/lit/ - Literature

>>19882368
You should read Kant and then Schopenhauer and never think about H*gel at all.

you really don't need to. you can touch grass and talk to people and eat good food, do literally anything else.

>>19882368
You absolutely should not read them.

>>19882368
Replace Hegel with Hume, you're all set

>>19882368
You can’t think seriously in the current era if you haven’t read them.

>>19882368
You should read some of every major philosopher, you've got plenty of time.

>>19882368
Only read Kant.

>>19882368
you shouldn't both of them were anti-enlightenment thinkers who paved the way for Marxism. read pic related instead

>>19882740
>Recommending that garbage unironically

>>19882740
>Kant is anti-enlightenment
lmao

you should if you are interested in what they are on about since they are the two modern philosophers to come close to the height of plato and both influenced literally every single philosopher to come afterwards.

>>19882740
There would'nt have been any marggzisum without enl*ghtenment.

>>19882368
I want to breed Hegel

>>19882368
you should read Kant and burn Hegel...
that is how it really is...
Kant is just something everyone has to understand that is not a complete retarded one... read him !
(While Hegel is for retards)

>>19882368
Do you think you'll benefit from reading them? Then do it. Do you not think that you'll benefit from reading them? Do not do it.

>>19882368
because Kant is a midget and Hegel is celibacy perfected

>>19882368
Which one should I read first lads?

>>19882368
The Critique of Pure Reason is actually really fun, and will reward you for your time over and over when reading philosophy written since.
You should read Hegel's Philosophy of Right if you are interested in understanding Marx (compare then with his critique). I would say this is worthwhile, but if you disagree then feel free to skip. It's bullshit anyway

>>19882368
If you like boring and totally useless topics, yes.

>>19882368
they'll have your back when everyone else has abandoned you

>>19882368

Unrelated, but how the fuck did Hegel get away with completely dodging the Kantian paradox? Restating a metaphysical question as a social one isn't an answer.

>"How can we reconcile the inner autonomy of the subject with the apparently deterministic laws of nature?"

>"Just talk to other people bro. It worked for me"

>>19885290
Kant. Hegel builds on Kant quite a bit for his metaphysics and having an understanding of Kant is fairly critical to understanding Hegel.

That and Kant is a good bit easier. Hegel is notoriously hard to read due to the complexity of his ideas and prose.

Hegel has more straightforward works, like his Philosophy of History. These are definetly worth reading, but they aren't what makes Hegel, "Hegel." The historical/political Hegel alone would have been a great name in philosophy in his own right, but he wouldn't have so fully dominated philosophy, such that only scholasticism's infatuation with Aristotle is the only comperable period. Hegel's ideas on history and progress flow from his epistemology and metaphysics in a way that is so organic that it's hard to think of better examples. That's where the meat of Hegel is, which unfortunately also means grappling with the Logic and the Phenomenology.

>>19888326
1. It's not a "Kantian Paradox," you're describing. Questions of free will have been around since the dawn of philosophy as such. Although early on the was more concern over modality and universals relative to today, it was always an issue.

Second, there are many approaches to bringing this gap. See: compatibilism.

What you're describing isn't Hegel. Hegel rejects absolute freedom because freedom relative to nothing, absolute and out of context, is pure abstraction, lacking differentiation. This is akin to the being-nothing contradiction and emergence of becoming from sense certainty.

You might be referring, in a mistaken way, to the levels of emergence in knowledge for Hegel. Important to consider is that the "flower does not refute the bud," the "truth is the whole."

This actually works well with modern non-reductive physicalist theory of mind and the focus on both top down and bottom up causality vis-á-vis emergence.

>>19888473
Or more basically, freedom defined by nothing, constricted by nothing has no reference. Choices don't exist in isolation from the world, but the world restricts choice. Freedom then, is reliant on constrictions on freedom for its definition, it must sublate them. And indeed, much of the freedom we seek is the freedom to overcome instinct and desire and to bend our desires to our intellect (e.g., went to not gap to hypno trap porn but failing). This is Aristotlean as well, with the ranking of the perfection of various desires.

This all gets back to Hegel's Boehme inspired ontology, which rejects eternal universals as ontological ground, but sees rather a necessary progression of ideas. This gets him to his very clever solution to realism vs nominalism.

>>19882368
So you can shit on people who swear by them.

>>19882368
What the fuck is a transsgendertal logic and why do we need it when there's general logic already??? Answer NOW or I'll eat your dog!

>>19882411
This anon is right.

>>19882368
The post-Kantian german idealist tradition is legitimately the closest modern equivalent we have to the explosive birth of philosophy in ancient greece. The short period between Kant and Hegel contains a set of developments we're still trying to make sense of today, much like most of history was doing the same for Plato and Aristotle. Every philosopher after them is writing under the shadow of their thought, and the harder they try to escape that shadow the harder they fall flat on their face.

>>19882740
>both of them were anti-enlightenment thinkers
lying on the internet baka fr no cap

ITT pseuds hating on Hegel because they're too stupid to understand him
>it's not my fault i can't understand him, it's Hegel's fault

>>19882368
I'm trying to listen to a critique of pure reason and I can't get past the word apriori ever 3 seconds

>>19889573
>Listening to a philosophy book
ISHYGDDT

>>19889653
I'd try to read it but driving a lorry while reading a book is pretty frowned upon.