/lit/ - Literature

>>18913259
About as difficult as jumping into any philosopher's corpus without doing your due diligence of covering the proper background reading first. Read Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, the rationalists, the empiricists, Kant, Fichte, and you should be good.

>>18913305
Oh and Plotinus too. Try to read their works in historical order if you can.

Cinnamon toast crunch.

>>18913313
Don't forget to go into the future and whack yourself upside the head, too. That should do it.

>>18913259
its similar to the way people meme ulysses on here. its not an easy work but also not as difficult as people claim.
also much like with ulysses you need to have a decent but not exceptional foreknowledge before you go in in order to more easily get what hes on about.
and again like ulysses, there are plenty of people who claim to have read and understand it but in reality know fuck all besides some buzzwords.

>>18913305
>leaving out Jacobi, Eckhart, Cusanus, Boehme, Oetinger, Holderlin, Goethe, Maimon, SCHELLING, Tauler, Baader, Paracelsus, Proclus, Novalis and Bruno
Good luck with understanding Hegel without the mystical undercurrents and proper context of Absolute Idealisms development

>>18913305
>>18913492
Good to know I can skip Hume

>>18913492
Is there anything I shouldn't read before Hegel?

>>18913529
Books on logic

>>18913492
These are all complemental, but absolutely not essential to understanding Hegel, with the fair exception of Schelling (who should be read after Hegel anyway for comparison).

>>18913507
>good to know I can skip hume
German Idealism was borne out of a response to Hume (Kant's), if you skip him, you won't understand the context that acted as a catalyst to forming it.

>>18913579
Yeah it was a joke because he wasn't in either list

>>18913259
People here are larping. None of these fags have read him or have an interest in him. This becomes evident once you post something on here about the Logic or the Encyclopedia or his other works which aren’t the Phenomenology, which is the work many people on here claim to have read.
Hegel in English isn’t that hard at all but also somewhat less insightful than the significantly harder German, which in the end is still just a book.
You really needn’t read that much to get into Hegel besides for some Kant or equivalent knowledge, Plato and Aristotle, know your philosophical history, maybe Fichte.
Most of the things are self evident and well explained. It’s just a lot to stomach the first time around. You’re not reading just another book, although you’re doing that too and that’s something you should never forget, you’re also learning about a whole new body of philosophy which builds on everything prior but also stands on its own.
In many cases Hegel is just rather bad at explaining things, and doesn‘t himself use many of the descriptive terms we would now associate with him. Meaning that he writes few things outright, and those which he does are more the cherry on top to the why and his explanation of them, which stand far more important for you to understand. I‘d say a month or two of dedicated study should get you there.

>>18913584
When people say 'read the Empiricists', they usually aren't talking about Berkeley dumbass.

>>18913584
I want to see Vince Vaughn play him in the inevitable docu-comedy

ABSTRUSE TO READ, NOT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND.

Hegel is but Being/Is is harder

>>18913716
>Being/Is
Sorry what???

>>18913331
I think it all just comes down to who you are and how you take it in, like I started reading Ulysses with a guide book, I’m on Hades and so far there isn’t any issue because I’m having fun reading it, and the more fun you have, the more you wish to understand, therefore becoming easier to get through due to your willpower, however if it’s something you just wanna get through and desperately want to understand because you feel you have to, it’s going to be so much more difficult, I had this with Wittgenstein, i was filtered to hell by him.

>>18913716


THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTY IN DISTINGUISHING BEING FROM BECOMING; WHAT IS FROM WHAT IS BEING; IS ONLY A PROBLEM TO ANGLOIDS, FRANCOIDS, AND GERMANOIDS, BECAUSE THEIR LANGUAGES DO NOT MAKE SUCH DIFFERENTIATION, WHICH, IN TURN, IS INDICATIVE OF THE INHERENTLY ANTIPHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHES OF THESE AFOREMENTIONED PEOPLES.

>>18913259
Hegel is pretty easy. The writing is difficult and the concept of a desubjectified ontology can be hard on people who think they’re subjects. Hegel is interested in the act of consciousness. He marks the pseudo Buddhist turn in western philosophy.

>>18913788
>Hegel is pretty easy.
I wouldn’t say easy, depends who you are, his Science of Logic isn’t extremely difficult but it drags for longer than it needs to, his lectures are fairly fathomable, but his PdG is just fucking hell, I didn’t even start with the preface and still gave up after 8 pages, I’m either a retard or I’m not seeing something

>>18913727
think anon was punning on OP’s typo

>>18913746
med cope. greeks being confused about their own grammar is how confusion over being and becoming emerged until Hegel (pbuh) grasped finally grasped it. angloids are worms though this much is true.

>>18913836
>greeks being confused about their own grammar is how confusion over being and becoming emerged…


?

IF ANYONE IS «COPING» HERE THAT ONE IS YOU.

>>18913830
Ah, kek, thank you, I thought I was retarded for a second, well, more retarded than I already am

>>18913305
>due diligence
ok boomer
>>18913259
nah just read him and consult secondary literature if needed

>>18913894
Isn’t that the case for everyone?

>>18913259
Hegel is trash Laozi is God.

>>18913259
He was trying to write his books while choking on the kaiser's balls, of course it's hard to make sense of what he wrote

>>18913545
*tips fedora*

>>18913857
long enough

Not really. If anything it takes time to get through him but its not as difficult/obscured as people pretend it is

He is the final boss

>>18913331
understanding ulysses isn't even the best part about reading it

>>18913259
Moron who badly misunderstood why Kant had responded to Hume with the system that he created, so got confused and buttmad and tried to revive Aristotelianism in Kantian language without realising why that was the dumbest thing imaginable.

>>18913897
yes

>>18913894
Do this. Maybe read Kant and Fichte beforehand but if you have trouble just consult the internet.

>>18914724
This post is quite ironic.

>>18914589
It is to ke, at least PdG

>>18915824
me*

>>18913259
Who?

>>18913313
Plotinus alone takes at least a few years to study and properly comprehend. His primary work is over 800 pages of prose that is denser than Hegel's PoS, and it's entirely systematic. This is pretty bad advice

Honestly yes. Not because you need to know every single detail of previous 2000 years of philosophy, but because his own philosophy is so detailed you will get lost in the complex development.
You can honestly start with Phenomenology without reading anybody before him, but I still strongly recommend to read the most important thinkers at least for some mental exercise. You won't fully understand it either way, so don't feel bad. It's still a great and (surprisingly) fun book.

>>18913746
You forgot your meds, you fucking retard.

>>18913259

no, its an obvious fraud.

>>18913507
>tfw this good looking but a man
>5'5"
at least i enjoy reading

>>18913492
tell us which works by Proclus we need to read to understand Hegel?