/lit/ - Literature

>>19643659
>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.

>>19643659
He's gonna show you that "out there" and "in here" are to sides of the same coin.
Substance is only half reality, the True; Subject, is the other half. Gotta know your Kant to understand Hegel. Logic orders both the inner and outer worlds.

>>19643675
Don't listen to that guy. Schopenhauer got filtered hard went sour grapes on Hegel. He also ripped off Schelling.

can someone who has read the science of logic tell me where he grounds his whole system in? he says things need to be grounded externally (have reasons for being, other than themselves) but if there is nothing outside his whole system, how can he say this? if there is nothing outside the rational, the rational cant be grounded and wouldnt have sufficient reason and so wouldnt be rational

>>19643675
>He scheduled his lectures to coincide with those of the famous philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, whom Schopenhauer described as a "clumsy charlatan". Hegel was also facing political suspicions at the time, when many progressive professors were fired, while Schopenhauer carefully mentioned in his application that he had no interest in politics. Despite their differences and the arrogant request to schedule lectures at the same time as his own, Hegel still voted to accept Schopenhauer to the university. Only five students turned up to Schopenhauer's lectures, and he dropped out of academia. A late essay, "On University Philosophy", expressed his resentment towards the work conducted in academies.

>Returning to Berlin, he began to study Spanish so he could read some of his favorite authors in their original language. He also made failed attempts to publish his translations of their works. Few attempts to revive his lectures—again scheduled at the same time as Hegel's—also failed, as did his inquiries about relocating to other universities.

>>19643712
schop really had it hard

>>19643685
Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root shits all over the other post-Kantian rectifications of Kant, including Hegel. The fact that Hegel left so many of Kant's errors intact, whereas Schop. made the gallant effort to rectify everything and make it airtight, is really damning for Hegel.

>>19643705
Hegel decidedly says that it's circular (or a circle of circles as he likes to call his whole system).

>>19643975
Nah man, I love to read Schopenhauer and I do hold sympathy and respect for him, but he can't hold a candle against Hegel philosophically.

>>19643659
I recently bought Capital Volume 1. Do I need to read Hegel first to read it? If so, what of Hegel should I read to understand Marx?

hegel’s main fallacy is the confusion between consciousness (cartesian “ego cogitans”) and psychology.
this happens 2 times:
1. in the phenomenology of spirit, when he considers nature, perception, objectivity, the “alienation” of consciousness from itself, on the grounds that only the “concepts” are truly self-conscious. this is arbitrary. consciousness is MADE of both nature, perception, objectivity and psychology. there is no consciousness that creates the world from above, if you remove nature, you remove consciousness itself.
2. in the science of logic, when he denies the logical law of non-contradiction on a dialectical (= heuristic) basis. either you take what hegel says seriously, that is ontologically, or you consider his thesis-anthitesis-synthesis doctrine no more than a lead, a way to get to a non-contradictory reality. the second case is known from plato, so it is nothing new. in the first case instead, you have to demonstrate logically that logic is grounded in dialectics, which hegel didn’t do. ironically enough, in hegel’s age people like bolzano or boole were demonstrating that logic is grounded on mathematics, which hegel could never understand and hated with a passion.

>>19644501
the great difference between men like descartes or leibniz and men like hegel or fichte is that the former were mathematical and philosophical geniuses, while the latter were literal mathlets, like they had the mathematical capacities of an african man. this has a massive impact on their philosophies.

>>19644349
but if that is the case, than cant the irrational be real too in a circular fashion?

>>19644519
>the great difference between men like descartes or leibniz and men like hegel or fichte is that the former were mathematical and philosophical geniuses
This. It was literally painful reading Kant's attempted refutation of Leibniz's indiscernibles.

>>19643712
I guarantee 95% of the students at Hegel's lectures got absolutely fuck all from them

>>19643675
I appreciate Schope but I really wish people would stop embarrassing him ( and sometimes themselves) by posting his Hegel hate screeds. They have no content and are barely above "Hegel is a retard because his shit's all retarded." Dude had some serious ego issues, mommy issues, and incel issues. Might have helped him write great philosophy, but it made him an asshole. His hate for Hegel doesn't have intellectual rigor, it's just that he thought he was a seismic mega genius and hated Hegel for being the celebrity of philosophy. Also Hegel married an 18 year old at 40 and began having nothing but sons every year, after having been a beer hall Chad in his youth, which probably boosted the incel rage

>>19643705
I have not read the whole Logic. However, my understanding is that the grounding is ontological, and comes from Boehme's influence, at least in PhS. I'll try to lay it out and likely fail:

There is no reality we can conceive of without an observer. When we imagine reality outside subjective experience we simply posit an observer somehow sitting outside what is and looking in.

