/lit/ - Literature

Marx.

Davidson.

Me.

>>19384636
If you claim to understand Hegel there's a 99% chance you're LARPing

ok ok guys listen to me.
>hegelian quantum mechanics

>>19384896
Go on

>>19384847
Who is this guy?

>>19384636
>Who comes after Hegel?
Ignoring him entirely.

>>19385466
Are you saying we should ignore him? Or is ignoring him a mistake. fyi i believe 20th century anglo philosophy is a mistake (after GE Moorefag and Russellfag)

>>19385502
>Are you saying we should ignore him?
Yes.
>fyi i believe 20th century anglo philosophy is a mistake (after GE Moorefag and Russellfag)
It's the only way to do anything resembling real philosophy. Anything that followed after Hegel was just political performance art masquerading as philosophy.

>>19384636
We don’t know who Peter Adamson will place right after, but chronologically he could go with Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer or maybe even Stirner and the others of Die Freien.
Or somebody else. Like this guy >>19385466 I never heard of

https://historyofphilosophy.net/

>>19385561
>I never heard of
How have you never heard of Frege?

>>19384636
Read pic related. Other than the obvious names (Marx, Schopenhauer, Husserl, Bergson, logical positivism, American pragmatists like Dewey) there were tons of thinkers who tried to improve on Hegel's system: Trendelenburg, Hartmann and Neo-Kantians like Lotze, Dilthey.

>>19385566
Not a true philosophy nerd

>>19385628
She spends so much time on here that she’d know a thinker as famous and influential as him.

>>19385638
She's a she?

>>19385700
Yeah.

>>19385566
Sounds vaguely familiar, but I’d never seen the pic before. You guys talk about Buber more

>>19384636
Nietzsche

>>19385708
I lov u

>>19385708
>Sounds vaguely familiar, but I’d never seen the pic before. You guys talk about Buber more
People on here are only interested in lebensphilosophie. No one talks about logic or philosophy of language on this board, but Frege is still a major figure in the history of philosophy.

>>19385736
Ok so how do we change that?

>>19384855
True

>>19384636
EHEM.

>>19385896
Who is this funny looking man?

>>19384636
Hegel was so brilliant, the weltgeist incarnate.

>>19385933
Some fascist

>>19384636
Philosophical "systems" fall apart so quickly under any effort of scrutiny that no one even bothers trying.
I think that Heideggerian project is the closest thing that comes to rival Hegel's in terms of scope and vision.

>>19386157
Heidegger and Deleuze are the two biggest ontologists after Hegel.

>>19386652
Deleuze is a shitty perversion of Heidegger.

>>19385743
Stop investigating philosophers based on /lit/ charts and use the SEP instead.

>>19386662
Deleuze has almost nothing to do with Heidegger's project, retard. If anything he's a perversion of Bergson.

>>19386821
>Deleuze has almost nothing to do with Heidegger's project,
Maybe try reading him.

>>19386821
this

>>19386904
Where does Deleuze champion a Heideggerian position? Point out either the argument or cite the text. If you fail to do so I can only conclude you are another faggot pseud looking for "syntheses" between disparate thinkers because you like the aesthetic of it.

>>19385466
Daily reminder that Frege was a descendant of Melanchthon, and that his project was to create the lingua characteristica of Leibniz.

>>19384636
Christopher Langan. It will probably take you decades to realize this because of your close mindedness but I’ll tell you anyway.

>>19386918
Anything by Frege on the overall aim of his project? Also dafuq is melanchthon? Sounds like megatron and metatron. Must be big if true.

>>19386967
Elaborate for the retards bro. We thirst for the fountain of knowledge and wisdom.

>>19386918
>those eyes
>that grin
this guy has aspergers

>>19384636
Fichte

>>19387143
>aspergers
Well, he was German.
>>19387136
>dafuq is melanchthon?
On of the main Reformers, Luther's right hand man.
>Anything by Frege on the overall aim of his project?
His Begriffsschrift:
>I was not trying to present an abstract logic in formulas; I was trying to express contents in an exacter and more perspicuous manner than is possible in words, by using written symbols. I was trying, in fact, to create a “lingua characteristica” in the Leibnizian sense, not a mere “calculus ratiocinator”—not that I do not recognize such a deductive calculus as a necessary constituent of a Begriffsschrift.

