/lit/ - Literature

>>18263979
yes. i'll admit i've only read Reason in History in full and only parts of other works by him, but from what i've read every philosopher since has basically just rehashed what he said or filled in details, the only real exceptions are nietzsche, heisman, and others who reserved a role for the strictly biological in their writings

>>18263999
Did he filter you in particular?

>>18263979
No Hegelhead has been able to answer my question.
If he's so patrician why does my copy of the phenomenology smell like piss?

>>18264378
Because hegel time travelled to your day, pissed on your copy to refute his own writings, and then travelled back to 1200 or whenever he’s from

>>18263979
Hegel tried so hard to invent his framework, but that worked therefore against him and now he is forgotten over retards like Jordan Peterson lol. Coulda taken a lesson on clarity, and be god today instead of being reduced to schlopenhauer enemy.

>>18264558
Hegel definetly stands higher in the field. Not sure what a poll of the field would show, but I'd guess Hegel would be up in the tier second only to Plato and Aristotle.

>>18263979
It's hard to clearly gauge him.

First of all, he has one of the most insufferable fanbases (at least with regards to /lit/ teenagers) of any philosopher and that greatly impacts his reception. Constantly being told that he's the end of philosophy and everything after was simply implicit in his work gets really tiresome and contributes far more to people being "filtered" than the difficulty of his work. Teenagers on /lit/ like to think of "their guy" (whether it be Hegel, Nietzsche, etc.) as some intellectual titan through whom they can gain some vicarious importance and never like to view him as the product of older philosophizing. If everyone after Hegel is so Hegelian that they're merely rehashers or refiners of Hegel, it's hard to see how Hegel is not a mere rehasher and refiner of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza and Kant (not to mention Fichte, Schelling and his lesser-known contemporaries). To credit Hegel as anything more than an impetus for even the philosophies that emerged in his immediate wake - Marxism, Pragmatism, and Existentialism - which diverge from him as much as do, while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying Hegel's own considerable continuity with the tradition is ludicrous and completely untenable (and knowing what we do about this place, juvenile). Such petty factionalism has no place in philosophy or any other intellectual pursuit.

Secondly, there is the perennial issue of what he meant and the resulting esteem that he deserves to be held in. I'm not going to shill for the analytics and their obsession with clarity, but you have to question the history of Hegel interpretation. It seems that people can and do read into him what they want to more than with any other philosopher (apart from maybe Nietzsche). Depending on whom you ask, he's either an arch-mystic with some nigh-implausible, nigh-ineffable insight into the nature of being itself, or (as non-metaphysical readings try to make out), simply the most disciplined, perspicuous of all of Kant's with a penchant for rather unfortunate and misleading turns of phrase that obscures this. This isn't to dismiss him, but it's something that someone who claims him as the greatest of them all who anticipated basically everything that came after has to reckon with. How much of this immensely pregnant writing is the product of genuine, demonstrable insight and how much of it basically derives from chance transfigured by the wishful thinking? How much of the mythologized "Hegel" is the the man himself responsible for? Again, this is not to diminish him, but it's a caution against the kind of anachronism and hero worship that leads people to retroactively attribute to Hegel positions that may be derived by others from engagement with his work but which are not themselves present in his work.

Is Hegel a patrician philosopher? Almost certainly. Is he the most patrician philosopher? I doubt that such a concept even makes sense.

>>18264582
Kant is a far less controversial choice for second-only-to-Plato-and-Aristotle philosopher. Even though he has his share of detractors (as do Plato and Aristotle) his historical importance and profundity go basically unquestioned. The same can't be said of Hegel.

>>18263979
I have no interest whatsoever in reading or attempting to understand Hegel. Digging holes and filling them in again would be a better use of my time than thinking about Hegel even once. This is true for everyone.

>>18264558
Nobidy reduces Hegel to Schopenhauer's enemy lmao, although the opposite is true: Schopenhauer is often reduced to being Hegel's enemy, and Wagner's early Nietzsche's main influence (this happens because Schoppy's philosophy is of no value to actual philosophers)

>>18263979
I've not read Hegel. I still have to finish plato, then Aristotle, and then all the others before him. After all the talk i've seen from you guys about him I'm gonna be disappointed if my head doesn't split from reading him

>>18264594
Based

>>18264759
I'd agree with this. Kant's importance, purely philosophically, epistemologically and metaphysically, is indisputable and clear, whereas the only indisputable importance of Hegel is the ramifications he had for politics, meta-philosophy/history and vague critiques of all kinds. Kant inspired many idealists just based on his revolutionary epistemology and metaphysics, Hegel basically inspired a whole host of people who directly challenged and effectively erased the very own system he thought he had perfected (materialism, existentialism, postmodernism, etc.)

