/lit/ - Literature

bump

bump

bump

>>6078790
Why do we start with Science of Logic specifically? Wouldn't Lectures of Aesthetics be the easiest starting point for Hegel?

Sounds cool

>>6079269
Easier doesn't mean better, it's best to start with more important works

>>6079269
The Science of Logic lays out Hegel's system of reasoning and defines most of his terms.

I haven't read his Aesthetics. Do you think it would significantly help newcomers to understand his dialectics?

>discussing communists

Why not traditionalism

>>6079308
Hegel is not communist

>>6079308
Feel free to start something of that sort, if you wish. I'm not a Marxist, but I consider Marxism and psychoanalysis to be more relevant to contemporary theory and philosophy than traditionalism is.

I'll take part for sure.

I think this will be a fun idea OP

>>6079429
The dialectics of fun are the resolution of the tension between pleb and patrician.

>>6079269
Preface to the PoS would be best. SoL is notoriously obscure unless you read a commentary.

>>6079308
>#Traditionalism

>paragraphs 1-129
>the book starts at paragraph 130

eh, fuck it let's dive in.

why is "immediate" italicized? am i supposed to pronounce that a certain way in my head? how can anything be free from determinateness? whats with the fucking italics. the indeterminateness of being in general constitutes the quality of determinate being...what the f*ck m8

>>6079533
oh okay so the first being *is* determinate, then passes over into determinate being w/e that means...why is the relation of being to its own self infinite?

Major marxists & psychoanalysts:
1. hegel: science of logic, encyclopedia (-logic), phenomenology of the spirit, of the right, of history.
2. Marx/Engels: The German Ideology, Wage Labour and Capital, On "Capital", Capital, The Origin of the Family
3. Freud: Beyond the pleasure principle, totem and taboo, the ego and the id.
4. Lenin: ?
5. Luxemburg: ?
6. Gramsci: Notes
7. Giovanni Gentile: The Theory of Mind as Pure Act
8. Adorno: ?
9. Althusser: For marx
10. Lacan: ?
11. Habermas: ?
12. Zizek: ?

>>6079549
okay so being is nothing and nothing is being but at the same time they are distinct and each 'immediately vanishes in its opposite' woah boy. now we call it becoming. i like that, but i hope i'm not being tricked

>>6079575
i dont know how you can extract and distinguish the immediate from the determinate. the nothing of becoming is still a part of a determinate chain. i havent read much philosophy (clearly).

>>6078790
Have you had any experience with this website and the left wing arguments it presents against dialectics?

http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/

>>6079715
the lady thay runs that sight is a nutcase and cranky af

>>6079747
but are there any good repsonse posted against her arguments?

>>6079751
how about we just read the book and come to our own conclusions

>>6079761
Do you know of any good response or are you saying that the only to see a response would be to read through the suggested list?

>>6079770
i'm saying you should stop looking for excuses to dismiss things and just read the fuckin book in the OP dipshit

>>6079774
Im not looking for excuses to dismiss the exercise just trying to get an honest answer to what seems like a valid criticism and have a less onesided view on the matter.

Do have an answer to the question or not?

>>6079511
The thing is, I really think it's important for people studying Hegel to completely understand his system of logic. If you don't, Hegel just seems like he's making pronouncements, and if you agree with him, it's for the wrong reasons.

>>6079552
??????

>>6079715
1. I'm not a leftist
2. I'm mainly interested in these works as influential to Western thought.
3. People who haven't actually read the shit out of these works aren't going to be able to formulate a counter argument, they probably won't even comprehend the argument. So they'd at least need to read these works before addressing arguments against them

>>6078790
What readings do you have planned of Lacan and Habermas (if any)? I only read a little Habermas in school and really want to jump back in.

>>6079936
He's avoiding answering that question for some reason. >>6079875

>>6079991
He might not have anything in mind yet.

>>6079936
For Lacan I had in mind The Letter in the Unconscious an\d his Ecrits

For Habermas, I had in mind Public Sphere, Logic of Social Sciences and Theory of Communicative Action. Also perhaps several of his smaller essays.

