How to go about reading Hegel

[Anonymous No.17423538]

Planning on starting pic related; I have roughly 8 months to devote to the project. What secondary sources should I read alongside PoS to help me understand it? Is there any work of Hegel's that I should read beforehand?

[Multi Kulti Ulti CHAD No.17423540]

fuck it - Kojeve
what are you seeking to undrstand?

[Anonymous No.17423544]

>>17423538
What other history of philosophy have you read?

Anyway, I would never *advise* reading Hegel, so take this as harm reduction: at least some basic familiarity with Kant and Aristotle is probably a good idea when going into Hegel. Doesn't have to be anything deep, though of course deeper is better here.

>What secondary sources should I read alongside PoS to help me understand it?
Pretty much any textbook on Hegel should work well. Pick one up from an academic library, if you can, libgen if you can't.

[Anonymous No.17423565]

No other work of Hegel before, in fact you should read the phenomenology and greater logic before any of his other works.

The Drink Before: A good general grounding in the history of philosophy, Kant's CoPR if you haven't already, Beiser's German Idealism, Pinkard's German Philosophy

The Cigarette After: Malabou's The Future of Hegel, Comay's Mourning Sickness, Zizek's Less Than Nothing

[Anonymous No.17423592]

>>17423538
i havnt attempted hegel yet, but generally a good introduction and commentary is helpful

[Anonymous No.17423602]

>>17423540
>>17423544
>>17423565

>>17423540
>>17423544
>>17423565

Thank you guys for the initial suggestions. I will ultimately be studying the application of Hegelian philosophy to literature after I've finished PoS (which I've allotted eight months to do). I have a pre-existing knowledge of German and Aristotelian philosophy, although I wouldn't say it's particularly deep. I think maybe rereading Kant's CoPR is a good idea, as someone suggested. But I'm also looking for a real reliable secondary source to guide me along. I've heard horror stories abt PoS.

[Anonymous No.17423791]

>>17423602
hegel's ladder by h. s. harris is probably the most detailed secondary source in english

[Anonymous No.17424147]

>>17423540
Don't. He's reading Hegel through marxism.

Somewhat related: I think that Hegel's giving me a BDSM fetish.

[Anonymous No.17424161]

>>17423791
>>17423540
Hegel's ladder and Kojeve is a treat for when you already know some Hegel

[Anonymous No.17425046]

Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism (vol 1)
Popkin, History of Scepticism
Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination
Some history of philosophy up ot Hegel, like Copleston
Berlin, The Romantic Revolution
Beiser, The Fate of Reason
Beiser, Romantic Imperative
Beiser, German Idealism
Taylor, Hegel
Beiser, Hegel
Baugh, French Hegel
Gadamer, Hegel Studies


The first couple things on the secondary source list are to give you background information on 18th c. fin de siecle milieu. There are many other possible suggestions but the idea is you should at least get something. Understanding Hegel in a vacuum is impossible. This is sadly what most of the French do.

In terms of other primary sources you should ideally have an ok grasp of Kant's critiques, Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre, Schelling's early writings (pre-1804). The more early modern philosophy you are familiar with the better although you don't necessarily have to read it. You will be inundated in descriptions of Spinoza from the secondary sources just mentioned for example but you could pick and choose things you think are vital to understand.

You should also read a few early works of Hegel and other German idealists. Check out Beiser's anthology Early Political Writings of the German Romantics. More importantly check out Between Kant and Hegel, an annotated anthology of selections from people like Reinhold, Maimon I believe, etc. These are important for understanding Kant's critical project not in a vacuum but in terms of how people actually received it, and then how it was mediated to Hegel and co.

You can get a lot by reading more contemporary "takes" on Hegel, e.g. by Frenchmen, but I would be wary of deifying them. Kojeve is interesting but he is not Hegel. Hippolyte is interesting but not Hegel. You can learn from them better once you have your own two feet firmly planted.

>>17423602
Just saw this, you will probably be okay then. You might skip right ahead to Beiser and/or Taylor (Beiser is shorter, but Taylor gives a useful "total" account that also sparked a lot of the modern revival of Hegel studies). I think a few supplementary secondary sources would be good either way - the more you know about the "feel" of the 18th century, as the meeting point of various philolosophical tissues that had not yet been woven together into a single organism, the better. Sources like Funkenstein and Popkin can help you get the big picture of what people thought were the great philosophical crises of the age.

PoS isn't that bad, it's just systematically ambiguous. Read Kolakowski's first chapter (70 pages) first and you'll get a reasonable and intelligent reading of it. Gadamer is also refreshingly unintimidated by Hegel and short. That's why I say beware of Frenchmen. They see "systematically ambiguous" and they immediately think "I could impress a lot of bourgeous Parisians by pretending to understand it, then, and just never mentioning that I myself find it ambiguous too..."

[Anonymous No.17425060]

>>17423538
Lenin's philosophical notebooks

[Anonymous No.17425344]

>>17423538
Depends on what you want to get out of reading it. I would recommend some prior philosophy, especially Greeks and perhaps some Greek plays. Also Kant. This video is also good: https://youtu.be/9Z1zY39EKbs

Remember that truth is the bacchanalian revel in which an unintoxicated member is not to be found.

[Anonymous No.17425369]

>>17423538
All of Kant.

[Anonymous No.17425947]

>>17425046
Thank you so much, great advice. I've written this all down.

[Anonymous No.17425966]

>>17423538
Read his Encyclopedia. The Phenomenology was meant as a "How it's made", while the Encyclopedia is the full system. Today people care more about the Phenomenology, but the main point was the system laid out in full in the Encyclopedia.

[Anonymous No.17426523]

>>17425966
>lesser logic is the full system
kek

[Anonymous No.17426997]

>>17426523
wym by lesser logic

[Anonymous No.17427032]

>>17426997
The Encyclopedia is the called the lesser logic, an abbreviated version of his system intended as a textbook to be read in conjunction with his lectures. Science of Logic is called the greater logic, which was too advanced for his students, so he wrote the lesser.

[Anonymous No.17427058]

>>17427032
Lesser Logic is just the first part of Encyclopedia.

[Anonymous No.17428689]

Bump