/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18354590]

If the best you can do to convey your ideas to others is to write them down in a lengthy book that nobody is actually 100% sure what you mean, your ideas aren’t that important.

Stirner’s Spook is an important idea. It can be explained in a few sentences.

[Anonymous No.18354779]

>>18354590
>filtered

[happiness !!5I6j9kLHLQc No.18354789]

>>18354590
>It can be explained in a few sentences.
You can't explain anything in a few sentences, you can only state the main ideas of a work. Hegel's main ideas in the Phenomenology can also be briefly stated. It is the argument to support them that is lengthy and obscure.

>nobody is actually 100% sure what you mean,
This applies to every kind of written material.

[Anonymous No.18354894]

Who’s the patrician choice?

[Anonymous No.18354935]

>>18354789
True but I think PoS is a few stages beyond that, it’s impenetrability (to some) comes second to fucking Finnegans Wake

[Anonymous No.18355154]

>>18354590
PoS is not simply easy, it is intuitive

[Anonymous No.18355169]

>>18354894
Schop

[Anonymous No.18355250]

>>18354590

[Anonymous No.18355287]

>>18354590
As I have said in other Hegel threads, you're better advised to start with another book if you want to understand Hegel, unless you're an excellent and erudite reader. There's no way around it, the PoS is simply badly written and in desperate need of editing (unfortunately Hegel died shortly after he started preparing a secojd edition), and it is better understood after one has learnt Hegel's terminology and modus operandi from other books of his. Hegel is not actually a bad writer, his lectures and his other big books (apart from, maybe, the Encyclopedia) are extremely accessible, even the Science of Logic. Hell, Hegel's original claim to fame was based on the accessibility of his lectures (they were a real hit).
Reading the first chapter of the Science of Logic, up to the section of Quantity, and maybe one or two lecture cycles will turn the PhG into an accessible (albeit still hard) reading. Without that context (and some more: for example you should be familiar with Schelling's philosophy, including his Naturalphilosophie), the PhG is completely unintelligible.

[Anonymous No.18355292]

>>18354894
Schopenhauer is clearly the pseud choice. It's worth picking only if you're an artist who wants to use philosophy as self-help

[Anonymous No.18355404]

>>18355287
This, never understood the “HEGEL OMG SO HARD BIG WORDS ALL OVER THE PLACE” meme, the PoS could have been written much better given more time. Thus being comparable (difficulty-wise) to one of Schellings works

[Anonymous No.18355437]

The confusion only comes when retards make this their starting point in Hegel's reading. And they choose it because it is his most famous and want to have the book as a status symbol rather than actually understand what he is trying to say.
Hegel anticipated all of this by the way, which is why he made a concise 20 page summary of his entire philosophical system in the intro to the Encyclopedia Logic, but basically no casuals know that exist, so they get filtered by the advanced reading that they shouldn't even be reading in the first place.

[Anonymous No.18355455]

>>18354590
Fuck if you think that’s hard try reading this

[Anonymous No.18355540]

>>18355455
If they're French and they wrote after 1950, it's most likely trash.

[Anonymous No.18355736]

A Buddhist monk who actually read the Phenomenology of Spirit...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/8iKFVdmjYq2N/