>>6080009
Wouldn't Lacan's 11th seminar be better? Even Lacan says his Écrits are incomprehensible.

bump

hey guys, making a skype group to discuss literature along the lines of hegel, marx, modern continentals, etc. (we'll also be actually READING the material - at least in theory). Like a reading group, but with anons on skype.
skype is name

The rich are killing children.

>>6080131
'There are thousands of people who do not understand Lacan. In 1950 there were only twenty or thirty.'

>>6080881
citation needed

>>6080893
It's from a French promo for Lacan's works, dumbass.

>>6080901
citation needed

bump

so im assuming people dont want a marxist/pomo/psychoanalytic circlejerk skype group?

>>6078790
>Freud, Lenin, Luxemburg, Gramsci, Lukacs, Gentile, Adorno, Althusser, Lacan, Habermas, Zizek
I would just like to point out that among the various flaws of this thread, perhaps the most interesting is the part where a fascist tries to trick marxisantes into reading fascist ideology.

>>6079856
>If you don't, Hegel just seems like he's making pronouncements
I'm pretty sure that is the most accurate evaluation of his thought, though. I think what you mean by 'completely understand' is invest enough time and energy into reading Hegel that a hybrid of Stockholm syndrome and intellectual-emotional sunk cost fallacy gently sublimate your cognitive dissonance into a sense of 'understanding'.

>>6080691
>a theory reading group
>we'll also be actually READING the material - at least in theory
Ahahaahahahahaha
this is funny because it is true.

>>6081239

> Disregard capital.
> Mooch off others success.

>>6081239
Capital and 'the means of production' are the same thing.

>>6081259
>trick
In the runner up to this thread, OYTIE explicitly said he was including Gentile because he was fascist

>This club will start with Hegel and end with Zizek, it will include the major Marxists and psychoanalysts (and Giovanni Gentile, since I'm damn well going to fit at least one book of my ideology in

>>6067780

>>6081307
I also think it's not really appropriate to call Mind as Pure Act "fascist ideology" anymore than it's appropriate to call Das Kapital "communist ideology"

>>6081307
>my ideology
is that retard an actual fascist or trolling

>>6081307
>In the runner up to this thread, OYTIE explicitly said he was including Gentile because he was fascist
I know, it still doesn't make any sense.

>>6081472
Why not? Gentile is a Hegelian, after all.

Stirner is necessary to understand the origins of alienation, and therefore Marxism, and the concept remains popular among latte sippers everywhere.

>>6081477
>Gentile is a Hegelian, after all.
The rest of the thread is the Zizek account of Freudo-Marxism + Hegel, though. If you say 'Gentile is a Hegelian', for me that would only be an argument if you want to look at Hegel-reception in general. The list really isn't that, though. It's a relatively boring version of Freudo-Marxism (no interesting early Psychoanalysis like Reich on HistMat+PsychA) plus the vanilla version of western Marxism.

>>6081498
Hegel actually came up with alienation.

>>6081524
>the Zizek account
That account has been popular since the Frankfurt school, arguably earlier with artistic movements.

>>6081567
It's a bad and wrong account pushed by the Soviets during the years when only Marxists studied Hegel in any capacity. It has no place in a modern discourse. Hegel deserves to be reevaluated and the systematically central place of his metaphysics has been ignored in favor of materialism for too long.

>>6079747
>the lady
Rosa's a guy dude. He and his possee got purged from revleft because they were annoying assholes

>>6081567
>That account has been popular since the Frankfurt school, arguably earlier with artistic movements.
No. A Frankfurt School-influenced version of this would not have Lacan in it, for example. Wouldn't have Althusser, either.

