[ 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: 25 KB, 312x475, B5339604-6A61-4A28-8CC2-40B8FE209129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14801252 No.14801252 [Reply] [Original]

Explain Phenomenology’s preface please. Is he endorsing empiricism or rationalism? Why is it so fucking cryptic? Is the entire book written like this? If so I don't think I can handle it.

>> No.14801287

Let’s just say you’ll need a strategy guide.

>> No.14801295
File: 206 KB, 549x395, 1582394160368.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14801295

>>14801252
I HAD TO READ THAT FUCKING GODFORSAKEN BOOK SO SLOWLY AND I STILL COULDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AND I COME FROM A BACKGROUND STUDYING EASTERN PHILOSOPHY. FUCK HEGEL HE'S A FRAUD

>> No.14801298

Read past the preface. Its mostly covered under the next section 'A. Consciousness
I. Sense-Certainty, This, & Meaning'

>> No.14801321

>>14801295
>>14801298
But does the book ever change from sounding like schizo ramblings into something actually readable?

>> No.14801328

>>14801321
It's readable if you read the book as Hegel trying to re-write again Kant and Schelling in his own words.

>> No.14801337

The preface is really an essay on truth. IF you have to pick between rationalism and empiricism then Hegel is endorsing a kind of empirically informed rationalism, but for Hegel it is like a living spirit that comes to know itself. The preface contains some of the most densest writing in all philosophy, not that the rest of the book is much easier. If you can understand paragraphs 17-25 then you can understand anything Hegel wrote. You have to reread it a lot and think about every single sentence almost. When you make progress, go back and reread the previous parts. It's the only way to navigate that fucking word labyrinth.

>> No.14801352

>>14801337
Thanks.

>> No.14801379

Most people who teach Hegel will tell you to read the preface after the work proper, as it was written after he had finished and addresses issues/feedback he was likely given.

>> No.14801406

>>14801321
Thats on you. His writing is fine once you get to know it and the words he likes using

>> No.14801411

Just read his lectures. They are meant for brainlets

>> No.14801413

>>14801252
Black dudes

>> No.14801414

>>14801379
>Most people who teach Hegel will tell you to read the preface after the work proper
This.
This fact should also tell you something about Hegel in general.

>> No.14801424

>>14801295
>BACKGROUND STUDYING EASTERN PHILOSOPHY
you would have been better off reading literature

>> No.14801446

>>14801424
Why and wrong

>> No.14801466
File: 686 KB, 824x1024, 666.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14801466

Don't let the wizard speak, he will put a spell on you

>> No.14801471

>>14801295
t. upset he called out your eastern mysticism for the string of random quotes it is

>> No.14801482

>>14801471
All philosophy is useless retard

>> No.14801546

>>14801482
Unless its treated like a Science like Hegel did

>> No.14801836

>>14801252
Hegel is a waste of time, read Kant if you haven't already.

>> No.14802237

>>14801328
A good portion of philosophy is literally this.

>> No.14802298

>>14801836
This. Kant pretty much ended philosophy (or at least epistemology) 300 years ago. The only ones, who contributed something useful after him were Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and Popper.

>> No.14802310

>>14802298
>epistemology
I always forget what that word means. Help me bros

>> No.14802316

>>14802310
google is your friend

>> No.14802348

>>14801295
>EASTERN PHILOSOPHY.

Which is only bad Phenomenology, except Advaita.

>> No.14802365

>>14802348
Advaita is just a shitty version of buddhism.

>> No.14802379

>>14802365
Buddhism makes more sense than hegel

>> No.14802414 [DELETED] 

>>14801252

Another anon mentioned the preface is an essay on Truth.
Hegel believes one must have total contact with Truth to understand it.
We should not deceive ourselves in thinking we understand it by studying its appearances.
Step into the truth and take it in to you.
Each stage in the growth of Spirit is a growth toward Truth, a growth toward itself is a growth toward truth.
Be intimate with the deepest essence of things, not simply how they appear.
Philosophy, for Hegel, is meant to illuminate the opaque twists and turns toward truth, nothing else.
It is not a competition of intellectualism, it is a collective effort towards getting beyond Knowledge, and Understanding.
Philosophy should not see an ocean and study the dazzling light reflecting from its surface, but plunge deeply into it, and lose oneself in it.

>> No.14802420

>>14801379
Why? It gives important reasoning for why he wrote the book like he did

>> No.14802426

Another anon mentioned the preface is an essay on Truth.
Hegel believes one must have total contact with Truth, total immersion into it, to understand it.
We should not deceive ourselves in thinking we understand it by studying its appearances, it’s surface. .
Step into the truth and take it in to you.
Each stage in the growth of Spirit is a growth toward Truth, a growth toward itself is a growth toward truth, Spirit journeys in, above, and with man toward itself, so toward Truth, and it does this in moments, or stages, or steps.
Be intimate with the deepest essence of things, not simply how they appear.
Maybe it’s the difference between kissing a woman and making love to her? Admiring her beauty to being intimate with her.
Philosophy, for Hegel, is meant to illuminate the opaque twists and turns toward truth, nothing else.
It is not a competition of intellectualism, it is a collective effort towards getting beyond Knowledge, and Understanding.
Philosophy should not see an ocean and study the dazzling light reflecting from its surface, but plunge deeply into it, and lose oneself in it.
Hegel offers nothing new on this matter, per se, but attempts, like an architect, to depict the little nooks and crannies that make this immersion possible.
This illustration is unnecessary, everything you learn from Hegel you can learn on your own, from Buddhist text, Tao Te Ching, Quran, etc.
Hegel is the earthly, prosaic form of that, hence the density, but also hence the sublimity of a holy text.