And now, consider this:
>Kurt Gödel, on the other hand, believed that the characteristica universalis was feasible, and that its development would revolutionize mathematical practice (Dawson 1997). He noticed, however, that a detailed treatment of the characteristica was conspicuously absent from Leibniz's publications. It appears that Gödel assembled all of Leibniz's texts mentioning the characteristica, and convinced himself that some sort of systematic and conspiratorial censoring had taken place

and this:
>However, in bequeathing his unpublished work to his adopted son, Alfred, he wrote prophetically, “I believe there are things here which will one day be prized much more highly than they are now. Take care that nothing gets lost.” Alfred later gave Frege’s papers to Heinrich Scholz of the University of Münster for safekeeping. Unfortunately, however, they were destroyed in an Allied bombing raid on March 25, 1945. Although Scholz had made copies of some of the more important pieces, a good portion of Frege’s unpublished works were lost.

Coincidence?

>>19387314
*One of the main Reformers
/lit/ obviously isn't ready for this pill...

Karl Popper, then realizing that Hegel is pure garbage

>>19384896
I'm pretty sure you can find something in his Philosophy of Nature that is prescient of QM. I remember that one of the passages Schopenhauer mocked him for was basically a prediction of the phenomenon of radiation.

>>19385708
ANALytic philosophy, butters.
Frege, one of the founders.

>>19384636
Not that I know of.
>>19384844
Not a systematic philosopher.
>>19384847
Lmao.
>>19385466
Frege didn't even manage to overcome (or even understand at a basic level) Kant or Plato, let alone Hegel.
>>19385550
Didnt know someone could be this retarded.
>>19385561
Of the three only Schopenhauer was a systematic philosopher, and at the end of the day he was just a guy who misread Kant. I wouldnt place him above Hegel.
>>19385723
Not a systematic philosopher.
>>19385588
Are you really citing neo-aristotelians and neo-kantians? Lmao
>>19386652
Heidegger is not systematic. Deleuze might be the first possibly valid contestant that has been mentioned in this thread.
>>19387946
Karl Popper is a single-digit IQ retard

>>19387990
>Didnt know someone could be this retarded
Except for maybe Marx, no valid or interesting philosophical work came out of the traditions that followed Hegel. It's just garbage for losers who want to larp as the world spirit or superman instead trying to actually answer questions and find truth.
I haven't managed to find anyone defend it in any capacity. It's a blight on the history of intellectual development and nothing more.

>>19388039
Also, in b4 some wordy response which drops a bunch of names without referencing philosophical ideas. As difficult as it he is to read I think part of the appeal of someone like Hegel is that it is much easier to work the history of philosophy presented as philosophy itself rather than engaging with philosophy itself. Once you get past the style and jargon Hegel and his I'll were just doing philosophy on easy mode.

>>19388039
Hegel's work is already valid, it didnt need to be validated by successive philosophers. This can be said about every great philosopher in history.
It's also embarassing that you've picked Moore and Russell as an improvement over Hegelian philosophy, without realizing that they're basically sophists who use formal logic to pseudo-rationalize their subjective preferences (or as analytic "philosophers" call them, "intuitions"). Had you read some Hegel you would have noticed immediatly how basic and stupid is the mistake over which the entire analytic tradition is grounded.

>>19388099
>Russell as an improvement over Hegelian philosophy, without realizing that they're basically sophists who use formal logic to pseudo-rationalize their subjective preferences
Even if you disagree with their conclusions, their contributions to logic needed to achieve such sophistry are more valuable than any of Hegel's work (which is easy because Hegel's work is harmful), and second doing that is far more respectable than using grand metaphysical system building to support the preferences of the Prussian government.

>>19387990
I was just addressing the sequential portion. Who’s best is always subjective.
What do you think about this Whitehead guy?

