/lit/ - Literature

I demonstrated the first three paragrahs in the doctrine of being (being, nothing, becoming) to a friend by drawing sets. That was it tho. And I didnt know what the fuck he was on about with the hundred dollar metaphor

>SoL
listen here anglo-cunt,
i have a hard time comprehending how you read Logik without retracing every thought laid out yourself and finding it to be true. I dont know what it is that comes to me when I read Hegel but I spontaneously recognize or find it as true. So it is with all his writings, but only because his writing style is a form of incantation. If you were to abandon his style for an ebin graph with lines and arrows you would lose the fecundity of his original style. How are you going to make clear in a sketch that a limit necessarily also always goes beyond itself? Fichte’s elaboration on this will be more succinct and carry deeper thought than any analytic anglo approach.

Btw, my uni has an institute that has for the last 15(?) years worked on rewritting Hegel with a (german) analytical philosophy approach (so mainly Frege and Wittgenstein only).

Logik is one of the hardest but also manageable books out there imo. I ended up reading no more than ~2 pages a day, writing down my own summary of the relevant text and rereading my own papers to then come back to previous passages before I move on.
I seriously hope you are not asking whether you could just cheat all the effort by buying a secondary literature book with this.

>>18363248
I'm not talking about rewriting it in analytic jargon. My expression "modern linguistic register" was poorly chosen, I admit; I meant simply "modern English" in a more general sense. Hegel worked through the dialectic from pure immediacy onward and set it down in the academic German of his time - but in principle, and this is what I'm saying, there should be no reason why a native English speaker shouldn't be able to do the same and present it their own way.

>I seriously hope you are not asking whether you could just cheat all the effort by buying a secondary literature book with this.
Of course not. I'm not talking about secondary literature. I'm talking about whether or not someone has ever tried to "re-do" the primary source, the Science of Logic, 'from scratch' as it were.

>Btw, my uni has an institute that has for the last 15(?) years worked on rewritting Hegel with a (german) analytical philosophy approach (so mainly Frege and Wittgenstein only).
What institute?

>>18363729
>set it down in the academic German of his time - but in principle, and this is what I'm saying, there should be no reason why a native English speaker shouldn't be able to do the same and present it their own way.
I really like to hear this, anon.
Yet I would suggest that there must be a translator who thought he did this as well.
I always thought german philosophy simply does not translate. You are better off reading french philosophy because near all of their vocabulary already exists in english (or at least theoretically). The kantian term "Anschauung" being translated as "visual-space" or
>Finally, there is the realm of what students of Kant know as Anschauungen, immediate sensory experiences, often awkwardly translated as "apperceptions", which belong to perceptual spaces.
simply is not the same. If you do not intuitively understand german prefixes and suffixes most german philosophy will be lost on you. (anyone who studied a foreign language, especially greek will understand how different prefixes are used in different languages).
>I'm talking about whether or not someone has ever tried to "re-do" the primary source, the Science of Logic, 'from scratch' as it were.
Schelling said that what Hegel did was just one way of telling what really matters; but he still provided great and new insight into this.
But if you go off the basis Hegel had, and as you said, you should be able to directly emulate what Hegel did but in english.

As a german I would certainly say that after many years of having read Hegel one can reproduce in german his writings from going through the insight you gained all by on your own. Hegel said (somewhere in the introduction of that book) only german lends itself properly to philosophy. Maybe prove him wrong. Though I would never admit english being on par in philosophical applicability to german.

>>18363821
In a certain sense I am thinking of this as something like an 'experiment' which would put Hegel's claims about the German language to the test. If Hegel's system, commencing from the Logic, is - as he says - a purely immanent, presuppositionless development, which draws on no conceptual resources outside those which arise from the thinking of pure indeterminate immediacy, then (in theory) it should not matter what language you're thinking in. But has anyone actually tried to test this, thinking 'from scratch' in English?

>>18362842
>Wouldn't it be possible to overcome Hegel's infelicitous style of writing by re-doing the philosophical experiment in a modern linguistic register?
Why is Hegel's stylr infelicitous? I understand when people complain about the PhG (without the proper contrxt that book is unreadable), but the SoL is thoroughly intellegible and crystal clear.

>>18363248
Do you study in Pittsburgh?

Heh

>>18364962
Not OP but I agree about the SoL, if anything it's too overly-elucidated to the point where he beats the same idea into you repeatedly when it's already been made clear.

>>18365143
>where he beats the same idea into you repeatedly when it's already been made clear.
but he doesnt. Thats the whole point, retard.

>>18362842
>Has anyone ever written something like that?
Yes, their names are J.G. Fichte and F.W.J. Schelling, and they did it before Hegel. It's really Hegel who's doing the rewriting.

>>18365216
Raging pseuds full of ire due to being philtred

>>18365570
>philtered
im not the one who thinks Hegel repeated himself. stop projecting.

>>18362842
What am I even looking at here

>>18368684
The problem I have is that the literature is too broken, there's no one book that has a summary to start with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbelo

>>18369411
Thanks I guess

>>18364995
nice