/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16773345]

How the FUCK do I understand Hegel? His writing makes zero sense.

[Anonymous No.16773363]

Easy, you don't.

[Anonymous No.16773366]

>>16773345
Hegel is a hack. Skip to Schopie.

[Anonymous No.16773375]

1. pick any random chapter of phenomenology
2. write your own book doing your own interpretation of that chapter, basically build your own shit on top of that chapter
3. never read anything else by hegel, except that chapter
4. now you are a hegel scholar on the level of marx, deleuze, kaufman, kojeke or zizek

[Anonymous No.16773384]

What I don't understand is how Hegel can be called an anti-foundationalist when his theory of history strikes me as profoundly foundationalist

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYYIIins No.16773438]

IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND, OR EVEN TO UNDERSTAND, GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY YOU SHOULD STOP TRYING, LEST YOU WASTE YOURSELF IN VAIN.

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY IS AKIN TO A DELICACY —DELECTABLE, BUT NOT VERY NUTRITIOUS; MORE A LUXURY OF THE FEW THAN A NECESSITY OF THE MANY—; HIS PHILOSOPHY IS A BEAUTIFUL DEVIATION FROM THE TRUE PATH, LEADING TO A DEAD END.

[Anonymous No.16773452]

>>16773438
Hegel was just a cuck basedboy. Heidegger owned him.

[Anonymous No.16773456]

>>16773438
Lol nice try you pseud fuck, but I know you haven't read him (and understood him)

[Anonymous No.16773464]

someone post a paragraph, I’ll decipher it

[Anonymous No.16773472]

>>16773464
Φ 138. Force, as thus determined, since it is taken as force, or as reflected into itself, is the one side of its notion and meaning: but a substantiated extreme, and, moreover, the extreme established with the specific character of oneness. In virtue of this, the subsistence of the differentiated elements falls outside it, and is something other than it. Since of necessity it has to be this subsistence, i.e., to express, externalize itself, its expression takes the form that the other approaches it and incites it. But, in point of fact, since it must necessarily express itself, it has within itself this other, which to begin with took up a position as something outside it. We must withdraw from the position which sets up force as a one, and its essence – self-expressions – an other approaching it from outside. Force is rather itself this universal medium for the subsistence of the moments as differentiated elements; or, in other words, it has expressed or externalized itself, and what was to be something outside it attracting or inciting it is really force itself. It thus exists now as the medium of the differentiated elements which are evolved. But all the same it is in its very nature one and single, and has essentially the form of being that in which these subsisting elements are superseded. This oneness is in consequence now something other than, external to, force, since force takes its place as the medium for the elements to exist in; and force therefore has this its essential being outside itself. Since, however, it must of necessity be this essential nature, which as yet it is not affirmed to be, this other comes forward soliciting or inciting it to reflect into self, to turn this pseudo-external factor into an aspect of itself; in other words, this other cancels its external expression. In point of fact, however, it is force itself that is thus reflected into self, that is the sublation of the external expression. The oneness vanishes as it appeared, viz. as something external; force is that very other, is force thrust back into itself.

[Anonymous No.16773474]

>>16773345
Serious answer here.
Read first:
-Kant's three critiques
-Fichte's 1796 Doctrine
-Schelling's System of Trascendental Idealism

From these 5 texts you will get most of Hegel's terminology, and you will understand what Hegel was trying to do. Without these 5 texts Hegel is downright unintellegible.
Don't trust those who claim that Hegel is obsc7re while not having read these texts. By the way, Schopenhauer (who, as a critic of other philosophers, is a complete hack) is in this group

[Anonymous No.16773476]

>>16773474
Kant is hard to read too though. He's very wishy washy with his terminology

[Anonymous No.16773477]

>>16773472
>a paragraph from the philosophy of nature
That's downright dishonest.

[Anonymous No.16773482]

>>16773472
>Force, as thus determined, since it is taken as force, or as reflected into itself, is the one side of its notion and meaning: but a substantiated extreme, and, moreover, the extreme established with the specific character of oneness.
Am I complete brainlet or is this unintelligble gibberish?

[Anonymous No.16773486]

>>16773476
>He's very wishy washy with his terminology
You got it backwards, he is extremely autistic, rigorous and tecunical about his terminology (kinda like Hegel). Chances are that you know nothing about scholastic terminology. If that's the case, read either Wolff's or Baumgarten's Metaphysics: you will quickly discover that Kant used almost no neologism in the 3 critiques.

[Anonymous No.16773490]

>>16773482
It's from the Encyclopedia. Before that whole section (Philosophy of Nature) there was a whole other section (The Science of Logic) in which Hegel gives a definition for almost every term included in the passage you've quoted. Trying to read the Philosophy of Nature whitout the Science of Logic is downright useless, and the same can be said about reading the Science of Logic eithout the Phenomenology of Spirit.

So, no, you're not a brainlet and it is not gibberish. You're just ignorant about the context of these sentences.

[Anonymous No.16773494]

>>16773345
Read this

[Anonymous No.16773495]

>>16773472
Force expresses itself along with other elements through force...

[Anonymous No.16773503]

>>16773494
I'm convinced nobody actually understands Hegel in the way Hegel actually intended to be understood based on the fact his writings are used by pretty much every single ideology on the political spectrum.

[Anonymous No.16773520]

>>16773503
Boring, the same can be said about any other philosopher too. There are Aristotelian feminists ffs

[Anonymous No.16773664]

>>16773366
Extremely based.

[Anonymous No.16773734]

>>16773495
>the floor is made out of floor

[Anonymous No.16773774]

>>16773477
it's from The Phenomenology of Spirit – A –Consciousness – III. Force and the Understanding –The World of Appearance and the Supersensible World (1)

[Anonymous No.16773784]

>>16773474
reading any german is retarded

[Anonymous No.16773819]

>>16773384
What do you think anti-foundationalism means? When Hegel is called that in contemporary philosophy they usually mean it in epistemological terms. Hegel does not believe that we are imposing concepts or deriving them from sense-data or logical "givens." Instead, as in the sense-certainty chapter, we are confronting the world as both conceptual and particular. He's not that far of from Kant in those respects, save for the fact that he doesn't want to entertain any kind of dualism that Kant supposedly introduces (between thing in itself and phenomena, between intuition and concept.)