>> No.14802431

>>14802426
Truth is evil though. This "growth towards truth" led humanity through the holocaust. This journey shit isn't for me man, so way

>> No.14802433

>>14801836
>>14801471
>>14801466
>>14801379
>>14801337
>>14801298

How does >>14802426 sound? Helpful at all. I didn’t phrase it that way pretentiously, but the stuff Hegel talks about is more easily communicated in more poetic phrasing.

>> No.14802464

>>14802431

“The great Path is straight, but people love to walk it crooked” Tao Te Ching ch. 53

13 “Enter through the narrow gate.For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

“ And, [moreover], this is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow [other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous.” Quran 6:153

And it would be easy to find more. Many texts, sages, and more will tell you the path to Truth is straight, but deviance from it is easy and common. Everyone seems to KNOW this, but we have a hard time following through. It’s clear that Truth isn’t evil, but we take perverted measures in the name of it, and THAT is evil. Hope this helps.

>> No.14802475

>>14802464
and what is truth and does the road towards it ends

>> No.14802486

>>14802464
Hegel specifically warns about pretty sounding one liners being used as representations of truth

>> No.14802494

>>14802426
Holy pseud.

>> No.14802497

>>14802486
But he doesn't warn against his unintelligible pseudo intellectual garbage.

>> No.14802500

>>14802497
Yes he does. Thats why you don't skip the preface

>> No.14802523

>>14802475

I could put it into my own words but it wouldn’t be sufficient and you’ll only really learn by experience. If you want advice regarding that I can try to help, just let me know.

>>14802486
Right, but look at how many people misinterpret Hegel and it does not fulfill their souls. Then look at the thousands of years of wise men, pious people, and other spiritually tuned people, and they have happiness in their soul by going through life poetically. You can ignore the simplified, direct version of these things if you want, but what will be more nourishing to follow? Don’t put intellectualism before the needs of your soul. I know this sounds like mystic mumbo jumbo but I really do mean it.

>> No.14802524

>>14802500
learn to read

>> No.14802527

>>14802500
Please, read the post you're replying to again

>> No.14802556

>>14802494

I can show exactly which lines from the preface I’m paraphrasing later if you really think that. I’m speaking directly on what he said about the distinction between natural philosophy (science) and philosophy proper (what he calls Science) as well as the goal of philosophy continually described throughout the preface. If you didn’t read it just say that, all I’m trying to do is simplify what he explains verbosely. You can see the connections if we want me to post the, it would be easy to.

>> No.14802558

>>14802556

*if you want me to post them

>> No.14802736

>>14802523
>If you want advice regarding that I can try to help, just let me know.
sure go ahead

>> No.14802742

>>14802524
>>14802527
I know what I said

>> No.14802767

>>14801252
>Is he endorsing empiricism or rationalism?
Whenever I see someone saying "this question is wrong" I think they are playing dumb and don't want to answer
But holy fuck this question doesn't make any sense

>> No.14802770

>>14802298
The main difference between Kant and pre-Kantian philosophers is that those before him made metaphysical assumptions to draw epistemological consequences
Kant just did the opposite and you fags praise him

>> No.14802861

Why did Hegel equate nothing to Being? Being has degrees and nothing is uniform.

>> No.14803139

>>14802861
Why did Reimmann say 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12?

>> No.14803224

>>14801295
leave Schopenhauer

>> No.14803327

>>14801252
Hegel wrote literal nonsense and tried to pass it off as philosophy.

>> No.14803332

>>14803139
He didn't.

>> No.14803374

>>14803332
You're getting close anon

>> No.14803520

>>14803374
>>14802861
didn't he say that one vanishes into the other? how does it make any sense

>> No.14803789

>>14802736

I would start by opening yourself to different possibilities of understanding. Trying to recognize that intellectualism and analytic thinking may not provide the most satisfying answers. Trust your intuition more, that can be raised by meditation, yoga, poetry, but overall a will for it to happen. Quite literally "you have to believe" it sounds like bullshit but it's a crucial step. Eventually you may work your way towards spiritual traditions or religion. Having a holy text to guide you is best, i suggest something simple but profound, as a Muslim I naturally say the Qur'an, but the Tao Te Ching or something similar is also good. If you're still feeling interested by that time, well, prayer is the key. Prayer is the key to experiencing Truth and without some form of it that experience will not happen and you will likely not have Faith. Faith is and prayer are a rope to Truth. Pray honestly and humbly and you will receive Faith at some point, but you have to he patient about it. I probably haven't made myself very clear so I apologise but if you take anything away, I say as a Muslim familiar with Hegel and other metaphysical systems, prayer is the biggest step one can take toward experiencing truth. Pray to the Most High, the One, the Absolute, the Creator, the Lord of the Worlds.