>>6081584
>metaphysics has been ignored in favor of materialism
I really wish people would stop using materialism without a further distinction. The term just hampers communication because it means at least four different things with a broad usage and probably a million other things in special discourses (the four main being a classical materialism like Julien Offray de la Mettrie, historical or dialetical materialism which is really mostly called materialism to brand it as different from German idealism, materialism in cognitive science / analytically tinged philosophy of mind, and last but not least motherfucking everyday vernacular 'materialism as in valuing material possessions', which although it has a vastly different meaning is included here because it's fucking opposite is also idealism, get a load of that bullshit).

bump

bump

bump

>>6080131
I don't, I haven't read it. I have read his Ecritis, though, and it was definitely difficult, although I didn't find it incomprehensible, it just felt like he was talking to himself instead of explaining things.

bump

bump

>>6084491
Well I think it would be better to read his 11th seminar for those that are reading him for the first time. Otherwise we'll have to include secondary literature.
To be honest, I don't know how we'll manage to understand Lacan himself without reading a lot of Freud and perhaps even some additional (proto)structuralism like Saussure and Lévi-Strauss.

>>6078790
Question: when do we have to have the paragraphs ready?

>>6085670
>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlconten.htm
Also, the paragraphs 1-129 are the prefaces and the introductions?

>>6085685
Paragraphs are numbered in that text, 1-129 includes:
>Preface to the First Edition
>Preface to the Second Edition
>Introduction: General Notion of Logic
>Introduction: General Division of Logic
>With What must Science Begin?
>General Division of Being

>>6085670
Next Saturday/Sunday.

Ill take a part.
Comes next sunday we should host a big skype call or discussion imo, and get to meet this emarging club.

>>6085759
sounds good, are you starting the skype group?

bump

So Being is in and of itself immediate unto itself? Indeterminate being is such that it is want of quality but the feature of indeterminateness is contingent only with respect to its contrasting quality? Thus qualitative being is then contrasting to general being -- its feature being indeterminate -- and so that which constitutes its quality?

>>6086383
Yes, can you understand that?

Yeah, it's been a while since I've these, but it's clear that Hegel means to start with Phenomenology of the Spirit, so I'm going to change the assignment to that

Paragraphs 1-165
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/phindex.htm

Also, for those of you who haven't read Aristotle's Categories, you should probably do so, it's not that long.

>>6086791
>Yeah, it's been a while since I've these, but it's clear that Hegel means to start with Phenomenology of the Spirit, so I'm going to change the assignment to that
But... the initial choice wasn't actually bad at all. Many recommend starting with Science of Logic rather than with phenomenology. Even Hegel starts his Encyclopedia with Logic, and Phenomenology is then only a chapter in the 3rd volume of Encyclopedia.
The argument for Phenomenology is that with it the reader supposedly travels to the level of absolute knowledge. I'm not so sure though, like you've said somewhere else, the way Hegel thinks and the notions he uses is most explicit in his Logic.

what's the point of reading Hegel w/o Kant?

>>6078790
I think the best place to start would be the Introduction to the Phenomenology.

>>6086791
What is this, up through Consciousness?

>>6086836
The Phenomenology has tons of famous and interesting sections, though, and covers a variety of topics. The Logic is a little more single minded. And long. And much more difficult.

Not as much fun, basically. I vote Phenomenology.

>>6086858
That question can be asked of anyone, though - why read X without Y?

Gotta start somewhere.

>>6086887
Yeah, it's explained in Phenomenology of the Spirit

>>6086858
What's the point of reading Kant w/o Hume?

>>6086836
Yeah, they are, he for the most part he defines his terms there, but at the same time I think it's important for a reader to grasp why Hegel has the presumption to think he's solved the problem of noumena.

>>6086891
Phenomenology is a whole lot more fun, but of course a lot of it won't seem as rigorous until after you've read his Logic. But I think we can live with that.

So you want to do the preface, the introduction and Consciousness?

>>6086949
Yes

>>6086935
Kant is very different to Hume. He was inspired by him but his philosophy isn't a reading of Hume, whereas Hegel's is.

>>6086906
Hegel is the most retarded place to start.

What makes you think OP wants to run a beginner's club?

>>6086974
Hegel's dialectics are in absolute discrepancy with Kant's, who uses dialectic as proto-deconstruction.

Hegel also thinks reality can be known directly, in total contradiction to Kant.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion Hegel was simply a reading of Kant?