But you can't go outside what is. Being is the limit possibility. Bernstein covers this pretty well early in his tapes on the Phenomenology of Spirit. Parmenides got at this well at the dawn of philosophy as such.

Physics also has its own problem doing away with observers, and it's not necissary to make appeals to quantum mechanics to get to the root issue here. Empiricism and correspondence definitions of truth require observation definitionally.

Boehme's insight was that, whatever started being, could not be (be as a verb) as just itself. Being without definition is impossible, because again, when talking about the boundary between being and non-being meaningfully, there only is what is, there is no "being what is not." But pure undifferentiated being is impossible. Things are only defined by comparison, by the negativity of what they are not (Heraclitus gets at this haltingly with the tension of antipodes). Sausser, one of the fathers of semiotics, gets at this with the claim that "a one word language is an impossibility." If one term applies equally to all things, the language is not a language for there is no meaning. Think of models of physics as information when the signal is all 1s repeating forever.

Coming at it from the perspective of skepticism and sense certainty, Hegel gets at this same thing. Pure being is undifferentiated immediacy. As such, it is pure abstraction, which is no different from not being anything at all. This produces an immediate contradiction being/nothing- and leads to becoming. This is generally given as a textbook example of the dialectical, but also holds ontologically, and indeed, we see a world without any static being, but only continual becoming. We never have access to the now, for it is always retreating (see the chapter on Sense-Certainty in PhS). Again, Heraclitus was ahead on this as well.

So, back to Boehme's insight. We know things are because we see them. And for there to be meaning, there must have been differentiation. But this only makes sense, because the undifferentiated being of the "begining" necessarily had to posit that which was other to be, so we should expect negativity. Being is thus the coming of being to know itself in absolute otherness. And this again, is what we see in lived reality, which is a coherent whole (i.e. all subjective reality) but divides itself into that which is self, and other, though these are clearly parts of a whole of experience.

>>19643659
This is the lowest effort bait I've ever seen.

>>19644628
The dialectical shows how differentiations are sublated, leading to higher forms of understanding. In this sense, being has both an individual and historical progression through the dialectical, but of course this is not akin to the Socratic method of dialectical, but more a description of natural semiotics.

>>19643659
The Preface is extremely difficult and packed with now-obscure references. I found Hackett's paragraph by paragraph commentary, Hegel's Ladder very helpful.

>>19644501
"The truth is the whole." An explanation can be true and contain contradictions. Those will need to be resolved for a deeper truth to emerge. It doesn't work the way you're describing it. Like, a mechanic can have a very good description of how your engine works but get facts about the chemistry involved twisted up. Newtonian physics isn't wrong. It is accurate on most scales. However it also isn't the whole truth clearly, since there is curved spacetime and QM. This particular sort of coherence epistemology held up much better than the analytic/relations of ideas vs synthetic/matters of fact distinction.

>>19644519
Hegel was huge into mathematics and studied the cutting edge mathematics of his time. This is a statement displaying a total ignorance of his biography. His philosophy of math shit the bed early and looks naive did to innovation that came about a century later, but this holds true for plenty of other philosophers and mathematicians.

>>19644653
> Hegel was huge into mathematics
a myth among hegelian scholars wracked with guilt. we still have his notebooks for the preparation of his phil of nature and they show the mathematical knowledge of a 15 yo kid if the 19th century. in his history of philosophy (the longer one) he tries to refute newton’s optics in a manner worthy of 4chan shitposting. in the same paragraph he says that mathematics must not be allowed to “stick its chest out” in front of philosophy. just embarrassing.

