/lit/ - Literature

>>6496042

S P I R I T
P
I
R
I
T

Hegel is at his best when he's working upon the intelligibility and essential nature of things and doesn't meddle too much on the content of the real world (history, moral, etc). Start with the Greater Logic.

Start with ze Greeks.

No seriously.

Hi, I'm also trying to into Hegel, specifically an understanding of dialectics and aesthetics. I'm in love with Based Kierkegaard, and he spends a lot of time talking about him.


How do I know my enemy? I just bought "Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics" What else do I need?

>>6496042
You wont Hegel is one of the most obtuse and difficult philosophers to get into. Unless you are willing to allow the pursuit of this to become a fixed idea you wont have the motivation to get through the Greeks and Kant which are a necessary component of understanding him.

>>6496042
Kant.

>>6496143
Terrible place to start. Get the Pheno.enokogy of Spirit.

Forget everything negative Kierkegaard said about Hegel and subjectivity, he was wrong and only hated systematic thinking because of his weird, zany brand of proto-post-New Age Evangelical/individual-only/Crucicentric Christianity (his psychology is based, though).

>>6496151
Hegel isn't as Kantian as he makes himself out to be.

>>6496164

I swear to the infinite agency of God that I will teleologically suspend the ethical all over your ass. You take that back heathen.

>>6496182
No; get Catholic or get gone.

>>6496188

>implying I'm not Catholic.

Yesterday's sermon was on Barnabas who assisted Saul in his early faith. I'm wearing a rosary.

>>6496164
>hated systematic thinking because of his weird, zany brand of proto-post-New Age Evangelical/individual-only/Crucicentric Christianity

I had a Hegelian proof who insisted that Kierkegaard was "most likely autistic." He was a funny looking prof who would always close his eyes when talking.

>>6496197

Alright I'm mad. If a troll, 8/10 for timing.

>>6496196
I'm just saying, by any meaningful definition of the term, Kierkegaard's brand of Christianity was basically heresy, especiallt from a Catholic point of view and even from that of the Church of Denmark, and has aspects that resemble modern American evangelism. Sorry for reminding you that modernity has influenced your theology.

Just read his Wikipedia entry and skim one of his major works, then commence shitposting. There's no way you did any more than that with Stiner.

>>6496201
Not trolling. He was an Italian manlet. Maybe 4 feet tall.

He got really upset at the class once when he quoted the first lines of Dante's Commedia and no one recognized it. He said we needed "to get cultured" and what were doing at university if not to educate ourselves.

The course was Philosophy of Religion 300 level.

>>6496212

Not really, his brand of christianity was more intensive in the requirements of faith than protestantism of the time, especially in his church. His late life was waged war against the habits of those who practised his faith.

Catholic view is that all are accepted, and last I checked, thos of Christian faiths are welcomed as brothers and sisters in the light of Jesus Christ, petty differences aside. I will admit that the Church officially wishes to reincorporate extent protestant faiths into the church body proper, but wherein that doctrine does it state that I cannot embrace a certain ascetism with my eucharist?

Calling Kierkegaard heresy or heathen is bunk and you know it. He was trying to lead protestants on a more orthodox path, which books them back towards the church.

>>6496230
The beauty of Stirner is that you really do not need to read anything more than /lit/ posts about him.

Marxists.org has a decent introduction.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/introduc.htm

>>6496234
How does Kierkegaard lead people back to the church, exactly?

Pretty sure he just leads people to "I'm not religious but I am spiritual."

>>6496234
>I will admit that the Church officially wishes to reincorporate extent protestant faiths into the church body proper,
There you have it.
>but wherein that doctrine does it state that I cannot embrace a certain ascetism with my eucharist?
I'm criticizing Kierkegaard's theology as a whole, not your spirituality. He shouldn't be taken as correct when he disagrees with Church doctrine.

>>6496230
Good post.

>>6496245
Also >>6496242 this, I've never gotten the impression that Kierkegaard cared about works that much.

>>6496231

The professor you mean. So you've established that the man is slightly ridiculous and prone to mildly ridiculous. That makes me feel quite a bit better about his flaming hot opinions.

>>6496235

This is the second most dangerously cancerous thing I've seen on /lit/, ever.

>>6496242

By advocating a more orthodox and stringent form of faith from the protestants, which is closer in religous spectrum to the teachings of the Church. Does the spirtual man rely so strongly on the agency of God that he would slit his own son's throat? I don't think so. I think you should read Kierkegaard. He's quie good.

>>6496245
>>6496250

Did you guys actually read Fear and Trembling?

>>6496240
That website is pretty good overall.

>>6496258
>Did you guys actually read Fear and Trembling?
The one where he talks about how his idea of Judaeo-Christian faith is all about believing in something that doesn't have widespread acceptance by a community of likeminded believers or any kind of tradition?

