[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 415 KB, 700x456, Hege.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10834095 No.10834095 [Reply] [Original]

If you are joining us from a different board this is the /lit/ reading group for philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit.

Day one (the 13th) we will read from the preface to the end of A. Consciousness

Online Text
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phconten.htm

PDF
http://dlx.b-ok.org/genesis/755000/860fab7183d59cdcc04b0c6172e822ef/_as/[G.W.F._Hegel,_trans_A.V._Miller,_intro_J.N.Findla(b-ok.org).pdf

Backstory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

Gregory B. Sadler's Half Hour Hegel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgnp5Dy-v88&list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

If you have any questions or would like to share your experiences of the euphoria that comes along with reading Hegel we encourage you to share.

>> No.10834137

frick I'm too new to philosophy to join this but I hope it goes well

>> No.10834223

>>10834095
>Phenomenolgy of Spirit
>Reading group
You faggots keep picking overly ambitious books to read, and think discussion threads will work out until they peter out in a month. It happened to the Bible, Anti-Oedipus, Capital, and the Water Margin reading groups, and the same will happen to this one. You faggots never learn.

>> No.10834231
File: 62 KB, 746x500, 1486351537032.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10834231

>reading hegel

>> No.10834239
File: 157 KB, 1356x768, charlatan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10834239

>> No.10834323

>>10834095
> assigns over 100 pages of hegel

i was hoping this was a real post not a meme self-masturbatory jackoff bait thread

cunt

>> No.10835084

>>10834095
>140 pages of Hegel
It's a special kind of stupid that thinks one just reads Hegel. The preface alone can barely be discussed in the topical sections in one go, let alone entirely. The chapters themselves are discussable paragraph by paragraph at best.

>> No.10835552

>>10834095
good luck, i tried doing a capital reading group like >>10834223 said and it's hard to keep it going. Im starting to think only fiction book groups survive or texts not 250+ pages.

>> No.10836809

How are you guys doing so far? What did you think of Lordship Bondage? Pretty spicy stuff huh

>> No.10836948

lol fuck this is gonna be stupid
And theres already discords

>> No.10837020

". THE knowledge, which is at the start or immediately our object, can be nothing else than just that which is immediate knowledge, knowledge of the immediate, of what is. We have, in dealing with it, to proceed, too, in an immediate way, to accept what is given, not altering anything in it as it is presented before us, and keeping mere apprehension (Auffassen) free from conceptual comprehension (Begreifen)." Thoughts on this passage?

>> No.10837024

>>10837020
Hegel assumes immediate knowledge exists. This is his first of many presuppositions. I feel like I've been lied to.

>> No.10837036

>>10837024
What is your problem with that? I don't want to jump ahead in the text but I feel like his philosophy works to explain why.

>> No.10837061

>>10837036
I don't actually have a problem with making presuppositions. If you don't make any, you can't do anything. It's just that Hegel says specifically that his system is presuppositionless. It's not like later he proves this presupposition wrong, he just comes to the conclusion that sense-certainty is not only knowledge of things (not their attributes, just that they are) but that the things themselves are sensuous universals.

>> No.10837143

>>10834223
you forgot gravity's rainbow, the first reading group of the year, which flamed out not long after bananas after "omg the prose" posters drove out anyone making actual analysis
but >>10834223 is right. phenomenology is way too fucking hard for you idiots. stick to watching sadler.

>> No.10837916

>>10837024
How is starting from natural consciousness a presupposition? He's not positing it; it's there already, we have to take it as given.

>> No.10837986

>>10835552
My Categories group completely failed and it's a short text. I have no faith at all that these will work.

>> No.10838025

>>10834095
I really like the idea of these groups, but these groups never come to anything if the people running them don't, well, try to run them. Providing resources helps, sure, and you've done that, but what about "opening questions" to help focus discussion, or even an attempt to provide a summary, even if inadequate, to see if anyone else recognizes what they read or not.

But also, for Hegel, a reading this large is no good. The Preface alone could be split into two readings at least, or put off until after finishing the book, being a kind of summary of the whole thing that's more intelligible afterwards rather than before.

>> No.10838051
File: 32 KB, 480x481, 1520438267923.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10838051

>>10834095
I've been studying the Phenomenology for the past couple months. I'm almost done the preface. This isn't even the first work of Hegel I've read, I already went through the smaller logic over the better part of last year. Maybe you could cover the whole preface, doing 4-5 sections a week, but even that is ambitious for this type of thing. Unless you just want to "read it" for the psude credit.

>> No.10838146

I think something like this would work only by going literally section by section.

>> No.10838193

>>10834095
isn't /his/ for the humanities?

>> No.10839064

>>10834095
Was Hegel a gnostic totalitarian?

>> No.10839435

>>10838193
no

>> No.10839511

>>10837916
I agree, it's a good presupposition. It's about as natural as "A = A" or "A and not A cannot both be true" or "A is true or Not A is true." That being said, it's still a presupposition, and it's possible to develop systems that don't take the existence of immediate knowledge as true. For example, Kant claims all our knowledge is mediate, and that we never get immediate knowledge.

>> No.10839821

>>10838051
Is the preface something you MUST read beforehand? I was thinking I could come back to it after reading Consciousness part for this thread.