>>19644653
> Those will need to be resolved for a deeper truth to emerge
then you are not taking the theory of T-S-A seriously. relativity is not in contradiction with newtonian physics. the latter is a set of propositions forever true under certain conditions of validity. einstein’s relativity is ANOTHER set of propositions forever true under other conditions of validity which include the newtonian ones. like :
> in 2021 berlin is in germany
forever TRUE, period
> in 2021 germany is in europe
forever TRUE, not in contradiction with the proposition above

hegelian dialctics is an apery of the scientific method by someone who doesn’t understand it in the slightest

>>19644628
>we can conceive of
why does this matter?
>Being is the limit possibility
why? i know the other option is non-being but im arguing for the possibility of an irrational third possibility. what neccesitates rationality so that the irrational isn't possible? the answer is always cyclical, which begs the question, can't irrationality be (as a verb) cyclicaly
>definitionally
this is rationality again. why is that a neccesary limit on reality? why can't reality be irrational?
>5th paragraph
thats only the case within rationality though.
>6th paragraph
k i know this from the first 3 sections of the logic, and this question is unrelated to the previous one since it is a questioning within rationality and not of rationality, but, while i understand the unity of being/nothing, i dont understand why it results in becoming which seems to imply time, whereas they could-and even in hegel seem to-coexist, rather than succeed each other in something so specific as time. i dont understand why concepts in hegel arent simultanious rather than step by step. isnt his way of thinking pressupposing time? anyways, disregard this, the other one is more important.
>last paragrapgh
same issue as 5th and before

>>19644702
Sounds like you have read Russel's critique of Hegel, not Hegel. The parts about math strutting in front of philosophy in the Preface isn't what later mathematicians found objectionable and makes sense in context.

Second, Hegel's mathematics, an obvious weak spot, has actually made a resurgence, which is why you can find highly cited papers on it from later in the 20th century.

In any event, what offends you so about the idea of math sticking its chest out? I can see this if you're a mathematical Platonist and see math as the one objective truth, something discovered not invented, but this is a declining view for mathematicians.

>>19644746
Please show me where in Newtons laws they claim they break down at small enough scales.

>Forever true
Read the Two Dogmas of Empiricism. It was apriori forever true parallel lines can never meet and then non-euclidean geometries came on the scene.

Speculative philosophy isn't the scientific method. You seem confused on what Hegel was even doing.

>>19644746
>then you are not taking the theory of T-S-A seriously. relativity is not in contradiction with newtonian physics. the latter is a set of propositions forever true under certain conditions of validity. einstein’s relativity is ANOTHER set of propositions forever true under other conditions of validity which include the newtonian ones.
There is no theory of T-A-S, at least not by Hegel. He never used that terminology and it is misconception of Hegel's philosophy. Your second point is also wrong since the conditions for validity are in most cases (and certainly in the case of Newtonian physics) determined after the new discoveries/theories come up. Newton obviously couldn't consider the limits of his theory since he had no access to the experimental data and had reason to even consider such limits.

>>19644444

>>19644789
>It was apriori forever true parallel lines can never meet and then non-euclidean geometries came on the scene.
This is the average intellect of a Hegelian

>>19644761
If you want to posit reality as irrational then you end up with plain Solipsism as far as I can see. Of course, this is always an option, but then there is nothing left to discuss.

>>19644791
*had NO reason to consider such limits

>>19644801
>Math is objective because it just is ok! Axioms are inviolable if I learned them since grade school. You can just go along making them up. Objective is objective because I need certitude.

>Graduate level mathematics? That's basically postmodernism. I studied engineering, I know math.

>>19644771
> Hegel was huge into mathematics and studied the cutting edge mathematics of his time.
> Hegel's mathematics, an obvious weak spot
sounds like you perfectly assimilated hegel’s dialectics
> has actually made a resurgence, which is why you can find highly cited papers on it from later in the 20th
a straight up lie.
> but this is a declining view for mathematicians
another lie.

you are just being pathetic now. the man was in denial of newtonian physics, which was 100 years old.

>>19644801
indeed. i swear BLACKS understand math better than the average hegelian

>>19644807
im saying even if the part of reality we inhabit is rational, that there is nothing keeping back irrationality from being as well, or simply that there is no fundemental limit on how reality can be because no limit satisfies necessity. surely hegel must have had a reason when he said the real is rational beyond there would be nothing to discuss.