>>19388130
>their contributions to logic needed to achieve such sophistry are more valuable than any of Hegel's work
This is an extra-philosophical contribution, computer scientists should be more interested about it than philosophers, who (should) have known since the times of Kant that formal logic is 100% useless when it comes to philosophical reasoning (since it is abstracted from any positive content, and is incapable of making any distinction regarding sources of knowledge).
The focus that formal logic has in the analytic tradition is a mere rethorical move, it's just a way to make one's own intuitions more appealing to an academia swamped in scientism.
>second doing that is far more respectable than using grand metaphysical system building to support the preferences of the Prussian government.
It's a good thing that Hegel never did it, then (Kaufmann has a nice paper on the topic, but a basic reading of Hegel's Philosophy of Right would have sufficed). On the other hand the list of British philosophers who were fine and dandy with the colonization of India is almost endless, and should I mention the fsct that Russell tried to push for a preventive nuclear strike on the URSS after WW2?
If we're going on this route, attacking philosophers for their political affiliations, I think Hegel would come out as a winner. That said, it's a very stupid route to take.
>>19388151
I haven't read him yet, but I'm planning to.

>>19388174
>The focus that formal logic has in the analytic tradition is a mere rethorical move, it's just a way to make one's own intuitions more appealing to an academia swamped in scientism.
> It's a good thing that Hegel never did it, then (Kaufmann has a nice paper on the topic, but a basic reading of Hegel's Philosophy of Right would have sufficed)
Do you have a link to the paper? I have every reason to be suspicious of Kaufman because he was part of Hegel's grift. It's goibg to take quote a bit to convince me that Hegel's work was something other than an attempt at quid pro quo with the Prussian government.
> we're going on this route, attacking philosophers for their political affiliations, I think Hegel would come out as a winner. That said, it's a very stupid route to take.
I'm not attacking Hegel for his political affiliations, I'm attacking his work for being nothing more than an elaborate expression of his political affiliation.

>>19388272
>>The focus that formal logic has in the analytic tradition is a mere rethorical move, it's just a way to make one's own intuitions more appealing to an academia swamped in scientism.
Sorry for not responding to this. I agree that it's not the be all and end all, but I do think it is helpful in engaging with arguments and communicating once a certain groundwork has been laid out.

>>19384636
Read "From Hegel to Nietzsche" by Karl Löwith. Seriously read it.

>>19388272
>Do you have a link to the paper?
Here it is (btw Kauffmann wasn't a marxist, marxists.org just has a pretty good library on Hegelian scholarship)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kaufmann.htm
There is no indication in Hegel's text that Prussia was a model to be upheld. It also shouldnt be surprising that Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History end with an account of the state of the 1820-30s British Empire (Prussia is mentioned only once, and only to praise Frederik the Great for his dispositions toward Enlightenment - keep in mind that Hegel did not live under his rule, and instead had to deal with a monarchy driven by religious bigotry). It should also be noted that Hegel says even in the Introduction to the Philosophy of Right that his political philosophy is not prescriptive (he's not trying to do what Plato seemingly did in the Republic or in Laws). There is no end of history for Hegel, those who say there is are just conflating his philosophy of history with the one formulated by Marx.
I'll also add as a last note that the Philosophy of Right is riddled with critiques of Prussian monarchy. For example Hegel wanted a constitution: but in Hegel times such a request was a ground for expulsion from all academic activity, and, in certain case, even exile from the country (Hegel managed to avoid because by 1821 he was already extremely famous, and to expel him from the University of Berlin would have been a political suicide for the Prussian regency).
>I'm not attacking Hegel for his political affiliations, I'm attacking his work for being nothing more than an elaborate expression of his political affiliation.
Well, I'm telling you that this is a misreading propagated by Hegel's enemies (one among all, Schelling). My advise is to reread his Introduction to his Philosophy of Right, especially the last part. Hegel really meant the "owl of Minerva" metaphor (which, by itselt, should be enough to refute all the readings of Hegel that claim that he believed in an end of history, or that he believed in political justificationism).

>>19388099
>they're basically sophists who use formal logic to pseudo-rationalize their subjective preferences (or as analytic "philosophers" call them, "intuitions"). Had you read some Hegel you would have noticed immediatly how basic and stupid is the mistake over which the entire analytic tradition is grounded.

