Hegel: radical mystic or atheist?

[Anonymous No.18786449]

I've been reading Hegel's Aesthetics and I can't figure out if Hegel is an atheist who thinks that God or the "Absolute" is just the destiny of the rational mind unfolding, or if he's literally talking about the monotheistic Christian "God"

What's going on with this nigga?

[Anonymous No.18786486]

>>18786449

[Anonymous No.18786489]

>>18786486
yeah i kinda skimmed this, wasn't really satisfactory. I've read the Corupus Hermeticum and it seemed pretty fucking gay. Of course there's the conspiracy that it was forged by the Medici family during the Rennaisance by a hired Plato translator. I think that's probably the case considering it's nonsensical horse shit drenched in Rennaisance-tier "le' rationality".

That being said, I can sort of see the influence considering Hegel thinks God lives through the mind and shit like that, very similiar to the nonsense in the Corpus Hermeticum.

[Anonymous No.18786505]

>>18786449
>>18786486
>>18786489

hey can you help me with a question: When someone replies with a really obscure niche book and then OP replies with "yeah i skimmed this"... are you specialised in Hegel and therefore know everything? or do you also know a shitton of secondary literature on heidegger? im kinda confused and i dont know many philophy students or NEETS so please let me know

[Anonymous No.18786551]

>>18786505
can't tell if bait but

people have been shilling that stupid Hegel and Hermeticism book on here for years like it's some huge scandal. I just skimmed over a PDF of it to get the main claims and ideas, and I had already read the Corupus Hermeticum anyway so I noticed some of the "hermetic" ideas when reading Hegel anyway.

I know absolutely nothing about Heidegger. I just study philosophy in my spare time for fun

[Anonymous No.18786602]

>>18786449
DAHYUN
Sorry what was the question?

[Anonymous No.18786612]

>>18786551
ookay yeah im relatively new so didnt know about that

[Anonymous No.18786620]

If you can't tell the difference between Meister Eckhart and Hegel, you might be a K-pop fan.

[Anonymous No.18786627]

Both.

[Anonymous No.18786631]

>>18786505
it’s not an obscure niche book and some NEETs know more than academics they just cba to do anything but read and fap and shitpost

[Anonymous No.18786637]

>>18786620
What a moronic comment. First of all:

Kpop is the hegelian process of the Absolute unfolding itself into the world through the aesthetic. It is the Geist within the Zeitgeist expressing Capital, Universalism, as well as contemporary identity (idols being micro-managed by overseers to create perfection). Of course, circle jerking retards pat themselves on the back for disliking Kpop as a knee-jerk reaction because they saw an obnoxious gif on twitter or something

Second of all, if it hasn't occured to you that Meister Eckhart was essentially a Heraclitan styled philosopher living in the 1300's being forced to use certain language to avoid being execucted by the church, you might be retarded

Third of all, explain the clear distinction between Eckhart's mysticism and Hegel's philosophy

[Anonymous No.18786641]

>>18786449
Hegel was a pagan. He was a devotee of Thor.

[Anonymous No.18786705]

>>18786637
One, whatever you have to tell yourself.
Two, I think there's a fair bit of latitude allowable while remaining a christian, and I think Eckhart was one. If pseudo-Dionysius and John Dee are christians, Eckhart can be one.
Three, why are you reading his lectures on aesthetics if you want to know the answer to this question? Hegel's "christianity" is literally a ruse and his mysticism is nonexistent. He happens to have points of agreement with people like Boehme and Eckhart because he read them, but he also esteemed Spinoza and his "subject" is substance-becoming-subject which is basically the negation of anything mystical. His dialectic is basically scrutable to himself alone, who said it is completed, so he's literally Wise and pretty much God's best friend if not one of the hypostases. Also J-pop girls are more attractive.

[Anonymous No.18786725]

>>18786705
>Two, I think there's a fair bit of latitude allowable while remaining a christian, and I think Eckhart was one. If pseudo-Dionysius and John Dee are christians, Eckhart can be one.

i aint saying Eckhert wasn't a Christian in the same way you wouldn't say Heraclitus wasn't a "pagan"

>Hegel's "christianity" is literally a ruse
so you're saying he's an atheist then

>why are you reading his lectures on aesthetics
looking for theories on aesthetics that deboonk the "art is subject duuude" horseshit that has colonized the high-arts and made them into a meaningless feel good secular humanist project

>J-pop girls
yawn

[Anonymous No.18786734]

>>18786637
Post best fancams.

[Anonymous No.18786794]

>>18786449
hegel's philosophy denies the Being, therefore hegel is not a mystic. He himself often mocks the "sweet bread" of the mystic, the meaninglessness of the brahman and the foolishness of the indian "meditators", "who spend their whole life looking at the point of their nose".
but hegel has many points in common with the mystics. first of all, the ideas that:
1. the sensible world is false
2. math is false
for him, reality is:
1. his dialectical "logic" (which is at best common sense)
2. "human" (basically european) "history" (basically from christianity1)

[Anonymous No.18786819]

>>18786725
>i aint saying Eckhert wasn't a Christian in the same way you wouldn't say Heraclitus wasn't a "pagan"

Ok, fair enough.
Yes, I would say he's an atheist tied up in knots to have a certain effect and remain respectable.
I'm not familiar with his aesthetics. Also I'm not sure you can deboonk tasteless people. Aesthetics is one of those things so all-encompassing and tied in with one's ethic and way of life that most people who write on it probably shouldn't. Do you want some analytic nerd professor's rigorous deboonking of Jeff Koons? I think I'd rather take Jeff Koons and a sense of humor.

