bare minimum to understand Hegel

[Anonymous No.18628635]

Don't know much about him but lately I get the feeling history is reaching towards a junction point where humanity will either become disciplined and realize their species and generation spanning god given purpose to continue to progress or we will go extinct due to overpopulation or climate change or just not leaving earth before the sun explodes. From what I've heard about Hegel's theory of history it seems related to this idea. There was also that thread here about what a man who feels he is endowed with ultimate purpose should read and someone said Hegel. I haven't really read any philosophy besides some Plato and Kierkegaard but here is my current reading list to understand Hegel that i've compiled using my knowledge of philosophy acquired just from browsing here

Plato
Complete Works

Aristotle
Metaphysics
Physics
Nicomachean Ethics
Eudemian Ethics

Descartes
Discourse on Method

Spinoza
Ethics

Böhme
The Signature of All Things
The Way to Christ

Kant
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
The Critique of Pure Reason
The Critique of Practical Judgement
The Critique of the Power of Judgement

Fichte
Foundations of the Science of Knowledge

Schelling
Philosophy and Religion
Philosophical Inquiries into the Essence of Human

Is this sufficient? Is there any secondary literature worth reading? I'm also thinking of skipping Plato because I've already the Trial and Death, Phaedo and Timaeus and I don't see the benefit of reading everything. I might just read The Republican and Laws and move on.

[Anonymous No.18628644]

>>18628635
>The Republican
The Republic* lol

[Anonymous No.18628796]

For fucks sake. What is it with making these giant lists of works that nobody is going to work through anyway.
Here's a suggestion skip everything and just read "Hegel" by Beiser. If you're still interested afterwards you can continue reading and fill in the gaps.

[Anonymous No.18628804]

>>18628635
You cannot understand Hegel without this

[Anonymous No.18628807]

>>18628804
then how did the guy who wrote this book understand hegel to write this book if he didn't have this book?

[Anonymous No.18628827]

>>18628807
That's why he wrote it, so he would have it. He just goes over Hegel's sources and influences. I mean doing that works too, but just reading this book saves you years of research.

[Anonymous No.18628831]

>>18628827
ok thanks

[Anonymous No.18628924]

What if I'm contemplating spending a large portion of my life deeply invested in the study of a particular philosopher. Would it be best to study in my native language if possible? I read and write in only English desu. Or does reading a couple translations close the language barrier enough for a clear communication of idea to reader?

My intuition from thinking about studying Hegel is that "Hegelian" is necessarily someone who disagrees with someone else about what Hegel was saying, even in those who grew up using the language it was written in.

[Anonymous No.18628940]

>>18628804
prove that statement.

[Anonymous No.18628947]

>>18628940
Just look at interpretations of Hegel before this was released

[Anonymous No.18628968]

>>18628635
>I'm also thinking of skipping Plato because I've already the Trial and Death, Phaedo and Timaeus and I don't see the benefit of reading everything.
No, no, you definitely have to read all of Plato, definitely for Hegel, but for all of the Western canon as well. There are are so many completely essential works left as well, the Protagoras, Gorgias, Cratylus, Meno, Euthyphro, Symposium, Republic, (and especially the following which are his late works and signify a turn in his philosophy) Phaedrus, Philebus, Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Critias, Laws, etc.

[Anonymous No.18628990]

>>18628947
Read a stack of books written prior in order to compare instead of the recommended one? ok. what about interpretations of Hegel after this was released? I'll read those too. The claim is that I can not understand it without your recommendation. Where is that pure reason.

[Anonymous No.18629007]

>>18628990
Read my post here >>18628827
If you want to be autistic about it I'm sure a few people intuited rightly about what hegel was after before this book, but only those that were familiar with his milieu and influences. And even after this book was released, academia has clung to their own shallow materialistic interpretation.
Do those disclaimers make you feel better now?

[Anonymous No.18629363]

>>18628635
You don't really need to read most of those philosophers (specifically: Plato, Aristotle, most of Kant, Fichte), a basic textbook understanding of them will be enough, and for the others you don't need to read everything. For example, you could read only the first 2 sections of Spinoza's Ethics and you would get everything you need to know about him to understand Hegel. If you really want to read all those authors, here's some minor corrections on your reading list:
-most platonic dialogues are not relevant for Hegel. The most relevant ones are the late dialogues, like Sophist, Parmenides, Timaeus, Philebus, etc
-for Aristotle you definetely don't need to read two ethics, the Nichomachean will suffice (and, frankly, the NE too is not relevsnt either). That said, your list is missing the Organon, which alongside Physics, Metaphysics and De Anima, is the most relevant book by Aristotle for Hegel (especially in the Science of Logic).
-for Descartes read the Meditations instead (or both, they're both short, you could do it in one or two afternoons)
-for Kant you can ditch the first 2 sections of the Groundworks (which are theoretically insignificant even from the kantian standpoint). The rest are all necessary, but it must be said that unless you're reading the Science of Logic at a PhD level, then Hegel does not deal with Kant in too much detail, which means that, for the moment, you can study his work on textbooks.
-Hegel barely cares about Fichte and basically never engage with his arguments (in fact Hegel denies that Fichte even made arguments: in his opinion he only made assertions). You can sagely study his DoS on textbooks
-Schelling is absolutely essential, and he is by far the most important (and, unfortunately, least read) source to understand Hegel: especially to understand his Phenomenology. In fact I'll just tell you that crucial parts of his system are unintelligible without Schelling. Ironically, Hegel does not engage much with his transcendental philosophy (since he thinks that Schelling's Principle, the absolute indifferentiated unity, is grounded on a trivial mistake), and instead focuses on his philosophy of nature. So, first of all, none of the texts you've mentioned are not required to understand Hegel (although they're certainly worth reading outside of the scope of reading Hegel). The absolutely essential text is Schelling' First Outline (from which Hegel takes A LOT of his terminology), and if you're a completionist you could also read his System of Transcendental Philosophy, and his Exposition (but again, these last 2 are not necessary).

To your list I would also add Jacobi, especially his Letters on Spinoza, which is an absolutely essential text for Hegel, since they (and Jacobi's theory on immediate certainity/faith in general) constitute the basis of the first sections of many of his important work (just to name 3: the PhG, the SoL and the Lectures on Philosophy of Religion).

[Anonymous No.18629371]

>>18628804
This is a wonderful book and a wonderful introduction to hermeticism (and philosophical mysticism in general), but its theses on Hegel's system (e.g. that Hegel was committed to any sort of non-discursive mysticism) are simply nonsensical (as nonsensical as anti-metaphysical readings like the ones of Pinkard and Pippin)

[Anonymous No.18629393]

>>18629007
Yes. I love you for replying.
t.autistic

[Anonymous No.18629882]

>>18628796
Who's Beiser? Is he trustworthy?

[Anonymous No.18629938]

>>18628635
>Is this sufficient? Is there any secondary literature worth reading?
Karl Kerenyi ; Studies on Labyrinths

Jan Assmann; Moses, the Egyptian.

Byung Chul Han; Shanzai

[Anonymous No.18630001]

>>18629363

eloquent! much gratitude for your existence

[Anonymous No.18630096]

>>18630001
Wtf is that picture