>>6079552
They say cultural Marxism doesn't exist and yet here's this list proving them wrong.
Where's Kierkegaard? Where's Schopenhauer? Zizek is a joke. This is going to be the most boring Hegel discussion imagjnable. Enjoy your dialectic.

>>6079605
Immediate things are directly available to consciousness. Wualia, for example, but more importantly for Hegel, consciousness itself and only consciousness itself is available immediately to consciousness.
His philosophy is called absolute idealism because thought is his first principle and he claims that all knowledge is based on nothing but thought.

>>6078790

>This is the first thread of a series of threads which will be explore the legacy of Hegel, Marx and Freud

A bunch of retarded bullshit nobody intelligent should care about?

>>6079774
You're dismissing something without an argument while telling someone not to dismiss things. This is a point worth bringing up in a Hegel discussion. I've seen more references to Hegel conspiracies on Google searches than I have academic papers. It seems like a point a Hegel scholar should be able to address and something that has a very Hegelian bearing on the discussion at hand.
>>6079856
The Phenomenology was written and intended to be read first. The order Hegel proscribed was Phenomenology, Logic, philosophy of Nature, and Philosophy of Right. Not starting with the Phenomenology seems stupid to me.

>>6087045
>>6086791

>>6081758
What more distinction do you need than the one that Marx explicitly makes between himself and Hegel? I'm talking about the intentional attempts to ignore Hegel's metaphysics while getting a full reading of him. Hegel is compatible with Christianity. Marx isn't. Hegel talks about Geist and Marx explicitly tries to refute the concept of Geist. The distinction is in the literature itself.

>>6087062
>Hegel is compatible with Christianity
The concept of an imperfect, evolving God made up of collective conscious, is compatible with Christianity?

What? No, heck no. Nothing is immediately available. Consciousness is only available when mediated through self-consciousness which is only available through reason, and so on.

>>6086791
>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/phindex.htm
Just a warning: that Pinkard's translation seems to be an older draft. Here's an updated version from 2013:
http://terrypinkard.weebly.com/phenomenology-of-spirit-page.html
But this one isn't finished either, it reads better though.

There's an older but finished translation (by Findley, 1977) on libgen.

For those that are struggling with the preface — you can skip it and go to the introduction.
Hegel wrote the preface as a summary of the final stage of the book and in it critiques the role of the preface itself: as if one can offer the conclusion of a long learning process with the speed of a gun shot. The learning process is the whole book itself, from the introduction onward.

>>6086421
More or less, yes.

>>6087768
Any particular reason he changed Geist to in the title to spirit, as opposed to his earlier choice of "mind"?

>>6088137
I have no idea. What are your thoughts on translating Geist as either spirit or mind? I always though "mind" doesn't fit that well due to its connotations with the usual subjectivity. On the other hand "spirit" can seem something immaterial, divorced from matter and opposed to it, which isn't Hegel's intention either.

>>6088189
I really think it depends on the context. The Spirit of the Age really would make more sense in English, but Phenomenology of the Spirit deals with psychology sometimes (in which case Mind makes more sense), and metaphysics elsewhere (in which case spirit makes more sense).

In the translation on le commie guy dot com, it's translated different depending the the context.

Really, the best option would be to just leave it as Geist and explain what Geist meas with a note at the beginning.

>>6085951
Either me, you, or anyone else. It might be better to open it sooner to the reading deadline, if people will start discussing right now we're sort of making the deadline shorter for people who actually wanna take an active part.

>>6088838
Closer*
not "sooner", jesus, what did I write...

>>6088189
mind is a specific stage of spirit..

>>6088838
Couldn't people just join the skype group later?

>>6089032
Maybe in English. In German, they're the same word.

>>6088189
>>6088228
Careful, Geist is actually entirely different from "matter," which is something that belongs to "Natur" as an interpretation of Leibniz's material conception of nature. Only slowly throughout the Phenomenology does Geist come to incorporate itself with Natur, which is why the translation Spirit is preferred. It is supposed to bring spirit to mind.
Also fun fact: Geist also means Ghost. Hence the looking-back of history at its previous shapes of manifestation, i.e., looking back at the dead ghosts of Geist.

