> NOTHING ETC
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET FROM BECOMING TO DASEIN [DETERMINATE EXISTENCE] IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE FUCK FUCK GOD DAMN IT AAAAAHHGGHGHGHGHG

>>16174374

that's husserl and the birth existentialism

don't hijack the thread

Guess no one on here has read that idiomatic English translation that came out in the past year.

What‘s your thought on the Deleuzian critique of Hegel? Is there any rebuttals to his critiques?

question and answer durrrr

>>16173616
Process has an immutable substances that are essential to the process
Sounds really Platonic to me

If you are a Finn (or Swede, because he wrote in Swedish), you can read Snellman instead.

He was committed Hegelist and put the 'theory of Right' into more understandable national context.

>>16170654
Thank you Hegel very cool

>>16175130
>'Finnish' nationalist thinker
>Writes in Swedish
Wow, so Finland really is a myth.

>>16173188
>Monism
>Hegel

>>16175411
checked. but my dubs are higher. Hegel's monism might be different from other monisms, but if the Idea is just unfolding itself into the, let's say, "spheres" of Logic, Nature, Spirit, then it is technically a monism or, as I said, monistic Idealism. what else should it be?

>>16175651
“The simple unity, its becoming, is that sublation of all predicates—the absolute negativity; the coming-out [emanation: Herausgehen (for you neo-platonist posters)] is this negativity in itself—one should not begin with oneness and then pass to duality.”

>>16174374
Read The Dash by Rebecca Comay. It's basically the Hegelian Trinity.

>>16175819
would you tell me the paragraph, please, so I can check the context in German? I think its about Being and Nothingness, and Hegel means a conceptualised duality, and not a duality of the highest metaphysical order that would contradict his monism.

>>16175860
Vorlesungen über der Geschichte der Philosophie (Werke, Vol. 18), Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1979, p.450

>spend a couple weeks reading the phenomenology
>get stuck and give up
>repeat every few months
Im stuck in Hegel purgatory

>>16176056
Got it right here, but page 450 is Hegel talking about Sophists and Socrates, my man.

>>16176095
Context Z gives is he's formulating "the gap that separates the dialectical process proper from Plotinian 'emanation'"

>>16171262
>>16171308
>>16172299
I said I was a retard but thanks I guess…
I think I grasp the thing with totalizizekation but then why everyone (especially (((art historians))) like Ernst Gombrich) tend to bash Hegel; even if his philosophy seems to offer a great launchpad ? Is it because of the “White Prussian Man” complex of >>16172269

>>16173552
>I don't see
Take that projection and use it to introspect

>>16176585
Because actual historians deal with particular contingencies, not geist. Because geist doesn't exist. Hegel isn't even interested in the accumulation of happenstance particularities, or whether these have process or systematic relationships. Remember Hegel starts from an attack on universal idealism from within that. Hegel doesn't give a shit about how to mobilise a slave revolt through clandestine communications in Haiti. Hegel cares about movement to freedom through critique.

Which tends to piss the living shit out of actual historians who tend to ask, "and in which archival record did you find the geist?"

>>16169842
Eternally based

>>16170804
>and that it also is expressing our experience of the thing in itself in the most pure sense
Isn't the whole point of the thing-in-itself that we can't have experience of it?

>>16169842
I miss him bros

>>16169800
Are you an idiot?

Why are you talking about this sort of thing? You do realize AI is taking over, right? We won't be talking about the Hegel's intelligence in a few years but Machine Intelligence surpassing us in virtually every endeavor.

Check out
philosopherai.com

For example: AI can philosophize now, write essays, write poems and fiction better than humans can now. Tesla's stocks are riding and AGI's (Singularity coin) value rose 20% in one day. Get informed

>>16172269
>concrete being
What do you mean by concrete here?
>the core of history is the *eternal* coming into being of absolute knowledge in a historical particular.
Do you mean this as eternally coming into being, or the eternal entering being?
>History is will to god
You lost me here. Are you saying history is the will of god, or that things in history will god? I'm guessing the first, but it's always good to make sure.

>>16174403
What's Deleuze's critique of Hegel? Deleuze never created any significant ideas so this will be fun to hear.

>>16178602
This robot is retarded. I typed in truth:
>Truth is a concept invented by humans to help them better understand their surroundings. It evolved from the basic fact that reality exists independent of our perception of it, and over time various groups have created different definitions for what this 'truth' is. However, there are many problems with this notion that truth exists independently of beings which perceive it. To begin with, it's possible to imagine a state of the universe where there are no sentient lifeforms. In this case, by definition, 'truth' does not exist because no one is around to perceive it.
But truth does exists independantly of beings that percieve it, since reality exists. Even if you had a world of braindead beings that couldn't percieve anything, reality would still exist. This AI is braindead.
Then it says:
>It's also possible to imagine a state of the universe where sentient beings exist, but they do not have any shared perceptions. In this case, by definition again, 'truth' does not exist because it is impossible for these lifeforms to agree on what the truth is.
But who says that truth relies on others agreeing on it? It doesn't, at all. So again, the argument is another stupid metal machine brainless argument.
It goes on:
>Assuming that sentient beings do exist in a shared state of perception, the fact is that when groups of these lifeforms form communities, they then create rules to better organize and function. These rules may not necessarily conform to what 'truth' actually is. For example, when a group of humans gets together and decides to play a game, they create rules for how the game will be played. At first glance these rules seem to be made in order to ensure fairness among all players, but really they are just created because that's the way people have always done it and no one wants to change it.
The robot just confused laws and rules. Shouldn't this thing have access to a dictionary? Garbage. Throw it out, start again.