Again, from a Catholic perspective, he's quite simply not a mainline Catholic. This isn't controversial. He was a Protestant and an existentialist, not a Catholic.

>>6496258
Well, ol' Soren was a pretty good looking guy who turned down women to be a "knight of faith."

Sounds pretty fucking autistic to me.

>>6496280
Also, on the topic of this thread, reading Hegel for the sake of reading Hegel won't be as profitable if you let yourself be weighed down by Kierkegaard's incorrect reading of him.

>>6496258
>This is the second most dangerously cancerous thing I've seen on /lit/, ever.

What is the first?

>>6496281
>autistic

You misspelled alpha

What greek books should I read before Hegel? I know the basics of them,

>>6496510
agreed, who?

>>6496399
>christfagging this hard

>>6496258
So, where do I start with Hegel?

My friend, who is a grad student doing a dissertation on Hegel, said read Aristotle and Avicenna

>>6496510
You really need only understand Plato and Aristotle. You should also have an understanding of Spinoza, Berkeley, Kant, and Fichte.

Pinkard's book (Hegel's Phenomenology) has been alright for me.

>>6496042
here >>6492651

Read Peter Singer's book on him. It is very clear and easy to understand.
>>6497223
Tell him that Aristotle is redundant since we have Frege.

Try Robert Solomon's "In The Spirit of Hegel". It's really pretty good and helps a lot with orientating the context within German philosophy more generally, not to mention readable.

>>6496042
This is the book you're looking for. I've uploaded it as a .pdf:
http://docdro.id/zd3m

Here's the best .pdf reader (because it's lightweight)
http://www.sumatrapdfreader.org/download-free-pdf-viewer.html
download the installer

I would also say you don't really need to read the Greeks. Of course Hegel is influenced by them and references them, but you really anything in addition to the context in which he uses them to understand what his point is. And besides, his project is quite different than what the Greeks are doing. One might say read Kant first, but even that isn't "really" necessary, as he isn't writing on Kant but more using his framework and language, albeit in a modified way, that comes across on its own terms anyway. The reason I recommend Solomon is that it's quite "balanced" in that no matter what your position is on Hegel or pedigogically it'll appear quite agreeable/reasonable and makes an effort to read Hegel "on his own terms" and as reasonable.

>>6497295
Nope. The Greeks are not essential, though they are helpful. To understand Hegel the first guy you should look at is Meister Eckhart.
Read this book: >>6497287
Hegel is most emphatically in the tradition of German pantheism and mysticism.
His idea of the world being an evolving Geist has some precedent in Plato, but more in Hindu Brahminism.

>>6497298
Most emphatically not. Mystecism, absolutely not; pantheism, defensible, but no.

>>6497306
lol
Hegel called himself a mystic

>>6497306
>Hegel’s library included Hermetic writings by Agrippa, Boehme, Bruno, and Paracelsus. He read widely on Mesmerism, psychic phenomenal dowsing, precognition, and sorcery. He publicly associated himself with known occultists, like Franz von Baader. He structured his philosophy in a manner identical to the Hermetic use of ‘Correspondences!’ He relied on histories of thought that discussed Hermes Trismegistus, Pico della Mirandola, Robert Fludd, and Knorr von Rosenroth alongside Plato, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton. He stated in his lectures more than once that the term “speculative” means the same thing as “mystical.” He believed in an “Earth Spirit” and corresponded with colleagues about the nature of magic. He aligned himself, informally, with “Hermetic” societies such as the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians. Even Hegel’s doodles were Hermetic, as we shall see in chapter 3 when I discuss the mysterious “triangle diagram”.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

>>6497310
Look, you can use those words if you like, and sure those connections exist, but it's really more deceiving than anything else, particularly for a recommendation for someone wanting to "get into" Hegel. look at how that book's written - what's being "said" is more or less just speculation not really justified by its content; maybe interesting, but it's just an effort to pidgehole Hegel without really engaging with what he says.

>>6496042
Read Hegel by Beiser. Then read Introduction to the Reading of Hegel by Kojeve. Then read Phenomenology of Spirit.

Other good supplementary material:
Hegel and The Hermetic Tradition by Magee
The Hegel Myths and Legends by Stewart
The Hegel Dictionary by Inwood
G.W.F. Hegel by Kainz

>>6497339
You're speaking from ignorance. You think that mystic is an insult, when it isn't. To deny the mysticism in Hegel is to . . . be a Marxist.

It's also important to keep in mind during your studies that the dialectical method does not characterize all of Hegel's work. This same sort of error is made by people that assume that "cogito ergo sum" represents the entire spirit of Descartes' work.

>>6497346
I don't think it's an insult, I think it's the wrong way to look at Hegel, generally, and particularly for an introduction. The problem tends to be an oversimplification if not outright misrepresentation of his terms---e.g. absolute, Geist, speculative, etc. Sure this is avoided if your understanding of mysticism and Hegel are sophisticated enough, but it's a bad starting point that leads to sloppy thinking/reading of Hegel that's usually not going to get corrected.