>>19644791
> determined after the new discoveries/theories come up
this is a historical consideration, not a logical one. whether the conditions of validity of the law of gravity were found by newton or in the end if the 19th century , it is irrelevant to our discussion

>>19644761
This is exactly where Hegel wants you to be early on. Skepticism of everything was the disease he is trying to address. Of course everything could be fake, Decartes Demon could be running your mind. You could be a Boltzmann brain in an infinite universe. You could be in the Matrix.

You know who doubts everything except for strongly felt personal experience? A psychotic. They are Napoleon or Christ, the CIA does have a robot clone of them, etc.

As for rejecting rationality, then there is nothing to say. All you have is solipsistic chaos. No point doing philosophy.

Same for if you want to do science but want to say there are things that can "be" but can't be observed. Not "we can't observe them" but they can never be observed. They have no interaction with anything observable. At that point their being is coidentical with their not being and no evidence for their being can ever appear on the scene. You've inflated your ontology to the point of meaninglessness.

Same goes for jettisoning rationality, except now being isn't just all potential things, but contradictions and the unthinkable too.

You can have skepticism as to what we as humans can know, and admit or rationality is fallible, but once you doubt rationality at all there isn't much left to say. You can't even turn to Kierkegaard against the Absurd because you have no reason to think God exists.

>>19644891
From a practical point of going on I understand the point of not being skeptical of all - but does Hegel believe he has a logical argument against it?

Also, wasn't he a Napoleon fan of sorts?

Not the guy you reply to btw.

>>19643659
It doesnt help that this translation is really showing its age and not the best, i think there was a new one in the works but last i heard about that was my hegel class like four years ago.

>>19644891
>Skepticism
>doubt
this isnt an epistemic problem. im not saying rationality MAY not be the case. im saying there seems to me to be NO way for rationality to be necessary-since any necessity always has this problem-so it has to be unnecessary and therefore irrationality has to be possible.
>except now being isn't just all potential things, but contradictions and the unthinkable too.
yes.

there is a difference between acknowledging the limits of rationality like kant did and equating the limits of rationality with the limits of reality like i think hegel is doing here. i dont see how the second is justified, just because there would be nothing to say. science acknowledges the possibility of the unknowable, shouldnt ontology acknowledge the possibility that there definitely can be things we cant cocieve of, especially since rational thinking about rationality itself results in the discovery of the possibility of the irrational?

Read a commentary like Charles Taylor's. Even that is challenging enough. Also covers his Logic and other works.

>>19644955
He was a French Revolution fan. He had a progressive vision of history as moving through stages that bring about greater human freedom. Liberal democracy was the promise of the recognition of citizens of each other as individuals.

He soured on the radicalism and Napoleon though. Leftists say he was an arch reactionary. Right wingers say he is the grandfather of communism and a lefty sorcerer boogyman. I don't think either is fair.

>>19644982
Well, PhS at least is supposed to be affective therapy, more than any other philosophical work I can think of, to talk you off the ledge. First you get hit with the despair, then you journey out of it. It's why he has to go into Antigone and the French Revolution, etc.

I know, "you have to read it," sounds like a cop out, but that's sort of how it is. You're going through movements, through stations of the cross. Skipping to the end doesn't work. That's the whole argument of the Preface.

The problem is the writing style is fucking atrocious for long stretches, even for Hegel, because it was a rush in basically one draft, so it's a slog a points, although there are beautiful islands of extreme insight.

I found it to be the opposite of reading Nietzsche, where there I loved the prose and was carried along, but felt let down at the end. I hated reading the Phenomenology and then loved it at the end.

>>19644856
It is very relevant since this is what Hegel is talking about because his logic is ontological. There is no other why than for scientific theories (or knowledge in general) to emerge historically, they can't "be" in any other way.

>>19644856
History is the process of being coming to know itself as its self in Hegel. The coming into being of Absolute knowing. So it's directly relevant within the system.

Empircally, this also seems to be the case, what with sentient life and higher orders of complexity and emergence coming into being, but this is just circumstantial and doesn't really have to do with the theory at all directly.

What is true though is that correspondence definitions run into all sorts of problems, and I think Hegel was bang on when it came to diagnosing this. Whatever else he may have gotten wrong, he identified this problem way ahead of time, and depending on how you see the rest of Hegelianism and his influence, he may have caused philosophy to have a schizophrenic meltdown, but he wasn't wrong in his diagnoses.

