/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13503731]

Can someone tell what useful information you get out of Hegel? Something you can actually use that isn't just posturing.

[Anonymous No.13504661]

>>13503731
You gain nothing

[Anonymous No.13504706]

>>13503731
"the rational is the real, the real is the rational"
"the fear of death is the absolute Lord"
"the Thing is"
plenty of good stuff in Hegel

[Anonymous No.13505078]

>>13503731
consciousness is artist

[Anonymous No.13505087]

>>13504661
First post best post

[Anonymous No.13505140]

human progress is because the soul is alienated by itself

[卐 No.13505369]

Hegel makes the claim that philosophy shouldn’t be edifying and he goes on to say that philosophy is the path to despair. That it inherently is a confrontation with death. But what’s fascinating is that he says tarrying with this negativity is the real meat of life. It’s really interesting because on both hands the Romans say to either cope with the absurdity or to find peace and ataraxia in the simple, where is Hegel is saying confront the negativity as real negativity, face it, not embrace it, not find jubilance in it but literally Death. Die. Any kind of negativity that you’re thinking of that makes you feel cool or edgy is not the kind of negativity he’s talking about. He’s talking about go after your absolute weakest vulnerable scared places, that’s how I translate it. This is one way Hegel changed my life. It’s not confronting the “bad” or “negative”, It’s really doing the tough crazy work that you really would rather run away from your whole life. He’s not talking about some metaphysical negativity, some abstract evil, he’s talking about the absolutely real negative and evil that is confronting you and to tarry with it. And he says that you won’t succeed, you will die, but what is real and true will progress and the good will always assert itself when the real work is done. I think Heidegger knew this very well and his whole fight against metaphysics is really a fight against the blind eye we have to our own being-in-world, and therefore only Dasein, the being whose being is an issue for it, has the capacity to even approach the question of Being. Too often we cowardly keep evil and goodness, weakness and strength add an arms length so that we never really have to confront what it means for us in our life, Because that confrontation would be so devastating that who we are would be annihilated. What Hegel teaches us is that this is real progress. Seen in this way, egoism is inherently the fear to confront Death, always running away from this confrontation, never really living. And it makes sense, because living is for the tough and brave and those willing to sacrifice for the good, no matter what. Reason allows us to see the series as a series, but the Understanding allows us to progress ahead of it. Reason is active in the world, and Humans have come to reason by themselves for themselves. But this understanding succeeds itself, and this succession, that is also Life, is God coming to know himself through the Human being, not just as Substance (Spinoza), but as Subject, so says Hegel. This may seem like a lot to take in, but there is something really extraordinary about stopping in the middle of a work about the Absolute, and feeling the Absolute, feeling yourself succeed yourself indefinitely, losing all sense of self of sameness or change, infinite or nothing, to see the series, the individual shapes that manifest in various ways, but identifying manifestation itself as itself without a self.

[卐 No.13505435]

>>13505369
https://youtu.be/BzNzgsAE4F0

[Anonymous No.13505514]

>>13503731
>Can someone tell what useful information you get out of Hegel?

>philosophy
>useful
For real? If you want "usefulness" you're better off getting a degree in engineering. Better yet, become a plumber or electrician.

[卐 No.13505836]

>>13505369
Bataille’s response to Hegel is really interesting, it was the subject of Derrida’s essay “From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism without Reserve”. He responds to Hegel by laughing. He says that Hegel doesn’t really take the annihilation by the negative seriously enough, he doesn’t take Death seriously enough. There’s no return. The system itself becomes annihilated. Rebirth is always an incentive from a false death. A real Death means no return. Derrida finds this interesting for a number of reasons, but I feel like what most inspires him by Bataille is the idea of the Phenomenology of Spirit as a work of a phenomenologist, in the line to Husserl and Heidegger, which he develops in his other essay “'Genesis and Structure' and Phenomenology". This is a real work of tarrying with the negative, Derrida is at his fearless and uncompromising in his pursuit to say what (he) really thinks.