>>6497360
Well. imo it's fundamental. If you're not reading Hegel in that context then you're not reading him at all.
I'm telling you that Hegel has more in common with Eckhart and Teilhard de Chardin than with Descartes or Kant.

A demonologist transcended Mongolian professor and Geist activist was teaching a class on Hegel, known necromancer.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent had ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois Protestant theology!"

At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girls' school teacher who had smoked more than 15,000 cigars in Hippel's wine bar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and fully supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum"(The Ego and its Own).

"I wrote this, innit?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite synthetically and smugly replied "It's not yours at all, fucking egoist, it's the stern, reluctant, working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom."

"Wrong. It's been a few years or something (time is nothing to me) since I, the Unique One, created it. If it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spoook... Then Ghost Busters wouldn't have had a happy ending."

The professor was visibly shake , and dropped his balls and copy of Plato's dialogues. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic thesis and antithesis tears, both coming together on his cheeks into synthesis. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Hegel (who liked to teach about himself), wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a spook ridden sad cunt interested in arbitrary justifications. He wished so much that he had some kind of Own to hold on to, and he had but just didn't realize it because he was an involuntary egoist.

The students applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named 'Union of Egoists' flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and she's a beer on the hardcover. "Inch hav Mein Sach' auf Nichtd Gestell" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing more than a means of killing police officers.

The professor had his tenure revoked and was fired the next day. He died of superstition and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.

The name of the student? Max Stirner.

>>6497367
idiot

>>6497377
Tell me what you think Hegel's thought amounts to.

>>6497295
>>6497298
>>6497306
>>6497316
>>6497339
>>6497346
>>6497360
>>6497367
Topkek it's good that I stopped being lazy and added Mysticism to my guide >>6492651
It's quite true that Hegel has influences from Mysticism (check the guide out for books).

Mystic Hegel Anon please review the mystical parts of the guide and Hegel if you have time.

>>6497482
Also Hegel (and Schelling) have connections to Neoplatonism.

In Hegels lectures on History of Philosophy (Section of Scholastics) Hegel says

>More particularly we would shortly deal with the chief representatives of this philosophy. Scholastic philosophy is considered to begin with John Scotus Erigena who flourished about the year 860, and who must not be confused with the Duns Scotus of a later date. We do not quite know whether he belonged to Ireland or to Scotland, for Scotus points to Scotland, and Erigena to Ireland. With him true philosophy first begins, and his philosophy in the main coincides with the idealism of the Neo-Platonists.

>>6497261
Singer's book was awful. He was hardly a Hegel scholar and he admits it now. Pinkard's biography of Hegel is really good and several chapters are focused on certain works. The actual biographical parts are optional if you just want the philosophy, but are helpful especially regarding Holderlin and Fichte's influence on Hegel.

>>6496510
Hegel has a textbook about the History of Philosophy.

>>6497298
>Meister Eckhart.
Nope, that's wrong. Jacob Boume is way more important and his triatic theology is easily understandable, not to mention that Aurora is a short wok.

>>6497216
That makes no sense.

>>6497306
Kek, go back to your Spinoza if you want atheistic monism

Mystic Hegel anon plz review my guide. Also don't forget about Jakob Böhme like >>6497632 said


>>6497618
Why did Peter fucking Singer write a book on Hegel anyways? Please give me some info on this including where he admit's his book was shit.

>>6497360
If you want to someone who looks at Hegel wrong, it's Zizek. His claim that Hegel isn't a monist idealist is out of line with everything Hegel wrote. Honestly, when Zizek talks about Hegel from a materialist perspective, it only makes Hegel's mysticism and the role it played in his thought (and philosophy in general, over all history) more obviously necessary for an informed reading.

>>6497644
Another guy here, Zizek and Hegel's mysticism is rather mysterious as he almost never talks about it. But he knows about Hegel's mysticism (http://www.lacan.com/zizpassion.htm))

>However, the true task is to locate the source of the split between good and evil into God himself while remaining within the field of monotheism - the task which tried to accomplish German mystics (Jakob Boehme) and later philosophers who took over their problematic (Schelling, Hegel).

Also according to https://afoniya.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/slavoj-zizek-in-moscow-some-notes/

>The exchanges after the talk were interesting and Zizek was definitely not brief in his answers. Zizek insisted that Hegel was no organicist and was not a thinker of proto harmony. Moreover he also mentioned the views of Boehme and the idea that Boehme was the first to point out the demonic side of God himself (that is, if mankind fell from God something terrible must have happened within God himself). Freud and sexuality came up in questioning too (sex not as an animalistic experience as the Church insisted but the first metaphysical experience and on this he spoke more at length during the first lecture).

I'm reading Adorno's "Einführung in die Dialektik"

Hegel was truly a genius