/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17949029]

Where does consciousness actually start for him? Fichte's I, let's say, comes through a pseudo-intellectual intuition and thanks to Anstoß determines itself, creates the Not-I and so on. Absolute I, Ego=Ego, etc. The I is the process of self-consciousness.
Where are the roots of Hegel's consciousness?

[Anonymous No.17949037]

Can you all dumb this talk down for me? I wont contribute cause I'm stupid but id like to read and learn. Gonna bookmark this thread. Pretty please keep it simple, i wanna learn but I can't if your words are in German :3 0_o !

[Anonymous No.17949046]

>>17949029
From what I know, that's the thing, Hegel doesn't have a particular starting place. He doesn't work from first principles.

[Anonymous No.17949072]

>>17949029
The substrate of information, What-is, as given For-me, so that my consciousness awakens in the immediacy of What-is-for-me, a raw sensory field of information from which the first contradictions of isolated objects emerge.

[Anonymous No.17949089]

>>17949029
Consciousness starts with existence itself, whether individual or universal. That's why he eliminated das Ding an sich as a dualistic principle to the transcendental apperception. When he asserts that all is Geist (Weltgeist), this is what he means. It's a little trickier than this because the I comes to be truly known through interaction (contradictions) within Geist itself.

[Anonymous No.17949112]

>>17949046
>>17949072
>>17949089
Thanks for reminding me why I dropped Hegel several times

[Anonymous No.17949114]

>>17949029
Hegel's consciousness is without subject. The philosopher sacrifices himself completely to consciousness viewed as a historical process. This is the key difference with Husserl. For Husserl the philosopher must sacrifice everything that made him a living subject in order to unveil the transcendental ego and its apodictic intuition. But there is still a distinguishable Self in relation to the field of pure consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17949155]

>>17949072
>>17949089
>>17949114
This is literally Hinduism/Mahayan Buddhism, what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.17949178]

>>17949155
Ehh, for Hegel it's still more of a historical or philosophical-intellectual process than meditative or "subjective" in the Buddhist sense.

[Anonymous No.17949240]

>>17949114
Consciousness is an enacting force realizing itself over time. Even himself, as the philosopher realizing it, is consciousness coming to being fully conscious of himself. The end of philosophy corresponds fully with the end of history. There is no introspection of the nature of consciousness in Hegel, because consciousness is in the world, it's an aspect of its evolving state. There is no possibility of enlightenment outside the realization of your role within consciousness's coming to in the world, and even then, it isn't as if you could go against it.

[Anonymous No.17949242]

>>17949240
shit meant to tag>>17949155

[Anonymous No.17949265]

>>17949029
>Fichte's I, let's say, comes through a pseudo-intellectual intuition and thanks to Anstoß determines itself, creates the Not-I and so on. Absolute I, Ego=Ego, etc. The I is the process of self-consciousness.
Gonna disregard the other responses and say that this is true for Hegel also. Consciousness is something that changes through development but if you're looking for the root, the place where it starts, the intuition is crucial for Hegel.

[Anonymous No.17949288]

>>17949265
No, that's just flat out wrong, even someone not involved could tell you that. When you say it starts with the intuition, there has to be something to intuit, ergo it does not "start" with the intuition.

[Anonymous No.17949313]

>>17949265
I highly doubt that, I don't think it fits with his philosophy about the evolution of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17949318]

>>17949288
What's intuited is consciousness as it is in the end. Did you miss the whole circle tah begins with its own end in Hegel or what?

[Anonymous No.17949326]

>>17949313
Can you state why? If you reference existence itself as the start of consciousness instead, then in Hegel this is synonymous with intuition.

[Anonymous No.17949376]

>>17949326
The primitive form of intellectual intuition that we have, according to Fichte, 'creates' consciousness by means of self-consciousness.
Hegel doesn't, like Fichte or Schelling, start with self-consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17949396]

>>17949376
It was wrong to imply that it's the same as Fichte develops it but intuition is still the place where consciousness starts. Without intuition of consciousness, there is no consciousness in Hegel. You're jumping ahead if you start with consciousness itself. Hegel still with This I and This This which Not I and the division between them.