Italian realism > mystification.

>>18265691
Why is Hegel's philosophy of nature absurd?

>>18265691
>Italians
>Realists

Bruh, Italians like Bruno and Vico were "mystics" long before the German Idealists turned up.

>>18263999
Nietzsche has a lot of what Hegel already said.
In Hegel are roots of existentialism, death of god, need to overcome christianity, master-slave dichotomy and many more. He obviously didn't use these in the same way that Nietzsche did, but it's stupid to overlook the beginning of such thoughts.

>>18264594
>he has one of the most insufferable fanbases (at least with regards to /lit/ teenagers) of any philosopher and that greatly impacts his reception. Constantly being told that he's the end of philosophy and everything after was simply implicit in his work gets really tiresome and contributes far more to people being "filtered" than the difficulty of his work. Teenagers on /lit/ like to think of "their guy"
True. And it's mostly people that haven't read him; people that disappear when you ask them about Hegel's actual philosophy.
I'm not going to lie, I thirst for Hegel. I adore him. He has beautiful (and overly convoluted, ngl) prose, and his writings are as alive as the philosophy he's writing about. But I try to use this to encourage other to read him, at least the Phenomenology. You don't have to understand it, you can read it to see how far a language can be pushed, "The listener needs to be gently but continuously forced to push back the barriers of what he believes to be bearable" (-Elend).

>>18266166
The only problem is that I read philosophy for masculine wisdom, not feminine prose and linguistic dances. I will see a prostitute if I am interested in feminine charms, rather than trying to satisfy myself with Hegel. I will stick to my "dry and boring" Aristotle.

>>18266193
You have no idea how much that tells about you.

>>18266311
Likewise with your pseudo-intellectual prose. Philosophy and art should be kept distinctly separate, because otherwise we end up with the embarrassing spectacle of modern philosophy where anything written with enough passion can pass as wisdom or knowledge.

>>18266329
>Philosophy and art should be kept distinctly separate
You can't be serious. Every work of art (that's worth anything) is rooted in its own philosophy.
If your only argument is that "everything I don't like is for girls", you need to grow up.

>>18266400
If that's what you think my argument was, then you need to grow a brain. Or maybe you believe "wisdom" is equivalent to "passion", in which case that is a foregone conclusion.

>>18265764
He tried to deduce how natural phenomena work from his metaphysical claims and ended up believing retarded things like magnets making iron heavier.

>>18264759
>his historical importance and profundity go basically unquestioned
???

what’s profound at all about Kant’s ideas?

>>18266166
>True. And it's mostly people that haven't read him

Yeah. The fact that more often than not, it's just an act of edgy, political contrarianism with no real philosophical engagement is just exasperating and it ties into the vicarious importance and petty factionalism that I mentioned. The whole "German metaphysics = Conservative = Patrician & British Empiricism = Liberalism = Bugman" routine that plays out on here constantly is a good example. You can (and in my opinion should) reject naive forms of empiricism and utilitarianism, but do so philosophically in a spirit of good faith. Don't stand there and act like these ways of thinking are so obviously philosophically bankrupt when your rejection of them is motivated by unreflective political allegiance. The "critiques" that get trotted out have the benefit of hindsight and act as if "bugman" empirical and consequentialist philosophies didn't have compelling reasons for adoption in their time and haven't evolved in response to critiques. But of course, as you said, there's no reading going on there. There's no way you could thoroughly read say Hume and Mill in a spirit of good faith and just dismiss them wholesale with "bugman".

>>18266193
>>18266329
You have to go back.

>>18264594
You make a very good point there anon, we all know Hegel is a very flawed, but one thing I know is that he himself “gave birth” to so many people who were influenced by him in one way or another, the few exceptions to this are those like Nietzsche who was more influenced by Schopenhauer. But I feel everyone who came after who saw Hegel as a large influence had a completely different interpretation of him than another person (I.e: Marx and Heidegger) and in a way that one of the reasons I like him, the fact that when you read him, you almost take your own personal meaning from him, but I’m not going to lie I’m a massive retard so I could just be talking out my ass, but that’s my view on it all

>>18266410
Besides something without any basis, that's the only thing you said.