>Not only are the metaphysicians guilty of this attitude,
system and speculative closure, (a restricted economy)
>but often, unbeknownst to themselves, so are the adherents of the empirical sciences: both groups would be congenitally guilty of a certain sin of explicationism. The phenomenologist, on the contrary, is the "true positivist" who returns to the things themselves, and who is self-effacing before the originality and primordiality of meanings. The process of a faithful comprehension or description, and the continuity of explication must dispel the shadow of a choice. Thus one might say, and in an entirely prejudicial fashion, that Husserl, by his rejection of system and speculative closure, and by virtue of the style of his thought, is attuned to the historicity of meaning and to the possibility of its becoming, and is also already respectful of that which remains open within structure. And even when one comes to think that the opening of the structure is "structural," that is, essential, one already has progressed to an order heterogeneous to the first one: the difference between the (necessarily closed) minor structure and the structurality of an opening-such, perhaps, is the unlocatable site in which philosophy takes root. Particularly when it speaks of and describes structures. Thus, the presumption of a conflict between the genetic approach and the structural approach from the outset appears to be superimposed upon the specificity of what is given to a virgin glance.

Then in “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” , takes an axe to his own three biggest influences, Freud, Nietzsche and Heidegger by showing how they fall into this trap of creating a system and speculative closure, (a restricted economy), by repeating the history of metaphysics all over again, that is, dethroning a center that does not play in the system, the transcendental signifier and untouchable concept, with another center, again we are in the discourse of a Lord. True freedom is a devastation of no return.

[Anonymous No.13507076]

>>13504661
Never read Hegel

[Anonymous No.13507089]

>>13503731
You can figure out the root of "progressive" motivation. Their morality is about aligning with entropy rather than independent actions.

[Anonymous No.13507107]

>>13505369
A very tryhard post but some small morsels of explanation

[Anonymous No.13507171]

>>13503731
Tangentially related, who gives the best refutation of hegel or a counter thesis? I'm seeing the necessity of some post-ironic sincerity

>>13505369
>>13505836
you might know, 卐 assuming the name isn't ironic

[Anonymous No.13507213]

>>13507107
explaining Hegel to retards isn’t really a walk in the park dipshit

[The Nomad !N8Yn.I/WbM No.13507332]

>>13507171
Kierkegaard
Read Repeitition

[Anonymous No.13507414]

>>13507171
>post-ironic sincerity
I never understood this term. Irony is always sincere. I think what you’re asking for is for people to say what they really think, which is just as frightening albeit less annoying. I mean it’s one thing to hide stupidity behind a mockery, but to come out as thinking your stupidity becomes of worth because your presenting it sincerely? Why don’t people just read more and talk less?

[Anonymous No.13507476]

>>13507414
It's a concept I'm trying to flesh out. In practice I'm looking for a sincerity that can withstand ironic deconstruction and possibly rebuke it.

[Anonymous No.13507563]

>>13507476
>a sincerity that can withstand ironic deconstruction and possibly rebuke it.

Is this code for, “I’m vulnerable to trolls and can’t think of good responses”?
First off, someone whose trying to bring you down is already below you, so tighten your abs and let them know how your shit smells. Choosing to argue with these people is self defeating, because trolls are defeated creatures, that’s why they live in caves. Second, if someone legitimately destroys your position, regardless if they do it in mock fashion, the problem isn’t a petty deliverance but in the weakness of your own argument. That they choose to point it out AND mock you does not mean that their irony is the issue but in the coherence of your claims. So to recap, you do not get into intellectual debates with cave-dwelling degenerates, that makes you a dumbass, and don’t be quick to be confident about your position if you can’t back it up. On this site, you have to be able to do both very quick in order to survive

[Anonymous No.13507582]

>>13507563
>Is this code for, “I’m vulnerable to trolls and can’t think of good responses”?
No, it's code for postmodernist shit is a nihilistic death cult and I'd prefer to find some way to have a functioning society that at least recognizes it has to beat level 1 irony to stay afloat in this era of deconstruction.
>don't get into debates with ironic trolls
I appreciate the advice, but sadly the ironic mindset is forced top down and engulfs the entire West at this point.

[Anonymous No.13507610]

>>13507582
What is postmodernist shit? Who is banging on your door demanding your attention? What is forced down your throat anon? I mean that sincerely, not as a snide quip to the idea of you sucking cock

[Anonymous No.13507642]

>>13507610
Are you familiar with moldbugs concept of the Cathedral? One of the main engines of "progress" is the ability to tactically deconstruct everything that stands in the way. The (and forgive me for this useless term) Left's morality comes from hegel's concept of progress. Moral good to them means being on the "right side of history". The side of entropy (since everything dies in the end, thus making destruction the correct outcome). I am attempting a roundabout explanation of what I'm trying to convey

[Anonymous No.13507667]

>>13507642
The deconstruction ala Heidegger and Derrida is never meant to undermine a concept. In fact what they’re saying is the you don’t even know what you’re talking about if you can’t properly deconstruct it. The construction itself, if you look it up, always means taking apart with the intent of putting it back together. Today we live in a Talking Heads world so all lessons in regards to critical theory are molded to serve the platform of debate and we have the abhorrent consequence of people thinking deconstruction means some sort of demolishing of a concept or idea. From what you’re saying it sounds like you’re involved in that world and trying to win. I think your wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.13507678]

>>13507642
slight correction mate Whig history predates Hegel, and Moldbug, though unclear, seems to situate its origin at least as early as the Reformation, but he also talks about similar concepts that existed as long ago as the greeks.