[Anonymous No.17949406]

>>17949029
>start
Does it?

[Anonymous No.17949435]

>>17949037
>:3 0_o
Post bussy.

[Anonymous No.17949492]

>even if the earth was once in a state where it had no living things but only the chemical process, and so on, yet the moment the lightning of life strikes into matter, at once there is present a determinate, complete creature, as Minerva fully armed springs forth from the head of Jupiter.... Man has not developed himself out of the animal, nor the animal out of the plant; each is at a single stroke what it is

don't forget, the made hated evolution.

[Anonymous No.17949494]

>>17949492
Yeah, that's actually making me respect him more.

[Anonymous No.17949535]

>>17949396
How does is really evolve from Fichte's thought then? Can you point out where Hegel said or implied that?
>You're jumping ahead if you start with consciousness itself
That's exactly my question, that's what I want elaborated.
>Hegel still with This I and This This which Not I and the division between them
You missed some words there, I don't want to wrongfully interpret that.

Intuition itself requires something that intuits. That's why it is what it was for Kant, and that's why it is intellectual intuition (albeit a primitive form of one, although Kant fully doubted that we have any form of it) for Fichte. Are you still talking about intellectual intuition? Because intellectual intuition which creates consciousness requires self-consciousness. Elaborate on that part.

[Anonymous No.17950226]

FUCK

[Anonymous No.17950292]

>>17949535
Not that anon and havent read Fichte but I may be able to help unravel this pickle. For Hegel it all starts with an awareness of sensory information, or what I think you're calling intuition. This is consciousness that something-is. However, self-consciousness does not appear for him until slightly later, when consciousness turns back into itself to resolve the contradiction of what separates the something-that-is from the Unity. In examining this contradiction it first gains the notion of the I as being that to which impressions of things are given. Therefore for him self-consciousness is a stage of discovery after base consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17950391]

>>17950292
Yeah, that's mostly what I'm saying, that evolution from consciousness to self-consciousness, and you explained it quite nicely, so I guess I can make my question even clearer. For Hegel the evolution starts with sensuous certainty - it truly is the most basic function. That's when the subject still doesn't realize itself as the subject separate from the object. The moment of consciousness is the moment of separation, the differentiation of subject and object.
What I'm wondering is the origin of the subject (and its object, really). I keep referencing Fichte because to better understand it I relate it to its, let's call it, previous stages. Just like consciousness evolves in Hegel's system, so does a philosophy evolve between philosophers (I understood Kant when I started with Fichte, and I understood Fichte when I started with Hegel).
What I'm wondering about Hegel is what I explain (although poorly and quickly) in OP about Fichte - the I and the Not-I.

[Anonymous No.17950595]

how does he ground his systeeeeeeeeeeeem??

[Anonymous No.17950631]

>>17949155
Nah, it is more like Kashmir Shaivism. Buddhism posits an empty transient consciousness, it is no more nor less than the world.

[Anonymous No.17950996]

bump

[Anonymous No.17951150]

>>17950595
Can you be more specific with your question?

[Anonymous No.17951332]

>>17949029
It all starts with telepathic absorption

[Anonymous No.17951340]

>>17950391
>What I'm wondering is the origin of the subject
it (consciousness) is uncreated and eternal

[Anonymous No.17951381]

WTF?!
How is there no other stepping stone philosopher between Kant and Fichte?
Dude was his student and then somehow immediately made this gigantic leap from Kant’s epistemology to founding whole of German Idealism off X=X?
How? Fichte’s Idealism isn’t the previous simple skepticist’s idealism but somehow involves a dozen Moments between the Ich and the Nicht-Ich. No one else postulated it that way before and it really cant be indirectly found in Kant either.
Fichte is an absolute genius whose insight was a blessing from God. How else postulate all that but from divine blessing?
AHHHHH what is Fichte even? Hegel’s elucidations are nothing when compared to the giant leap Fichte made with his elaborations from the Ur-Ich.
God punished both Fichte and Hegel with a mediocre short life but let the others life till old age. This is no coincidence. Engaged in the faustian deal before Faust was even written.

[Anonymous No.17951505]

>>17949029
this thread has been blessed by the Geist.