Also: Is his lectures on aesthetics a good place to start? I noticed he uses quite a bit of epistemology in it that I wouldn't know, but I might be mistaken.

>> No.10839835

>>10834095
Hegel looks like Zizek with a clean shave

>> No.10839847

Is Hegel less impenetrable if you read Kant first?

>> No.10839854

>>10839847
You'd think so

>> No.10839988

So how the hell do I actually start with Hegel?

>> No.10839992

>>10834223
don't forget Ficciones

>> No.10840014

>>10839847
No.
>>10839988
Just start reading phenomenology of spirit and, unironically, check out Gregory Sadler's Half-Hour Hegel series. After you've watched about 70 episodes you'll be able to understand Hegel on your own.

>> No.10840028

Hegel is a waste of time. If he had something interesting to say, someone would have figured out how to say it clearly by now. Even more of a waste of time if you don't know Kant pretty well.

Go read some Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Sidgwick, or Frege instead.

>> No.10840074

>>10834095

You will not last three weeks. I guarantee it. I put $100 on it.

This year, the following ambitious reading groups have been proposed: Finnegan's Wake (I'm going to leave the apostrophe since I automatically wrote it so there we are), Capital V. 1, Anti-Oedipus, and one or two others on similar lines (difficult, modern books concerned with philosophy). None have lasted, and most importantly, /none have even come close to actually getting partway into the book that they propose to read, into the meat of discussion, as it were/. Yours is not the exception. Even the recently proposed discussion threads for Aristotle's very short (if dense) Categories has failed carried its relatively modest, proposed task to completion.

Part of what's going on is that people just want to meme rather than actually read. But more charitably, I've come to recognize, quite simply, that among people who /do/ actually read, they've either already read the thing and seek "students" who aren't ready yet, or else the people who aren't ready yet would like to get around to whatever the project is but they're not fully committed /right now/, or the over-riding mood to just plain read X on general principles hasn't yet struck them for whatever reason, etc (this mood to just plain read X on general principles is of course a real thing, as the readers know).

Basically unless you're in such-and-such graduate class or whatever the process of actually reading your difficult famous book of choice is usually, at best, something that can only be discussed with people /who have already read it/. I'm convinced that the real rarity with difficult books is that two or more people in the same milleu wish in good faith to read and discuss together and see the thing through to completion /as first-time or nth-time readers/, and this gets rarer the minute you step outside actual RL academic settings, and propose to tackle longer, more complex books. This is basically why lit book club threads fail. Even if you really are up for it /right now/, or over the next few months, almost no one else is. That is why your thread will almost certainly fail.

Now prove me wrong and get my $100bux. This is your "week zero". To collect, you must have three modestly successful threads (weeks 1, 2, 3) on archival record, spaced reasonably between today and April 7, a little more than three weeks from today (I'm giving you wiggle room to make my point). You must also lose the tripcode, becasue tripcodes are for faggots.

>> No.10840886

>>10834223
moby dick last year same story. Group went on up to half of the book, then I created 3 threads about it that 404'd with 0 replies. Finished it on my own like 2 weeks before schedule

>> No.10840902

>/lit/
>ridden with amerifats and ang*os™
>reading ANYTHING that is not a watered-down textbook on second literature about a book
>let alone even TRYING to tackle such complex, specific problems solving works as anti-oedipus, das capital, phenomenology of spirit

>> No.10842058

>>10839821
I wouldn't know, I'm not done the book. Hegel by Charles Taylor is a great companion book for the Phenomenology though. The introduction is fantastic for placing his system in the cultural/historical matrix of thought that was the German Enlightenment.

>> No.10842168

>>10835552
>i tried doing a capital reading group
are you commie scum, anon?

>> No.10842207

>>10839821
DESU, with Hegel no matter where you start you have to force yourself through a period of utter disorientation before you start being able to orient yourself in his thinking. The preface and the introduction give you a good idea of what Hegel is trying to do with PoS in the grand scheme of things, and that can be invaluable when you're reading the main text and, while you think you understand what Hegel is saying, you don't know what level of interpretation to use. On the other hand, it's the most dense part of the book, so you might just give up entirely if you push yourself too hard.

>> No.10842863

How far are you guys? I'm struggling to take it all in

>> No.10842963

>>10842863
My only recommendation is to read several translations of it, if you're using ebooks.
The standard Oxford one by Miller has summaries/interpretations of every passage, they're useful.
The one on marxists.org is older but clearer a lot of the time.
And there's one brand new by Terry Pinkard, which might be the best right now.

They all use the same passage numbers so it's easy to switch.
If you're seriously struggling with the Preface, there's a heavy commentary of it by Yirmiyahu Yovel as well as general intro to Hegel.

>> No.10843164

>>10842863
One think that might legitimately help is drawing pictures. I'm not saying that to be a dick or to belittle, having a sense of what Hegel is considering as the objects of consciousness and what the relationships between those objects are is something that is made clearer in picture form. Eventually you're able to sort of make the pictures in your head.

>>10842963
I dislike the analysis by Findlay, it's just useless half the time.

>> No.10843182

>>10834239
>safety-first curiosity about how the machine works
does this not articulate the dialectical necessity of marx to complete hegel