I spent a lot of time studying kantian philosophy before I decided to try college. Had to take a class on analytic philosophy. Started with moore and russell. Both obviously didn't fucking understand Kant. Wanted to just bang my head on my desk all semester. Prof and classmates were so into it. None of my classmates new who Kant was. Had to read Moore's proof that he had hands. Hurt so bad reading it. Had to read about Russell getting all worked up about 'negative existentials'. Was completely dumbfounded. Moore could understand transcendental ideality/empirical reality distinction. Notes on him by his own profs state he would constantly misread Kant. Russell completely ignores that Kant already showed existence is not a preditcate so his whole deal with negative existentials being self-contradicting subject-predicate propostions was a complete waste brain power. This was his whole impetus for his emphasis on finding the TRUE logical form of propositions. Bring this up to prof. Prof brushes me off. I really fucking hate college. I can't believe I have to pay for this shit.

>>19388751
>Russell completely ignores that Kant already showed existence is not a preditcate so his whole deal with negative existentials being self-contradicting subject-predicate propostions was a complete waste brain power
Glad Kant's view on this subject is beyond dispute or question. Your historicist dogma is not critical thinking. You're embarrassing yourself in class, and your professor are trying to help you by brushing you aside.

>>19388800
It's not beyond dispute of course. That don't mean it's wrong tho. And if russell was going to get all worked up about negative existentials he should at least recognized showing it was even a problem by addressing Kants denial of existence as a predicate to clear the way for his project. Him ignoring it completely kills his project. The dude was smart but he was pretentious as fuck.

>>19388845
>And if russell was going to get all worked up about negative existentials he should at least recognized showing it was even a problem by addressing Kants denial of existence as a predicate to clear the way for his project. Him ignoring it completely kills his project.
Acknowledging and response being to objections is certainly helpful, but unless you can demonstrate Kant was correct in a way that makes Russell's assertions incorrect, then I don't see how it completely defeats his project at the offset. It seems that you've confused the history of philosophy with doing philosophy itself.

>>19386914
Ontological difference that can’t be construed as ”conceptual”, there. Deleuze takes a lot of cues from phenomenology, and his favourite philosophy book was Being and Nothingness by Sartre.

>>19388868
I don't need to demonstrate Kant was correct. Kant already did that LOL. That's why russell looks like a little bitch for ignoring him. Basically coming off like he didn't know how to refute Kant so he just turned the other way and just assumed existence was a predicate.

>>19388914
>I don't need to demonstrate Kant was correct. Kant already did that LOL.
> It's not beyond dispute of course.
I know what you're saying is not contradictory, but if you want to claim that Russell's project was a waste of time (whether in class or on here), you have to show that Kant was correct (and the people disputing him are wrong) and how Kant being correct defeats Russell's project from the offset. Like I said before, you're confusing doing the history of philosophy with doing philosophy itself.

No one.

And it seems unlikely we'll get one soon given how the field is subdividing.

Looking at influence, importance to later thought, novelty, comprehensiveness I'd say there are only four clear S tier philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel, so not particularly common.

>>19388872
>Ontological Difference can't be construed as "conceptual"
Pretty sure that the opposite is the case anon. if Difference wasn't conceptual (i.e. if it came from a 'suspended' belief that authorised transcendent ontology), then it effectively destroys the entire Deleuzian project.

>>19388940
>you have to show that Kant was correct
Just read the first critique
>(and the people disputing him are wrong)
Russell does not even engage with Kants conclusion. Thats the main issue.
>and how Kant being correct defeats Russell's project from the offset.
Kant concludes P1
Russell literally begins with not-P1

How the hell are you supposed to engage with someone who ignores your conclusions and holds contradictory principles. We literally just gonna be talking past each other.

>>19389012
P.S. this is before accounting for Deleuze's affinity towards concepts, whose creation he lauds as "the task of philosophy" itself. In a word, there is no Deleuze (much less Difference) without concepts arising from subjectivity.

>>19389022
>Just read the first critique
This is never a good response. If you're making an assertion, back it up. You're contributing to a worthwhile discourse if your response to being asked to support your argument is for everyone to stop and read through an 800 book.
> Russell does not even engage with Kants conclusion. Thats the main issue.
>Kant concludes P1
>Russell literally begins with not-P1
I just don't see why it is. While it would be nice for a response to such an argument, I still don't see how defeats a project with the latter assumption of you can't demonstrate that P1 is true and not-p1 is false.
>How the hell are you supposed to engage with someone who ignores your conclusions and holds contradictory principles. We literally just gonna be talking past each other.
Russell is long dead, so I don't think you'll be able to convince him, and Kant was dead during Russell's lifetime, so I don't think he was able to call him out. But since you have knowledge of both thinkers, you can evaluate Kant's arguments and Russell's principles and demonstrate why the former is correct and the latter isn't.