[Anonymous No.17951524]

>>17951150
he says things have to be explained from the outside and a thing isnt sufficient to explain itself or it will be a meaningless tautology, but then how does he explain everything, since there is nothing outside of everything REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.17951536]

>>17951381
True, but the beautiful prose of Hegel means so god damn much to me. No philosopher wrote with such life and beauty.

[Anonymous No.17951541]

>>17951536
did you read in german?

[Anonymous No.17951545]

>>17949029
hegel's consciousness starts at around reflective intuition in schelling's system of transcendental idealism. in fichte's science of knowledge this is around deduction of presentation. from the looks of it at least. it's around there where in schelling's system the self attains self-consciousness when it moves into the practical portion with the will. he is careful to argue he concept of the will is itself grounded in other intelligences (though i read this as necessity of the control-system's model than something which needs to unfold in a history of geist. idk, i need to see how hegel argues this for myself, but i am expecting to be disappointed)

im just starting the PoS so could be wrong

>>17950292
fichte starts waaaay before sensory information. the necessity of that needs to be derived... the I not-I is like the first step of self-modelling because you want to mentally separate what is limited from the limiting faculty, otherwise you won't have knowledge of it. hegel afaik presupposes all the hard autistic stuff, or maybe just ignores it? strange man

>>17951381
fichte is an actual genius. he also discovered the sok completely on his own and didn't realize what he did could be connected back to kant. he internalized his teacher so hard that people thought it was kant who wrote the critique of of divine revelation.

honestly, when im done hegel, ill never look back and start reading late fichte to expand my soul and mind. also pic rel is a meme i made

[Anonymous No.17951553]

>>17951536
No.

[Anonymous No.17951625]

>>17951541
Hegel ist wunderschön auf deutsch. Kann mir gar nicht vorstellen, dass andere Sprachen seine genauen Gedankengänge so wiedergeben können, wie er es in der deutschen Sprache konnte.
Es ist wahrlich erhaben Hegel zu lesen.
Dass all dieser Wirrwarr doch so offensichtlich, klar und wahr wird ist ein Erlebnis, das göttlich ist.

[Anonymous No.17951651]

>>17951545
(also for you fags who read hegel without reading fichte, deduction of presentation is around stage 8 in the meme)

[Anonymous No.17951676]

>>17949029
You'll want to read the Preface to the Doctrine of the Concept in the Science of Logic to find out. It's very Kantian/Fichtean in the end, but somehow it isn't the starting point for Hegel. Still, once we hit that point, it looks like their views. Namely, the need for self-consciousness to unify the synthetic unity of the manifold and thus have the possibility of truth and all that stuff.

[Anonymous No.17951684]

>>17951381
Read Holderlin's Judgment and Being essay (two pages) and some Schelling. That is helpful for the stepping stone.

[Anonymous No.17951708]

>>17951684
those are not stepping stones between kant and fichte, but im guessing you misread and was giving a stepping stone between fichte and hegel

[Anonymous No.17951806]

Has anyone read pic related? Is it a good preparation before tackling the four ones?

[Anonymous No.17951822]

>>17951625
Sorry my german is not good enough to comprehend your post. Can you post in english? But I assume you read in the original. Can you say something about Hegel in english?

[Anonymous No.17951830]