Another vote to skip the Preface to the Phenomenology until the end. It will make absolutely no sense to Hegel first-timers, since it's a comprehensive summary of the book introduced in later editions.

>>6079751
>but are there any good repsonse posted against her arguments?

Yes: she is a self-proclaimed historical materialist, which means that reading her first means reading Marx's critique of Hegel, which we can do on our own by, well, *actually* reading Marx's critique of Hegel, after already reading Hegel. Historical materialism differs from true Hegelianism at the level of scientific first principles, so they're simply two different kinds of philosophy.

>>6079549
because it's a self fulfilling loop. life starts being, when it confines itself against the rest of existence. and this confining is the minimal loop out of itself, which enables life to determine its own coming into being and existence.

We should definitely have more threads like this. Does this happen often? I remember one in which anons would read the greeks, nothing else.

>>6092286
By "nothing else" I mean that I don't remember other threads like this, not that people would only read the greeks - even though that's true in that case.

>>6092286
>>6092294
>We should definitely have more threads like this.
This reading project is going to take quite a while to complete, if it lasts, so you'll most probably be seeing more of this group's threads in the future.
Do you have any other philosophers in mind though? There's not a lot of people here on /lit/ but it still might be possible to start another reading group. I mean, a lot of people here seem to have an aversion to Hegel and yet there's enough interest for this project. Something else might suit the rest of /lit/ even better.

This sounds interesting. However, I'm a pleb when it comes to philosophy, having read only Plato. This is why I got some edition of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit that supposedly has a paragraph by paragraph analysis. It is the Findlay translation, any observations on it ?

>>6092700
That's the one I have, I'm pretty satisfied with it.

English translation deserves at least footnotes, because Hegel makes very intricate use of the nuances of German, which has a lot of words which are quite flexible in German and would easily be understood to mean one thing, but when translated into English can only mean something totally different. I wish there were an edition with footnotes on German nuance, like Kaufmann provides for Nietzsche, but alas I know of no such edition.

>>6092556
I'm not sure if I'm gonna be part of this one specifically, since I'm reading, let's say, opposite stuff for uni. I'd be happy to see more threads like this in here though, and sure I'd participate if the subjects interest me.

>>6086421
I got a question on the first section of quality. Hegel says something to the effect that being is first in and of itself determinate, and that because of this is therefore passed over into determinate being. What's the difference here? He'd said in the section just above that being is first indeterminate. Is he saying that being is determinate inasmuch as we don't relate to being as immediate but only after as being constituting some kind of quality per the notion of determinate being as contrasting total indeterminateness, and thus sublimating quality?

>>6078790
I can't get into this but it's a really good project. Good idea and good luck.

>>6078790
Are there any prerequisites, OP? I mean, I have basic understanding of philosophy, but I haven't read Hegel yet.

>>6093658
Just try reading and ask questions when you get stuck.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phintro.htm

>>6093691
*reading it

Hi. We've got a few people in the skype group so far. If you're interested in joining just so you have regular contact with others that will be reading or to discuss, add my handle above and i'll invite you in

>>6093208
Being is quality number one, and starts out indeterminate. Then becomes determinate, allowing for other determinate qualities.

bump

bump

>>6094140
Is nothingness relative to pure being in that it is unto itself, and that to think nothing, we should say it thus exists, and so equaled in the absence in determination as pure being?

bump

>>6096946
Nothingness is an absence of determination but Hegel disagrees with the nothingness of noumena, there is no nothing in-itself or for-itself.. We cannot even think nothing (that would be not thinking), regardless if we verbally state it.

>>6099184
Does Hegel distinguish being and nothingness at all? I know he says they are identical, but how literally should one understand this claim?

>>6099262
Nothingness is simply negation in-itself, and negation is basically change. Each moment, the reality of the previous moment is obliterated.

>>6099184
Wouldn't the thought of nothing be what he calls an empty intuition, that is to say that which would then seem to sublimate to the same measure of indeterminateness as pure being? Wait, is this what he means that there is the recall of pure being and nothingness as the same empty ontological distinction?