>a system so genius/retarded that no one understands it
>those who delve into the matter can read it in a myriad ways
>that includes literal magic
It's going to be Deleuze. Pretty sure about that.

We need to conjure up this guy a new body. Any body willing to reincarnate Hegel? I'd do it but I'm too much of a fag.

>>19388039
>>19388082
I get the distinct impression you have not seriously studied Hegel at all, and have never done a serious study of philosophy as a tradition.

Even folks who thought Hegel mostly got things wrong spent forever addressing him because he is almost certainly the most influential philosopher of the 19th century.

I don't know about philosophies in general being "easy" or "hard" as a useful guiding criteria.

I don't see analytic philosophy as invariably in contradiction with Hegel, and I suppose Hegel wouldn't have either. There is a sort of natural union down the road when you take the linguistic turn on the one hand, and Hegel's sizeable influence on the development of semiotics on the other. You'd do good to study both.

Methodology differs but you get a lot of relationships of content between Derrida and Wittgenstein or Quine. Quine himself sounds almost like Saussure at times "meaning is essence when it is divorced from objects and wedded to words." (Or something like that, can't be assed to look it up).

Lots of analytical philosophy has really made its hay in helping to form more robust systems in com with Hegelian influenced dialectical.


An acquaintance of mine who works mostly in biology, but who did his PhD focusing on analytical philosophy is the main person who told me to stick with Hegel and start reading Pierce. He says it's hugely influential for helping him come up with insights. To be honest him summarizing his work went over my head, but it was about using semiotics as a means of understand information transfer and the use of sign in nature, particularly vis-a-vis DNA/RNA.

Sometimes multiple approaches are needed to find insights. You also see Hegel a lot in polisci (Fukayama for example). No one route, as old Georg says, "the truth is the whole."

>>19385896
Based

>>19384636
>Who comes after Hegel?
On one side you have Marx
On the other side you have Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger

Both sides meet after Sartre and then with the rest of the 20th century french philosophers

>>19389146
m8 you skipped a whole century

>>19389332
Bu wuh bout british hegelians and the analyticfag mutiny?

>>19388872
Is this the power of mental retardation?

>>19389012
Have you read Difference and Repetition? Taking difference as conceptual disallows actual repetition (because it will just turn it into instantiations of the same), which is why he wants to talk about difference in itself instead

This is similar to Heidegger’s ontological difference because it blocks ontic designations (being as conceptual/material and so on)

>>19389375
Yes but not in its final form

>>19384636
>“Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.”

>>19389387
Daily reminder that when Schopenhaurr wrote this people (like Schelling and many others) were literally being paid by the Prussian monarchy to tarnish Hegel's reputation.

>>19389396
Well they didn't pay enough. It may be a translation issue. Here's another translation with a fairly significant departure in meaning.

>"Hegel was a flat, witless, disgusting-revolting, ignorant charlatan who, with unexampled impudence, kept scribbling insanity and nonsense that was trumpeted as immortal wisdom by his venal adherents and actually taken for that by dolts, which gave rise to such a complete chorus of admiration as had never been heard before."

>>19384636
Hegel is often considered the last systemic philosopher. The greatest attempt at a new system is Badiou with his 3 vol. work Being and Event.

>>19389382
I'm the original poster you replied to not>>19389012
This is a superficial connection (even if it is present I'll grant that). As stupid as finding connections between Deleuze and Hegel.

>>19389382
>So long as we take difference to be conceptual difference, intrinsically conceptual, and repetition to be an extrinsic difference between objects represented by the same concept, it appears that the problem of their relation may be resolved by the facts. Are there repetitions - yes or no? Or is every difference indeed intrinsic and conceptual in the last instance? Hegel ridiculed Leibniz for having invited the court ladies to undertake experimental metaphysics while walking in the gardens, to see whether two leaves of a tree could not have the same concept. Replace the court ladies by forensic scientists: no two grains of dust are absolutely identical, no two hands have the same distinctive points, no two typewriters have the same strike, no two revolvers score their bullets in the same manner ... We therefore find ourselves confronted by this question: what is the concept of difference - one which is not reducible to simple conceptual difference but demands its own Idea, its own singularity at the level of Ideas?