That didn't stop analytics from pushing on, but eventually positivism died an ugly death. Various forms of pragmatism, evolutionary espistemology, etc. exist as competitors, and are maybe more supportable in that they make limited claims, but for my part they seem very unfulfilling.

>>19644845
If there is (exists) something irrational then it would (in Hegel's system) not be observable/interactable/knowable for us which what we mean by being/existing. You could make a distinction of words to include this, but what would be the point?
But I'm not a Hegel scholar, I'm just telling you how I understand it from the top of my head (having read the phenomenology and the science of logic around a year ago or so).

>>19645321
Physics as information science is another nice spin that works, although it doesn't necissarily replace Hegelianism since it could coexist nicely with it.

Also puts a whole new spin on Christ as the Logos.

>>19644982
>there is a difference between acknowledging the limits of rationality like kant did and equating the limits of rationality with the limits of reality like i think hegel is doing here. i dont see how the second is justified, just because there would be nothing to say. science acknowledges the possibility of the unknowable, shouldnt ontology acknowledge the possibility that there definitely can be things we cant cocieve of, especially since rational thinking about rationality itself results in the discovery of the possibility of the irrational?
So, if I get you correct, you don't think Hegel has successfully done away with Kant's thing-in-itself (one interpretation of Hegel's project) and propose to posit it again?

>>19645399
If I am correct, here is a nice little article that explains it rather well I think:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/existents-hegels-critique-of-the-in-itself/

>>19645377
>If there is (exists) something irrational then it would (in Hegel's system) not be observable/interactable/knowable for us which what we mean by being/existing.
1- we can still concieve of the possibility of inconcievable things, such as i am doing now. it would be a known unknown
2- it could still be existent even if its nature meant that what it was wasnt what we mean by existance, simply in an irrational way. its irrational, so even if its definitionally not existent, it could be existent. thats irrationality, and there doesnt seem to be anything neccesitating otherwise.
>>19645399
as far as ive heard, kants conclusion is something like we cant KNOW if things outside perception abide by rationality. again, what im saying isnt about knowing or epistemology. im saying when what is/could-have-been is concerned, there is no limit. maybe kant reached his epistemic conclusion through this ontological one, in that case i agree with him ontologically that there kant be a limit.

>>19645377
This exactly. Sagan made a similar point, what is the difference between and invisible dragon existing and not interacting with anything, flying around us, and its not existing?

Well if the dragon exists in its own world on top of ours, maybe it exists, but its existence is always and forever coidentical with its not existing for us.

However, if you pose the theoretical particle, not a self aware animal, that some how exists, but doesn't interact with the world, and doesn't interact with others of its type, and is thus unobservable even indirectly, I don't really know what it means for it to exist. It's like a one word language, or saying an infinite stream of 1s is a code.

Now being can seem irrational. Just smoke some salvia and chase it down with nitrous and shit becomes ostentatiously irrational. However, that doesn't mean it is irrational. It's hard to see how an irrational world would conform so constantly to rationality unless its seeming irrationality was in fact governed rationally.

>>19645527
In your example, what does "being" even mean then? Something isn't observable and interacts with nothing, but it is? So being then is just a statement of brute fact with no grounding required?

And no, you can't think things that can't be put into thought. That's definitionally untrue. Just like you can't draw a five sided triangle or draw up proofs for it. Sure you can say the words, but that's not the same thing.

>>19644820
What does It mean "to violate an axiom"? Aren't axioms the things you take for granted in order to build a consistent theory? I am an engineer by the way, and curious to know what high level mathematics I'm missing.

>>19645592
come on man, i adressed these. being means what you mean by it, the definition isnt changed. what im saying is, something irrational CAN fall both outside and inside that definition at the same time, because it is irrational.

while i still think being able to think it is irrelevant, what we are thinking isnt it itself but the possibility of its existance.

what is keeping a square cirlce from being? now what necessitates that? why is anything fundementally necessary?
>>19645573
im not saying this reality is irrational. the possibility of irrational things, not irrational things themselves, is observable REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>19645648
I don't get what you mean. How can you observe a square circle? If it's a square, it isn't a shape where every point is equidistant from the center.

Sure, language is arbitrary and changes, but within the context of the definition a square circle doesn't exist. What is an example of an irrational thing that could be?