>>18266410
No but I don’t see why someone would read Hegel for passion and Aristotle for wisdom, they both have completely different talking points which could both enlighten and be read for “passionate” reasons

>>18266452
>He tried to deduce how natural phenomena work from his metaphysical claims
He doesn't actually do that, that's not what his philosophy of nature is about. Also since nothing is deduced, every part of his philosophy of nature can be emendated (he did in fact revise it with every new edition of the Encyclopedia, so that he could update it to the latest scientific findings)
>and ended up believing retarded things like magnets making iron heavier
Are you really going to shot down the entire system only because you have heard a meme quote by Schopenhauer?

>>18263979
Yes, him and Derrida, but Hegel a little bit more

>>18266566
I don't know about the Nietzsche thing. While he mightn't have devoted much if any direct study to Hegel's works, it was then, as it is now, impossible to avoid some acquaintance with Hegel's ideas. Nietzsche was caught up in the wave of 19th Century evolutionary thought that had a strong Hegelian-historical current alongside the Darwinian-biological one. Even just looking at how much emphasis Nietzsche places on history, genealogy, transvaluation of values, the notion of mankind being succeeded by something new, etc. it's hard to imagine that something didn't at least seep in. Then there's the controversial question of Stirner's influence (positive and/or negative) which would provide a direct line of influence from Hegel to Nietzsche.

>>18263979
Kant is the most patrician philosopher, but Hegel is a close second.

>>18263979
Fichte and Schelling are honestly more interesting to me, and I don't even dislike Hegel, I think the Science of Logic is fascinating. But anyone who read PoS alone, and not SoL, Fichte, or Schelling, does not deserve to be called "patrician."

>>18266166
Completely share how you feel about Hegel; reading him felt like a window with a heavily personalized filter into the world itself that not only exemplifies, but imbues distinct ethereal vivacity. It felt totally acquiesced to plainly describing the nature of the world without judgment, at the same time it was heavily personal and sincere. I almost feel that to try and hold him above other philosophy in a sense of believing his arguments to be superior is missing the point. It seems to serve a different purpose by providing what may one's missing piece of the picture; once you accept it, you continue reading philosophy as you did beforehand, just with the greater understanding that Hegel provided.

>>18267525
Interesting take anon, what are your reasons? (I don’t disagree)

>>18264594
>I'm not going to shill for the analytics and their obsession with clarity, but you have to question the history of Hegel interpretation. It seems that people can and do read into him what they want to more than with any other philosopher (apart from maybe Nietzsche).
I don't think this is right for either Hegel or Nietzsche, and I even come from an analytic background. Ideas of Hegel and Nietzsche are relatively clear, with debate being within the limits of what's quite reasonable. People with opinions who haven't really engaged these works they talk about at all, much less the scholarship, don't really count. Nietzsche is deeply misrepresented by teenagers who barely or haven't read him. They don't count for shit though.

>>18264594
the issue is that its fichte (pbuh) that ended philosophy
>>18266166
>haven't read him
obviously, because if they read anything they would have realized fichte (pbuh) ended philosophy

>>18263979
no, this guy is a retard

>>18269888
See... filtered

>>18268194
Apologies for the confusion, in my rush I didn't differentiate the two strands of what I was saying.

I wasn't intending to trot out the old "Hegel is so obscure as to practically meaningless" canard (although I understand that even devoted readers consider some parts of his work to be basically opaque), just that, following on from my first point somewhat, that there are claims made about Hegel's supposed prescience and orientation with more than a whiff of implausibility. It's all well and good to say that Hegel was an inspiration to say Marxism or Pragmatism, but to say that he was in some sense a Marxist or Pragmatist avant la lettre seems anachronistic. I'm not well-versed in the secondary literature but I understand this is a major bone of contention. Just as people diminish his connection to the past, they project him into the future.

With Nietzsche, my (surface-level) understanding is that in addition to the situation with the French mirroring the situation with Hegel, there is most prominently, the quite basic question of relation between his diagnostic claims about the moral beliefs that he criticises and the assertions of his own moral views.

These weren't meant to be attacks on the two men with whose work I have only a very basic acquaintance, just a call for measure and greater scrutiny in assessing their merits.