I'll concede to this anon. Apologies for the error - I've been working with Todd Mays Deleuze lately, and he suggests an alternative approach to difference:
>Difference is no more a creation than it is a discovery. Concepts of difference are not like fictional characters. They do not ask us to hold belief. But neither do they ask us to believe. Assent or denial are not the responses concepts seek. "Philosophy does not consist in knowing and is not inspired by truth. Rather, it is categories like Interesting, Remarkable, or Important that determine success or failure.” (ref. WIP)

>>19389447
this is that guy, i suppose it was a low hanging fruit, so my bad for that

>>19389414
Here's another daily reminder: Schopenhauer never formulated any substantial critiques of Hegel's philosophy, he always just resorted to insults. I dont think he ever really knew what Hegel was about, which is also shown by the fact that he always call him "obscurantist" and his work "nonsensical".
He really just got filtered

>>19389650
Ironically Schopenhauers constant shitting on the German idealists made me more curious about them

>>19384866
From what little I know about him, he seems like a really schizo version of Plato.

>>19389421
>The greatest attempt at a new system is Badiou with his 3 vol. work Being and Event.
And what's it about? Is it anything significant?

What do philosophical systems do?

>>19389421
What are the prerequisites for reading it? I'm well-read up to Nietzsche, and I know nothing about set theory

>>19387143
>Fichte
only right answer in this thread

the other posts reek of monolingualism.

>>19390971
Eh. It's Plato rehabilitated and formalised using set theory. It's one of those things that seems significant and profound at first, but then if you go back to the ancients you realize that they already understood the what Badiou is trying to complement them with. Besides, the need for a strict formalisation (à la Zermelo–Fraenkel) is itself a flawed notion stemming from analytic philosophy (read. "retardation").

>>19392033
Well you will have to know set theory. Luckily for you it's simple as fuck.

>>19392966
>Besides, the need for a strict formalisation (à la Zermelo–Fraenkel) is itself a flawed notion stemming from analytic philosophy (read. "retardation").
I mean,whtether the need for it is necessary is one thing, but there are plenty of reasons why formalization would be desirable.

>>19384636
>Who comes after Hegel?

>>19387140
He bridges the gap between reality and mind. As our knowledge of the world increases, the burden of proof becomes heavier and heavier. We now have questions that people like Hegel never asked. All previous philosophers took for granted that anything argument which is perfect in its reasoning and clarity and which the mind cannot find any flaw in is “true.” But now that we know our cognitive processes are effectively reducible to neuronal ones, we have to prove that mind and reality are related at all. Langan is the only person whose philosophy hasn’t gone out of date yet because he has felt the full power of all the methods of 21st century doubt and the CTMU is designed to rebuff everything it can say against it. Doubt was much weaker in the past and even Descartes’s doubt is incredibly credulous compared to modern standards, so philosophy has to meet the new standards and Langan does this.

>>19384636
immediately after hegel comes someone who translates his impenetrable rants from hegelese into english. a thorough textual analysis maybe.

everyone is really their own hegel carrying out their own dialectic of developing consciousness for themselves

>>19390971
In short, it's about everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? What is change? The One or the many? What should we do? Etc. It is a philosophical system in the way you find it in Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant Fichte, Schelling, and of course Hegel. This way of doing philosophy has fallen off. As previously noted Hegel is the last great philosopher with a system -- until Badiou.

>>19392033
General knowledge of the classics, from the pre-socratics to post-structuralism, would help. Especially Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Galileo, Pascal, Spinoza, Leibniz, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Lacan, Deleuze and Heidegger.

A general knowledge of set theory would also help. Especially familiarity with Cantor and Cohen (forcing).

It would also help if you had some familiarity with poetry, especially Mallarme and Hölderlin.

With all this said, I don't think any of it is required. You don't have to jump into Being and Event. Badiou has a lot of shorter books. For set theory read
>Number and Numbers
and
>"Mathematics is Ontology" from Theoretical Writings.
He also has an easy read titled
>In Praise of Mathematics.

For a short enjoyable read go with his
>Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil.

Apart from that he has books on a lot of topics and thinkers he deals with. Have a look at his bibliography to see if there's anything that interests you.

