/lit/ - Literature

Why does a self consciousness need another self consciousness for recognition? Why can't you just recognize yourself

>>5832690
You can "recognize" yourself but you won't have self-certainty because acknowledgment comes from without. Acknowledgment can't come from within because it isn't even a concept to the egocentric unrecognized self. All that the unrecognized self wants to do is conquer otherness in an attempt to achieve self-recognition, but Hegel makes that sound like it's a hollow victory.

In the Phenomenology, whenever Hegel says "we," he means Hegelians. A Cartesian would be perfectly content with the unrecognized consciousness, because that solipsism would be "truth" for a Cartesian. But for Hegel, the "truth" requires certainty, that's only way to get to the capital T "Truth."

What did he take from Kant? mostly just Idealism?

*sniffs*

HEY GURL

Hegel was da bomb. too bad he was an idealist

>died before they could take a picture of him.

Why did no one bother to take a picture of Stirner, is it cause Karl totally wrecked him with the book he wrote criticizing individualism?

>mfw someone says they would rather go to a rave then read some Hegel

>>5837013
whats the best way of learning about Hegel? I doubt Id get anything out of the actual texts

>you will never open a deli called Hegel's Bagels

>>5837071
These videos give a general idea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fi7g5Ncy5U

>>5832789
>believing in certainty

This guy sounds like a class A rube. I bet he was a deist as well, because only "certain" belief in a being that can hand you incontrovertible magical facts would be an acceptable delusion for such a philosophy.

I mean yes, all that works conceptually as long as you have a higher plan of existence to speak down from, but such things are impossible our universe.

>>5837106
that sells spirits

>>5837117
>but such things are impossible our universe.
you sound awfully certain about that

>>5837135
the point is I am not. There is also the chance no matter how small that even that idea is incorrect and a magical being could float down and start instructing with objective truths. Even in that case whether I pretend to be certain they are not a delusion or not would be up to me and I couldn't be trusted to be 100% right.

>>5832668
Hegelwave

>>5832668
>>5834873
>>5837127
dank mems

>>5832668
>Hegeru
FTFY

>>5837106
>you will never be able to pronounce Hegel correctly (ie. in a way that doesn't make it rhyme with bagel) because you're an American

>>5837142
>the point is I am not.
so you're not certain that your not certain? listen bud i'm not particularly interested in the wishy-washy trash that you're trying to pass off as wisdom that i'm sure passes muster with the "intellectuals" you hang around

>There is also the chance no matter how small that even that idea is incorrect and a magical being could float down and start instructing with objective truths. Even in that case whether I pretend to be certain they are not a delusion or not would be up to me and I couldn't be trusted to be 100% right.
i don't even know what you're trying to say with these inarticulate pig grunts

>>5837156
>being this wrong
German prof. still says it in a way that rhymes with Bagel, dict.cc pronunciation guide agrees it rhymes with bagel.
How the fuck are you pronouncing it?

>>5837156
Hay gahl?

>>5837190
it rhymes with regal

>>5837167
>i don't even know what you're trying
Well, that sounds like you're the one the with problem then. You haven't addressed anything other than
>my fedora can't even tip because I have no idea what you mean

>>5837227
you have a faulty conception of uncertainty

is there a way in which the case can be otherwise described? no? then given the data the description is certain. is there a possible, coherent alternative explanation of the case? yes? then that particular description is uncertain.

>>5837252
>is there a way in which the case can be otherwise described? no?

On top of the amazing ability for the human mind to create alternate theories that don't directly contradict the evidence presented, there is still the option of *not knowing* whether an unknown certainty may still exist beyond your comprehension.

The best we can do is assign likelihoods that in practice work as effectively as certainty for the most part. Even in that scenario you will have no consensus of certainty on anything you can imagine.

Even something as "Do you exist." can be shat on by the right philosophy or theory.

>>5837190
>dict.cc pronunciation guide agrees it rhymes with bagel
no it fucking doesn't. http://www.dict.cc/?s=Hegel
the american pronunciation of Hegel rhymes with bagel, the German doesn't. Listen to 'hegelian' and 'hegel'sch'.

