[ 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: 98 KB, 1877x792, Screenshot_86.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13229875 No.13229875 [Reply] [Original]

Could the Phenomenology of Spirit be summed up like that ? The Critique of Pure Reason is difficult but you eventually manage to understand it through diligent work. Hegel really gives the impression of being a huge hack, if someone's philosophy can't be summed up then it obligatory means that it doesn't actually have anything to say at all. If someone produces something like pic related about the phenomenoly of spirit I would gladly change my mind.

>> No.13229905

>>13229875
>if someone's philosophy can't be summed up then it obligatory means that it doesn't actually have anything to say at all.

funny how he spends the entire preface dispelling this brainlet notion. you have to be be moderately stunted in some way to believe a summary could never be enriched by going straight to the source

stick to video games

>> No.13229908
File: 1.27 MB, 2000x1200, hegel_by_mitchellnolte-d8l17eg-e1491455087946.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13229908

>>13229875
The rational is the real.
The thing is.

>> No.13229913

>>13229905
yet summary should still be possible

>> No.13229922

>>13229913
and you'll find hundreds, perhaps thousands, of variously worded distillations of his thought in the work itself

>> No.13229934

>>13229875
>Hegel really gives the impression of being a huge hack, if someone's philosophy can't be summed up then it obligatory means that it doesn't actually have anything to say at all.
He did sum up his philosophy. It's a three-volume encyclopedia.

>> No.13229945

ez as.. keep on keeping default hegelians

>> No.13229973

>>13229875
It's always so cringy whenever anyone comes forth all confidently thinking to dispell such unfathomable question marks in life by applying human intellect and interpretation. ..eww

>> No.13230319

>>13229875
>>13229875
Hegel explicitly criticizes the notion that you can sum up a philosophical system in the preface to Phenomenology of Spirit

>> No.13230372

>>13229905
>>13230319
That's right, he is forced to criticize it considering that his philosophy being nonsensical can't be possibly summed up. He's trying to protect his bullshits. So what is this so-called argument against summarization ? Well, the irony is that you also can't sum up his attack against summarization because he wrote it the same way he wrote his entire book, we've got a nice circural fallacy right there.

>> No.13230379

>>13230372
circular*

>> No.13230398

>>13230372
Us Hegelians pull the strings, u better watch your fucking mouth kid

>> No.13230433

>>13230372
He manages to state his objection in the first few paragraphs of the preface, it's probably the easiest thing in the whole book. He isn't just rejecting summaries of his work, he's rejecting philosophical summary altogether. OP's pic is guilty too, it's not somehow okay because it's Kant. You are basically admitting you couldn't make it through the first paragraph of the Phenomenology

>> No.13230451

>>13230433
>it's probably the easiest thing in the whole book.
good, then I guess you wouldn't have any difficulties explaining his reasoning to me, could you ?

>> No.13230632

>>13229875
It can be summed up.

The fundamental essence of the world is Geist, it has an idea/notion which is the world which has developed into recognising itself as this process in the mind of Hegel which is this histories culmination.

Hegelians (and their psuedo off shoots) frequently depict history as in decline or wind down. One summary I heard is 'history is god'. Not strictly correct as 'God' was just a part of Geists idea as it developed, but that summary has a pantheisitic bent whereas i think hegel was more panathesitic.

hes got more going on than some people here might think. but a lot less than his followers would like to suggest me thinks.

>> No.13230816

>>13230433
I'm the author of the post in OP's pic, and I want to make it clear (to OP in particular) that I agree; you should never, ever be satisfied with a summary of a philosopher. You should only ever use summaries like the one I made if you absolutely have to out of utility. Philosophers argue with much more richness and nuance than a summary can ever hope to convey. To this day, philosophers still argue over the meaning of Kant and Hegel texts.

>> No.13230896

Does it make sense to read Phenomenology Of Spirit AFTER Being And Time? Would I gain something?

>> No.13230921

>>13230896
No.

>> No.13230932
File: 185 KB, 293x928, 1559500125617.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13230932

>>13229875
Me 2 dumb he wrong !

>> No.13230986

>>13230816
Could you produce something like pic related concerning The Phenomenology of Spirit ?

>> No.13231059

>>13230986
Yes, but I am too tired atm. I also feel like I know him with less precision than I do Kant.

>>13230632
This seems like a decent summary, though too brief.

>> No.13231093

>>13230451
truth is the process of its own exposition, and not a proposition spit out at the end, trying to isolate one moment of the process and elevating it to the "truth" of that process is like trying to call the fruit the "truth" of the plant, as if to say there is that in the life of the plant which is non-essential to the production of the fruit, which is just silly. every step of the way is the truth.

>> No.13231185

>>13231093
So you're telling that in "1+1=2" the "1+1" part holds as value as the "2" part which is the fruit because it is necessary to understand the result. But reasoning is just a way to attain the truth, "1+1" obviously means "2" but it's just a much more complicated way to simply say "2". If everything holds as many value then you should try to express things the simpliest way in order to be easily understandable. If you can say something in a complicated way or an easy way you should always choose the easy way.

What I mean is that the process isn't a distinguishable part of the truth, but another form of it, it's his unfinished, unpolished form. Since it's not something different in essence but only in form, it should be simplified

>> No.13231194

>>13231185
>If you can say something in a complicated way or an easy way you should always choose the easy way.
>should
Proof or why. Unless
>in order to be easily understandable.
Is your only argument. To which I'd say hegel or any other philosopher worth their weight in salt isn't catering to brainlets and niggers

>> No.13231212

>>13231194
When you try to convey ideas, the very act of conveying implies that you want your audience to actually understand what you mean. At the moment you start writing, speaking for someone else it implies that you want to be understand. If you don't want to be clear you fail in effectively conveying your ideas which is contradictory to your main goal. It's rational, you choose the best available way to fulfill your objective. If you don't then you're not rational or you're a pseud

>> No.13231215

>>13231185
>trying to refute Hegel's dialectical interpretation of truth with an analytic statement

just read the book