>> No.14804727

>>14802861
>Being has degrees
what do you mean by this? are you implying being isn't uniform? what distinguishes one being from another? it couldn't be color, as two objects are both being regardless if they are the same color or not. same with shape, same with size, weight, smell, taste, ect. so whatever sort of "pure being" underlies these individual beings must be totally without determination and character, but the total lack of determination and character already has a definition, that being nothing.

>> No.14805350

>>14801321
The preface is actually the most coherent and most concrete, also with examples in the usual sense of the word. It starts flying of very quickly and never stops again until at the last 50 pages or so it suddenly becomes very clear again.

>> No.14805822

>Why is it so fucking cryptic?
This is a common tactic used by modern philosophers in order to create a sense of mystique. It is no good to simply state in clear terms what is meant for then it would be quite easily seen as having very little in the way of actual content to reflect on and this would threaten the esteemed position that the philosopher holds, both from the standpoint of his employer (the vast majority of modern philosophers being employed by universities) and among the general public at large.

It is vital for modern philosophers to construct this imposing aura around themselves via the liberal use of obscurantism as an indication of their intellectual credentials. The vast majority of people cannot understand it and the ones that do inevitably end up forming several different interpretations because the language used is so confusing it is almost impossible to say what exactly the author is trying to communicate. The sad fact is, however, that this whole process is nothing more than a pantomime used to obscure the reality of the situation: that there is precious little for the modern philosopher to comment on as the vast majority of interesting questions have already been taken by the natural sciences.

>> No.14805851

>>14803374
You're full of shit.

>> No.14805858

>>14805822
>This is a common tactic used by modern philosophers in order to create a sense of mystique.
Total nonsense. Only pseud con artists like Hegel and his ilk write like that.

>> No.14805871

>>14805858
And Hegel is revered as one of the greatest of the moderns, so my point is proven.

>> No.14805913

>>14805871
No, he isn't. He is completely ignored by actual philosophers. He is revered by pseuds.

>> No.14805988

>>14805913
If you're an analytic, I guess, but I can't see any value in in the never ending examinations of the intricacy of logic and language. It seems to me like a modern equivalent of the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm talking about real philosophy, dude.

>> No.14805998

>>14804727
I don't think that Being, Life and Intellect are separate, but are one. All things have being but not all have life and much less intellect. Do you think that a self-moving entity is equal to an alter-motive one?

>> No.14806028

>>14802426
Holy fuck thanks, it is just shit I slready figured out myself but put through the filter of a verbose autist

I may be safe skipping this one desu

>> No.14806039

>>14805988
It may look that way to you because you have never actually studied it.

>> No.14806048

>>14806028

And that’s the wisest move. A lot of people skip Hegel because they think he’s too hard. Ascended anons will skip Hegel because he is just verbosely expressing shit humans knew for thousands of years already.

>> No.14806060

>>14806048
As I say, if I can't figure it out myself then I'm not ready for it :^)

I will keep thinking silently to myself and read only whatever comes by me by chance. Best of luck, anon

>> No.14806097

>>14806039
I don't think you're fitting in here, anon. I think it's best for both of us if you just leave.

>> No.14806113

>>14806097
Consider reading a book some time, anon. Who knows, you may actually like it.

>> No.14806163

>>14806048
Based. Hegel is a waste of time, I regret the time I spent when I could have been reading something much better.

>> No.14806280

>>14805998
>I don't think that Being, Life and Intellect are separate, but are one. All things have being but not all have life and much less intellect
so, they are not one then. obviously if something could possess being but not life, this means being and life are separate concepts

>> No.14806290

>>14803789
This. Mashallah.

>> No.14806359

>>14806113
Maybe you should go read a book, Anon. Maybe you'll be the one who enjoys it more than even me, Anon. Go on, pick up the book, ANON. Don't you want to enjoy yourself, ANON? FUCK YOU ANON YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME OR MY LIFE

>> No.14806442

>>14802431
But the nazis have a flawed understanding of evolution. They arent truthful at all

>> No.14806457

>>14803789
I am raised muslim and live in saudi, appreciate this advice and will try to apply it

>> No.14806490

>>14806280
They are one but things participate of it in different degrees, therefore different states of being. An intellectual essence is not separated from a vital one, their energies are self-convertive and if they were separated there wouldn't be possible to be one thing and its essence, but two things with two distinct essences.

>> No.14806586

>>14806490
well nothing can exist without being so obviously their energies are "self-convertive" (is there anything whose energies are not?). they are still separate concepts. a rock has being but no life or intellect, a jellyfish has being and life but no intellect, and an AI has being and intellect but no life.