>>5837386
How are you saying bagel?

>>5837393
http://www.dict.cc/?s=bagel
Even the American pronunciation is a far shot from Hegel.

>>5837117
>a higher plan of existence
Hegel was all about immanence, there's nothing transcendent about Absolute Spirit for example. That's a large part of his shtick, actually, but he's not original in this domain since spinozism became very popular at that time.

Hegel is basically a historically and also a bit romantically informed reaction against the blind-alley of Kant's dualism (which is still very popular today in various forms), but also wants really hard to save the enlightenment project from its crisis in which it was at the time. When you understand what he's actually doing you'll see how brilliant he is even if you don't agree with him.
And the most common opinions that people hold in general... try to make consistent and you'll be slowly approaching Hegel through the process of improving them. Hegel's weak spot is probably only in the most un-common-sensical which he is unable to fully think. Take the notions of difference and becoming *in themselves* or *as such* for example. He can't help but to think of them as relying on some identity or being i.e. "but oh no, difference is always difference in relation to some-thing, so here we go again in die Aufhebung, hold on tight!"

>>5836966
they did take a picture of stirner though

>>5837794
>He can't help but to think of them as relying on some identity or being i.e. "but oh no, difference is always difference in relation to some-thing, so here we go again in die Aufhebung, hold on tight!"
>Implying this isn't part of his plan
Hegel basically defines God as being and thought. He's aware of what he's doing with becoming and difference.

>>5837832
I hope some thinks this is a serious post, saves that picture, and then gets ridiculed when they post it later.

>>5837144

>>5837867
>>Implying this isn't part of his plan
Yeah, I know very well that it is, but on the other hand the point would be to try really hard to think of them in themselves and show how they are limited from within.

>>5837869
Google actually gives that as a photo of Stirner. I got fooled once actually.

>>5834873
oh god

>>5837922
>>5837869
Who is he then? I actually thought that was Stirner before.

>>5832789
>have colored glasses glued to head
>never think of them
>but they are constitutive of my vision of the world, since they're colored
>see other person
>person also has colored glasses, but different from mine
>'haha look at that swagtard'
>oh wait
>what if he's looking at me and thinking the same
>b-but my glasses are just glasses
>truth is now obvious, not everyone has same glasses
>glasses are a part of *a* person
>thus i come to realize that they are a part of my interaction with the world
>as opposed to the other person, the other person's glasses, and the other person's interaction with the world
>tfw self-glassiousness

Now just replace glasses with consciousness. Just think of it like this - if you never encountered other conscious beings, how would you be able to draw a line between phenomena in your consciousness and the stuff 'out there'? It would all be one to you, since you would have no reason to assume that there is an intermediate layer. Much like a daltonist at first doesn't know that something is fucking with his world-perception.

>>5837951
Wrong tag. Meant for:
>>5832690

>>5837284
>there is still the option of *not knowing* whether an unknown certainty may still exist beyond your comprehension.
uh, no. that would, like you said, fall outside of comprehension. if i knew that an explanation was comprehensible, i would know if it was comprehensible, if it was incomprehensible, i would know it was because it would be incoherent; there's nothing else, there's no uncertainty, just the explanations that are coherent, and the ones that aren't. you can't consider anything that you don't know, because as soon as you do it's known. not sure why you're having such a hard time with this obvious material

>Even something as "Do you exist." can be shat on by the right philosophy or theory.
yeah given that you assent to the argument, which if it's comprehensible and makes sense you do, if it's not you reject it

>>5837945
yea im pretty sure its him
http://www.paudedamasc.com/?biografia=Max_Stirner

Although Nietzsche wrecks the majority of Hegel's thought the parallels between them are understated.

>>5837990
>>5837832
Thats Marc Bloch, stop trolling

>>5838042
How does he wreck Hegel?

>>5839191
The spanish biography site is purely factual, it IS Stirner

Kafka is the new Hegel

>>5837144
10/10

>>5834873

That pic would make Zizek cum buckets.

>>5837144
we were born in the right generation