Hegel's system has many of the trappings of religion. The dialectic method is, in fact, an attempt to find a logical explanation for human experience that can be seen as the source and basis for all other philosophies. This search for a universal principle or formula is similar to those found in major religions.
The term 'dialectic' refers to the way that Hegel believed human history unfolded. The dialectic method is a set of processes by which he could analyze and understand why events happened in certain ways at certain times.
It is interesting to ponder that Hegel's philosophy is the basis for Marxism, which has affected so much of world history.
Hegel's philosophy makes certain philosophical assumptions about the way that the world works. These assumptions are quite different from those of other philosophies and it is these fundamental differences in his thought that lead to his conclusions, which also differ from others'.
One of these assumptions is that there are two major principles by which the world operates. These two principles are 'thesis', and 'antithesis'. Together they form a synthesis, or new state. This process repeats itself over and over.
For example, Hegel might look at a society and see how the government changes over time. He would say that the governing body is currently in its 'thesis' state. When it has governed for some time, he would begin to see an opposition arise.

>>16178896
this reads like a retarded third-grader's failed book report

>>16170646
>In this context he is wrong
Cope Hegelcuck.

>>16169800
I'd like to read some good modern books with a hegelian perspective, not necessarily about Hegel himself.
I'm also stuck with freedom and reflection from christoper yeomans, shit is hard as fuck

>>16170771
The only possible way to read any philosopher is to have read every single philosophical and theological book ever written in order. Make sure to ignore all the good advice from anons who have actually read Hegel and commit to an autistic endless preparation.

>>16174374
thinking pure being leads you to thinking pure nothing which then goes over to pure being etc essentially making both indistinguishable, that movement between pure being and pure nothing is becoming and becoming when thought in itself (when you "freeze" the movement as a sort to study it) is dasein
that's roughly how I understand it but I'm a brainlet

>>16178603
>>>History is the concrete being of spirit in time
>>concrete being
>What do you mean by concrete here?

The particular manifestation of the spirit in a form that is apprehensible. "Idealism" is the concretisation of the spirit which has transcended cruder attempts to grapple with the absolute as if it is god, and the form of becoming of the spirit has moved upwards, sublating the prior concerns about the individuality of God as a person.

>>>but, the core of history is the *eternal* coming into being of absolute knowledge in a historical particular.
>>the core of history is the *eternal* coming into being of absolute knowledge in a historical particular.
>Do you mean this as eternally coming into being, or the eternal entering being?

Absolute knowledge does not exist transcendently, it is always and forever becoming absolute knowledge. Incidentally this is the eternal entering being, but my focus was on the eternally becoming process of absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge isn't, it becomes.

>>>History is will to god, as specific concrete instances of generalised categories of spirit.
>>History is will to god
>You lost me here. Are you saying history is the will of god, or that things in history will god? I'm guessing the first, but it's always good to make sure.

History is the will of the subject moving towards god. History is specific concrete instances of generalised categories of spirit. All categories of spirit move towards god (ie: absolute knowledge). History is change in categories, an abstraction of actual subjects moving their science towards knowledge, and all these movements towards knowledge are movements of will by subjects (the subject's will) and their will points towards absolute knowledge, ie, god.

>>16178896
>These two principles are 'thesis', and 'antithesis'. Together they form a synthesis, or new state.
Find me a paragraph where he uses these terms in the sense of his dialectic.

>>16173524
Put simply, for Hegel, Aristotle > Plato. Plato thinks of the concept as potentiality while Aristotle thinks of it as actuality, meaning that the rational structure of the universe is immanent to it, and not existing in a separate realm and determining the possibilities in this one.

>>16174374
Thinking of being in the most abstract sense possible, as not having content, means that the concept is empty and therefore nothing. But "nothing" is likewise a concept which is thought. We now have two concepts which we can move between, and this movement now makes the third concept, "becoming". The rest proceeds from this distinction of being and nothing and the fact that they are two moments which at once are the same and distinguished as moments. A difference introduced into identity, in other words.

>>16178306
From what my limited understanding says, Schopenhauer is agreeing with Kant's reduction of epistemology, as well as affirming that Will is Life.

>>16176954
I admire your effort to sound witty but in this particular case I suggest that you kill yourself