/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22670095]

Worth reading as someone mostly into analytic but with a good background in early modern and Kant?

[Anonymous No.22670126]

Never read it and biased against Pinkard and other analytic Hegelians but I'd recommend Charles Taylor's Hegel over Pinkard since he also emphasizes the critical social and intersubjective dimension of Hegel's conception of Reason, as a kind of apotheosis of the Enlightenment via Kant, without obscurantism, and crucially without trying to railroad Hegel's metaphysical elements by overemphasizing the epistemological / trying to turn Hegel into some kind of proto-analytic coherentist, which seems to me to be heavily influenced by Marxist Hegelianism (which always overemphasized the epistemological at the expense of the metaphysical in Hegel, completely jettisoning the latter like Marx did - trying to turn Hegel into a "critical" Kantianism, a project that for me both culminated and ended in Adorno's Negative Dialectics, making Brandom/Pinkard type stuff redundant, but I am biased).

Not to say you shouldn't read Pinkard but I find analytic Hegelians slippery, they read like they have an agenda and it only compounds Hegel's existing obscurity. Taylor on the other hand is very straightforward, almost prosaic in his exposition. At least read the introductory chapters of his Hegel, where he outlines his interpretation of Hegel's Enlightenment motivations. If you really want to go deep on those, I think Harris' "Hegel's Development: Toward the Sunlight" is very useful. Both thinkers do a good job of showcasing the republican, constitutionalist, "Kantian" Hegel who deeply cared about reason's universality and "publicness," which is a useful corrective to the vulgar interpretation of Hegel as a kind of obscurantist Schelling emanationist. The thing is though, he IS also the latter, which in my opinion the Marxist and analytic Hegelians suppress.

[Anonymous No.22670136]

Should I read this or go directly to Hegel?

[Anonymous No.22670146]

>>22670136
I forgot the fucking pic, sorry.
Anyways is there a good introduction to Hegel or is any introduction unnecessary?

[Anonymous No.22670189]

>>22670095
No, if you're into analytic "philosophy" (since this is actual philosophy)

[Anonymous No.22670196]

>>22670146
Kojeve is interesting in his own right but not a great reader of Hegel. It's worth reading for sure, his exegesis/expansion of the master-slave dialectic thing is classic, but he's not an authority on Hegel. There's a book called French Hegel you could look at if you're interested in how he influenced French understandings of Hegel. I also recommend reading the very short chapter on him in Lilla's Reckless Mind if you want to know what Kojeve was all about.

[Anonymous No.22670268]

>>22670146
Kojeve is a pretty famous secondary source for Hegel but his work overemphasizes the social dimensions of Hegel’s work to the detriment of the metaphysical/ontological dimensions similarly to what >>22670126 said about pinkard’s epistemological importance coming at the cost of Hegel’s metaphysics. Many Hegelians nowdays consider Kojeve’s thought as so distorted that it ought to be handled as a separate branch of Hegelianism like Marxism or, to an extent, existentialism. I would recommend Emancipation after Hegel by McGowan or Hegel’s Idealism by Pippin.

[Anonymous No.22670303]

>>22670268
Can you give me a qrd on Pippin's book? Funnily enough I read it but it was years ago and I remember being annoyed at how systematically he avoided talking about the metaphysical or natural bases of Hegel's account of subjectivity, but maybe that was unfair

In the end I think he slyly mentioned Darwin and I wrote the whole thing off as a typical skew job, trying to read Hegel as a pragmatic Kant, with a materialist metaphysics underneath

[Anonymous No.22670376]

>>22670303
He certainly takes the materialist road of rooting the dialectic in a kind of jungian collective unconscious but I recommended it purely for the purpose of an introductory text as I find his writing style quite direct and his overall conception of the process of hegel’s dialectics to be largely correct although his grounding his clearly a misreading. I’ve heard (from Zizek) that he deals more with Hegel’s metaphysics in his Realm of Shadows but I haven’t read it myself. He also gives a lot of primer info on Hegel’s relations with his predecessors which the average introductory text would touch on but not nearly at the level Pippin does.

[Anonymous No.22670417]

>>22670268
If you are worried about ontology just go read his original work in the original language, otherwise don't act like it matters, is bad ontology

[Anonymous No.22670430]

Hegel was a full blown nazi, don’t read that shit