>>19645593
Axioms can be any set of formulas as long as they aren't inconsistent. It was originally thought that Euclidean geometry was unique in describing self evident aspects of physical space. It turned out that you could come up with multiple sets of axioms to do geometry. Same happened starting with Boolean algebra. A lot of ink was spilled trying to link new mathematical systems back to existing ones that had been considered inviolable, essentially pillars of reality.

Turns out you can jettison said axioms and make new consistent systems, and indeed these new systems are sometimes quite useful for describing the "real" world in ways we couldn't before.

>>19645698
I was big on the existence of numbers as Platonic forms for a long time, math was discovered not invented, etc. But then my friend started dating a math PhD and BTFO me on math being an invention.

>>19645664
ITS NOT THE SQUARE CIRCLE, ITS THE POSSIBILITY OF A SQUARE CIRCLE THAT IM OBSERVING!!! THROUGH LOOKING FOR SUFFICIENT FUNDEMENTAL NECCESITY IN REALITY AND FAILING TO FIND EVEN A KIND OF ANSWER LET ALONE AN ANSWER (RATIONALITYS "NECCESITY" FOR EXAMPLE ALWAYS ENDS UP BEING CIRCULAR, WHICH DOESNT WORK SINCE IRRATIONALITY COULD MAKE ITSELF BE THROUGH IRRATIONAL WAYS TOO) I CONCLUDE THAT THERE CAN BE SQUARE CIRCLES

>>19645648
I think the point you're struggling with Kant's idea of the thing-in-itself, even though you're wording it differently. I suggest you read (or look over) the article I linked:
>>19645503

However, I assume your question is still what Hegel said about it. If you want to discuss what I (we) think about it, I'd simply say that I don't get why this idea is worthwhile considering.

>>19645714
Might just be too post modern for me. I get you can string the words together, but I have no idea what the actuality of observing a square circle is supposed to be. And if it can't be actual, then how is it potential?

>I dont understand Hegel on my first reading

WOAH! No way. It is almost as if there is this thing called Bildung that you need to go through.

Shit thread.

>>19644571
Maybe read him a bit before posting in a Hegel thread. His lectures on aesthetics and philosophy of history are quite lucid and I would even say so about SoL. PoS has given him a bad rep.

>>19645758
>I'd simply say that I don't get why this idea is worthwhile considering.
well if there really can be no fundementally necessary reason as to why things are the way they are instead of any other way, thats a big deal philosophically, no? some would call this an ultimate question. it would be fun too if i could get myself across
>>19645777
it can be actual, but we cant observe it in actuality, we can however observe its potential, because there is nothing keeping it from being. while it seems to be impossible because it breaks definitional/rational rules, thats exactly the point, because an irrational object could operate outside those rules, thats exactly what an irrational object is.

>>19644891
>You can't even turn to Kierkegaard against the Absurd because you have no reason to think God exists.

What do you think of Kierkegaard's critiques of Hegel?

>>19644982
> there is a difference between acknowledging the limits of rationality like kant did
you got kant all wrong. kant by no means says: "these are the limits of reason, beyond them, intuition tells you what is real". kant says that the limits of both intuition and reason are the transcendental aesthetics (perception, roughly) and that beyond those limits reason is bound to contradicts itself and thus be no reason anymore.
you are reducing kant's philosophy to a generic appeal to humbleness.
inside the limits of perception there is reason and truth, outside them there is no reason but if anything belief.
kant sublimated a typical pietist position: religion (god, soul, etc) is a belief, not a fact, not an experience, not a demonstration. this is a high moral stance, that very little believers get.

>>19647975
and btw he exemplified with his motto : "sapere aude". he clearly says that the age of humanity when it needs to appeal to religion to know (KNOW, not believe) , that was its "age of minority".

i believe in God myself, and i loathe those who try and "demostrate" Him with cheap sophisms more than the atheists.

If you like Hegel, check out this

>>19645704
>But then my friend started dating a math PhD and BTFO me on math being an invention
Could you elaborate on the distinction and how we know?

>>19643659
ive heard that if you just keep reading somewhere at the 75% mark everything clicks and you can reread with confidence.

Adorno is the successor to Hegel.

>>19647975
I dont care