>>17951708
Yes I misread completely. The Transcendental Deduction, followed by Reinhold's formulation of Kantianism in one principle, followed by Schulze's attack in Aenesidemus, and Fichte's reply to Aenesidemus, are probably the best stepping stone. There's a collection, Between Kant and Hegel, which has the Aenesidemus excerpts and Fichte's reply relevant to understanding the stepping stone.
>>17951381
It's not simple to understand where Fichte gets from X=X to the I positing itself but it helps to actually read the guy's two introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre and the first chapter of one of its editions (contained in the Dan Breazeale Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre volume), before diving into the early parts of the Science of Knowledge translation by Heath and Lachs. But the main idea to remember is that in the identity judgment of A=A, there's what looks like a predicate (the second A) and a copula (the "is"), so A=A looks like a regular "A is B" predicative judgment. In reality, the "is" of identity might not be entirely the same as the "is" of predication. That's beside the point. Anyway, A=A is a formal truth which we know necessarily, but Fichte feels it has to be grounded in something, so he grounds it in self-consciousness, the recognition that the subject I is also the object of self-consciousness. But that recognition is tricky because, insofar as the object is object, it's impossible by normal analysis to understand how we could really recognize it as being the subject. Yet we do. Anyway, he thinks this must mean a sort of identity of subject and object which then explains most of the idealism that follows from that. But it's a lot easier to understand the motivations for the idealism not in terms of the whole I=I/A=A thing, but instead in terms of answering the problems of positing things in themselves that Schulze complains about and the fact that Kant's criterion of truth depends on transcendental apperception, followed by transcendentally ideal categories and concepts and forms of intuition mixed with empirical affections, all of that looks like it needs no things in themselves for a criterion of truth, something Hegel also realized in the Preface to the Doctrine of the Concept as shown here >>17951676 so the motivation for subjective idealism starts like that.

[Anonymous No.17951968]

IT *rip* SHOULDN'T *rip* BE *rip* TRUE *rip* BUT *rip* IT *rip* ALWAYS *rip* APPEARS *rip* TRUE *rip* HOW *rip* DOES *rip* HE *rip* DO *rip* IT? *rip*

[Anonymous No.17953531]

damn

[Anonymous No.17953562]

>>17951545
FIchte also solved economics with the Closed Commercial State

[Anonymous No.17954298]

>>17949155
Kant and Schopenhauer are closer to Hinduism/Buddhism than Hegel.

[Anonymous No.17954319]

>>17949029
take your meds
>and indeed in the years just past I have met with expositions of the Kantian philosophy in the writings of the Hegelians which actually reach the incredible. How should the minds that in the freshness of youth have been strained and ruined by the nonsense of Hegelism, be still capable of following Kant's profound investigations ? They are early accustomed to take the hollowest jingle of words for philosophical thoughts, the most miserable sophisms for acuteness, and silly conceits for dialectic, and their minds are disorganised through the admission of mad combinations of words to which the mind torments and exhausts itself in vain to attach some thought. No Critique of Reason can avail them, no philosophy, they need a medicina mentis, first as a sort of purgative, un petit cours de senscommunologie, and then one must further see whether, in their case, there can even be any talk of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17955235]

>>17953562
>Adler argues that The Closed Commercial State presents an understanding of the nature of history, and the relation of history to politics, that differs significantly from the teleological notions of history advanced by Schelling and later Hegel. This critical scholarly edition includes a German-English glossary, annotations, and page references to both major German editions.
WTF how have i never heard of this until now?

[Anonymous No.17955374]

>>17955235
Idk but Fichte considered it his most important work although it's widely ignored

[Anonymous No.17955419]

>>17949112
Thank you for reminding me why I dropped your axiomatic candy ass on the concrete back in grade school

[Anonymous No.17955424]

>>17955419
oooooo

[Anonymous No.17955542]

>>17949029
someone explain to me what /mu/band has to do with hegel ??

[Anonymous No.17956453]

I'm surprised this thread is still alive, considering the amount of useless, shit and troll threads constantly being made.

>>17955542
/mu/band?

[Anonymous No.17956488]

>>17949492
he died 20 years before On the Origin of the Species, can you really blame him?

[Anonymous No.17957673]

>>17949492
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.17957915]

>>17956453
not him but my bloody valentine and especially their album loveless has always been a /mu/ favorite. I don't understand what they have to do with Hegel either probably just a fun edit.

[Anonymous No.17958261]

Small dick energy, midwit thread

>Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17958530]

>>17951524
>there is nothing outside of everything
You said it yourself, Nothing is the ground of Everything.

[Anonymous No.17958599]

>>17958261
seething

[Anonymous No.17958607]

>>17958530
how does nothing explain everything? whats outside of nothing? if everything is outside of nothing, whats outside the sublation of nothing and everything?

[Anonymous No.17958609]

>>17955235
they probably didnt want you to know...

[Anonymous No.17958708]

Consciousness is the beginning.

[Anonymous No.17959560]

The roots are to be found in what he writes about the soul in Antrophology.