Moldbug is a confused fellow in my opinion, he had no real philosophy or understanding of world history, though he undoubtedly knew a shitload of obscure reactionary sources about the past few hundred years of western history. Ill always respect him for his work on that and his courage in putting it forward before it became at all mainstream, which mainstreaming he clearly contributed to in many ways.

[Anonymous No.13507892]

>>13507642
>Left's morality comes from hegel's concept of progress. Moral good to them means being on the "right side of history". The side of entropy (since everything dies in the end, thus making destruction the correct outcome)

No. Not even close

[Anonymous No.13508608]

>>13503731
What is posturing?

[Anonymous No.13508676]

>>13503731
Hegel's dialectics started out as a theory of love, how two lovers become one whole. First you go out of yourself and give yourself to your love, negating yourself. Then you negate that self-negation and see yourself in your love together with your love as an organic whole of two parts, each part for the whole, the whole for each part. This family whole then adds children, a new part you go out of yourself and give yourself into, then you negate that negation and see yourself in and with your child together as a family whole, each for eachother as eachother.

[Anonymous No.13509254]

>>13503731
You get really good at thinking. See section 19 in his lesser logic

[Anonymous No.13509414]

>>13504661
you gain Nothing.

[Anonymous No.13509453]

>>13505369
Based longposter

[Anonymous No.13509475]

>>13508676
>tfw occultists had been writing 2 = 0 or 2 = 1 for literal centuries before Hegel came along to Tim Buckley it up

[Anonymous No.13509590]

Whether this is “useful” or not depends on what you’re actually trying to accomplish, but, in the Phenomenology of Spirit at least, Hegel sets the tone for most subsequent philosophy (at least in the continental tradition).

The following is incredibly simplified to avoid a word salad of Hegel jargon. And I’m not going to get into specifics too much, but he puts forth a compelling alternative to the Cartesian view of the subject as an autonomous thinking thing. In the Phenomenology, he argues that consciousness is essentially self-consciousness, and to become self-consciousness a consciousness must encounter another consciousness. This is the master/slave dialectic. The upshot of this is that the subject, self-consciousness, etc can not be conceived of autonomously (like in Descartes cogito) but always in the content of a “social substance” or community of conscious beings. This community is what Hegel calls “Spirit” and it takes on different formations (the formations are not historical but conceptual, though in the Phenomenology they happen to line up with distinct historical periods). The dialectic Hegel describes now happens between two levels: the individual and the universal. The individual is the particular self-consciousnesses and the universal is the collection of social roles these self-consciousnesses fall into. One sees oneself “reflected” in Spirit insofar as one inhabits a social role, and that social role imposes duties and restrictions on one. The first form Spirit takes has two roles: family member and citizen. One has certain duties to the family (eg to bury the dead) and certain duties to the state (eg to fight in wars and kill traitors). Hegel argues these roles can come into conflict (what happens when the traitor you have to kill is your brother?) which provokes a new formation of Spirit; a new distribution of social roles.

The upshot of all of this is that it led to, in continental philosophy at least, something like a “social turn.” This is one of the reasons why continental philosophers focus on society and rarely do “phil. of mind” in the way many Analytics do: because they don’t believe a mind can be properly conceived of outside of a social structure.

[Anonymous No.13509643]

>>13504706
looks like a rapper

[Anonymous No.13509652]

>>13503731
Where the FUCK can I get a case like this for my Galaxy Note 9?

[Anonymous No.13509653]

>>13505514
greeks are actually useful

[Anonymous No.13509839]

>>13509590
very accurate. I like how you managed to touch on his salient points in regards to what makes him popular. I think what dispels most people reading Hegel is that he leaves nothing out (theology, science, art) which makes people feel overwhelmed. Secondary sources have helped me understand how even a misreading of Hegel is still fortuitous. Hegel’s a treasure trove of peak thinking, it makes sense why people misread, or even don’t read him