>>6099676
Sorry, I'd actually mean ontological distinction insofar as they are purely the same with respect to their immediate recollection to mind... something of a metaphysical hunch.

>>6099676
Sublate, not sublimate.

"Intuition" here is synonymous with Hume's "impression". It really isn't "thought" in Hegel's sense.

>>6099706
Sorry, my phone's touchy and swapped it out.

Right, but this small measure of fugitive intuiting of an empty concept is enough of an indeterminate notion as to render it pure?

You should really make a new thread and let this one die to let people know that the reading assignment changed...

>>6099837
"Pure" being means absolute being is necessarily absolute--as in monist. All distinction is ultimately illusion.

What is infinite, the Absolute, is also infinitely self-contradictory, infinite negation and nothing. Hegel considers this sort of lack of self-consciousness about contradictions to be "emptiness".

>>6099865
So the ultimate similarity in nothing and being is a matter of fading sublation in that they've far reached over themselves into one another to the point of vanishing, yes? So is Becoming their measure of truth? That is, they are true so far as they overlap each other? Is being and nothingness contingent on one another for their being true?

Also, am I on the wrong reading?

>>6099958
Being only exists as negating prior being, that is why it is contingent upon nothing. And pure, that is to say absolute being, incorporates all being and their very negation, the nothing. And since negation is *limit*, of course it is contingent upon being.

Yes, you are.

>>6099967
Shit, sorry about that, man. Thanks for keeping the discussion up with me, though.

What is the reading then?

>>6099978

>>6086791

I got to around paragraph 100 something last night and so far it has been pretty interesting, even though I struggled with the Introduction and skipped the Preface after reading about half. However, I had little bit of trouble with the conclusion of the first part, which goes something like : You can't say this bit of paper, because this changes based on here and now, which are universal, therefore it is constructed by all the possible positions of both now and here, which brings us to the conclusion that by saying this bit of paper you mean all bit of papers in existence, did I understand it correctly, or am I some sort of an idiot ?

Nah, you got it. I'm holding an iPad here and now, but I can only get at that "here" by negating [aka abstracting away or mentally deleting] all the other here's. Same with the now.

I could say "I am holding the iPad," but same problem comes up for the idea.

It's a criticism of the idea that philosophy begins with the immediate sense data that is right in front of you.

Perception and the understanding go from there.

>>6101255
>Same problem comes up for the "I"

Not the idea, sorry.

>>6101230
Hegel is pointing out contradictions in our language and perception. We can say "now" now and "now" against later, and they're contradictory nows, but we find no contradiction. Just like we can say "here is a free" and "here is a not a tree", but they're contradictory heres. Just like "I" is used in a different sense by each person. The universals "now" means all nows, which is a facet of the Absolute. Hegel is also illustrating his idea of truth: when we write "now is day" it is "certain" (as opposed to perceived, which means to apprehend truthfully), but at night it ceases to be certain. The truth of something is its totality, that includes chronological totality. its ultimate development.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of a universal now, it's called eternalism, which is the belief that all "nows" are equally real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_%28philosophy_of_time%29

The idea of contradictions being both components of truth is essential to Hegelian dialectic, and Hegel is illustrating a rudimentary example with contradictory "heres" vs. The Universal Here. We can easily grasp this, but its a prelude to a much more complex idea that applies to all sorts of things.

>>6101255
>>6101261
Thank you both, I understood the idea.

>>6101261
Why did you say that perceive means to apprehend truthfully? I don't remember that phrase anywhere, or anything that you might be rephrasing.

>>6101304
It's from a footnote in my edition

>[8] The German for ‘to perceive’ is wahrnehmen which means literally ‘to take truly’.

>>6101316
Can I ask which translation you're using?

>>6101322
A.V. Miller,

Always had an interest in Dialectic/Marxist literature reading has been kinda all over the place. Regret never getting into Hegel so I'll jump on this circle jerk.
>>6079552
>8. Adorno: Dialectic of Enlightenment
>9. Althusser: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses
>10. Lacan: Ecrits
>12. Zizek: Sublime Object of Ideology, Plague of Fantasies, Violence