>>19384844
Fpbp

Me. Read My Diary Desu.

>>19389650
He didn’t need to you neoliberal hypocrite. What compatibility does your open borders free world have with actual true soviet-era Marxism. Capitalism won and you guys are just negotiating with the enemy on how you can be free from responsibility while ignoring the people who suffer due to your plans for an idealistic world, the conflicts when peoples actions don’t fit into your ideology and the deaths and blood that’s on your hands.

>>19384636
Ricardo and Hume then you’re ready for Marx.

>>19395514
>Hume
Wut? Hume had virtually no direct influence on Marx.

>>19395575
The Scottish enlightenment’s relationship with external reality as the source of useful statements and questions isn’t found in Hegel or Ricardo.

Long post. Also replying to OP at the end. And going into various tangents.

>>19392985
>there are plenty of reasons why formalization would be desirable.
I agree. That is why I enjoy Lacan's use of algebraic symbols and diagrams. However the formalization cannot be seen as a pure presentation. That is why Deleuze apparently said that Badiou's whole system is one big "analogy". You can really just use symbols to formalize a thing as a way of better examining it.

I actually read a large portion of Being & Event, and while it's entertaining, and kinda nerdy if you can cope with the math (which was somewhat fun), the problem is imo that Badiou's poetic insight (which is quite nice in part) doesn't even necessitate the "strict" mathematical approach. Also Badiou will make the radical claim that "ontology is mathematics"; essentially reducing the whole of reality to a branch of science.

Now to contrast this with Hegel, who was adamant about uniting science and religion, rationality and intuition etc.

To answer OP, I have not heard of a system that goes beyond Hegel, and I find it funny that people say Deleuze--sure the man is very interesting to study but he's hardly systematic compared to Hegel.

I believe Nietzsche once wanted to write a system, but he died before he could actually materialize it. I believe WtP is actually a quite crucial book that reflects the germ of a Nietzschean system, i.e. the transvaluation of all values.

Other than that I could only really see Derrida as creating a "system" tho not rly either. I suppose Derrida gives us a "method" via deconstruction. So perhaps the grand system really is only in Hegel because it gives both method and systematic description.

I don't know if I'm dreaming that shit up but I think Zizek was once asked why he calls himself Hegelian and not "Zizekian" and Zizek said: Because Hegel already said everything.

That might just be the case.

>>19384636

>>19395585
If you want that in the form Marx knew it then read Feuerbach. Marx didn't interact with Hume.

>>19396016
>I don't know if I'm dreaming that shit up but I think Zizek was once asked why he calls himself Hegelian and not "Zizekian" and Zizek said: Because Hegel already said everything.
I think this was actually from the Peterson debate. I know Peterson asked him that question, but I don't remember the answer he gave.

>>19385550
not until someone made hegel science of logic mathematical. they discovered (lawvere) many category theory construction is just hegelian logic.

the mistake is because of either conservative interpretation of hegel or kojeve kind.

>>19396093
hmm I don't think it was actually. I have some hazy memory of it being an interview by a female, perhaps about Marxism?

You are right however that Zizek kept saying "read Hegel" in the Peterson debate--so that is perhaps where you got the association.

>>19396147
At the end of the debate Peterson and Zizek were asked to ask each other a question I know for certain that that was Peterson's. Zizek might have answered differently on that occasion, but I'm not going back to watch that shit show. It was that event that made me cynical towards continental philosophy and theory.

>>19396216
Yeah fair. Why did it make you cynical toward it?

>>19396304
Peterson, as I exppected, embarrassed himself, and while Zizek is sometimes insightful, I really wasn't satisfied with his answers. Sort of made me feel that Chomsky was right about them the whole time.

>>19396344
Well what did you expect from Continental discourse? It's a very broad field. Not sure Zizek is necessarily exemplary for it, neither is Marxism at all really. The debate wasn't very insightful overall, I agree. Did you try studying Hegel directly?

>>19396394
Something with a better foundation. After that debate I started rejecting all work that seriously engages with psychoanalysis and semiotics or places a greater emphasis on being important to life rather than searching for truth.

>>19395514
>Ricardo and Hume then you’re ready for Marx.

>>19393478
Thank you a lot anon

>>19384844
fpbp