[Anonymous No.18786866]

>>18786637
>Kpop is the hegelian process of the Absolute unfolding itself into the world through the aesthetic
Hegel did not believe all forms of art were externalizing or that they all revealed the Absolute to the extent that those participating it were externalized and "othered" i.e. Greek and Eastern art. He believed Christian humanist art was the only form of art that truly revealed the Absolute. I think liking kpop is fine but kpop isnt some sublime process of self-realization. Dancing singing pretty girls have existed since before Greece and Hegel believed those civilizations were incomplete because their aesthetic was simply a desire to consume the sensuous through religion and music.

[Anonymous No.18786880]

>>18786725
>looking for theories on aesthetics that deboonk the "art is subject duuude" horseshit that has colonized the high-arts and made them into a meaningless feel good secular humanist project
Any recs beside hegel's aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.18786891]

>>18786449
Mystical atheist

[Anonymous No.18786910]

>>18786794
>the meaninglessness of the brahman and the foolishness of the indian "meditators", "who spend their whole life looking at the point of their nose".
It's ironic because that's what Hegel was doing his whole life, except instead of focusing on the infinite he was focused on his pen and paper over the arch of his nose. The Indians, which is probably why Hegel insulted them, had already achieved metaphysical perfection (which goes beyond Being and non-Being, unlike mystics) centuries before Hegel was born.

[Anonymous No.18786912]

>>18786866
I know, I’m half-memeing. You could probably say the impressionists were the last high artists expressing the absolute, as the A-tonalist Schoenberg shit is basically anti-absolute, or anti-logos

I think Hegel said the Greeks fully expressed themselves through their art, and the Romantic Christian idea is too abstract and complex to every fully express through art.

>>18786880
No so far hegel is the best one I’ve found. Most theories on aesthetics are sickeningly idiotic, I’d like to see Schopenhauer’s aesthetics next, maybe some of Catholic writers too

[Anonymous No.18786926]

>>18786910
Philosophers are hilariously un-self aware and vain

>>18786910
Unironically maybe

[Anonymous No.18786932]

>>18786489
>drenched in Rennaisance-tier "le' rationality".
Did you even read it? Also, you realize "Logos" is usually translated as reason, and the text is highly translation-dependent, much like many ancient texts?

[Anonymous No.18786958]

>>18786932
I read the entire thing

I only meant that it’s ultimate effect was the zeitgeist of the renaissance. Basically the mind is the router for divinity and NPCs are subhuman. I could believe it was forged during the Renaissance.

No I did not think it was highly dependent on translation. You’re saying the English translation is missing more of the “metaphysical” references like Logos then?

[Anonymous No.18786968]

>>18786631
That’s why I put them in the same category of peoplewho would read such things libtard

[Anonymous No.18786988]

>>18786958
>I only meant that it’s ultimate effect was the zeitgeist of the renaissance
Sure, it possibly had an unintended effect on the Renaissance through misinterpretation (just like alchemy in general, which was misinterpreted as an proto-scientific experimental system by the same Renaissance cowboys), but it remains above all of this considered in its own right.
>considering it's nonsensical horse shit drenched in Rennaisance-tier "le' rationality".
It can only be considered nonsensical from that very same Renaissance rationalist perspective. The Corpus Hermeticum is fundamentally a mythological-wisdom text, it is not rationalist considered by itself in the slightest. It is full of mythological symbolism and connections, "reason" (totally different to the rationalist conception) only enters into the text via "Logos", which is generally better translated as "word", which has its own esoteric meaning in that context (basically, as a form-giving principle). How would rationalists explain Father-Mind implanting the word into the womb of nature and giving form to her, for example? What does this even mean from a rationalist perspective?
> Basically the mind
Which mind? Nous, or the human mind? The latter is hardly referenced in the text.

[Anonymous No.18786998]

>>18786988
Geist, nigga

[Anonymous No.18787013]

>>18786912
>You could probably say the impressionists were the last high artists expressing the absolute, as the A-tonalist Schoenberg shit is basically anti-absolute, or anti-logos
Atonal is universitonal: the opposites coincide. The use of the twelve-tone chromatic scale is the culmination of the expression of the Absolute, or the return to the noise of the primordial chaotic All (the prima materia) existing pre-creation. It becomes a representation of Pascal’s Sphere, where the centre is nowhere and therefore everywhere. Absolute chaos is absolute order, and the Ouroboros is the macrocosmic structure of everything.

[Anonymous No.18787023]

>>18786988
Yeah ancient logos fanatics were a brand of rationalism, just the vibe I get from the corpus hermeticum

[Anonymous No.18787024]

>>18786449
>Believes in God
>Philosophy is God-centric
>is Hegel atheist?
do fedoras really?

[Anonymous No.18787027]

>>18787024
citation needed

[Anonymous No.18787028]

>>18786912
thanks, k-anon!

[Anonymous No.18787034]

>>18787013
>primordial chaotic
Chaos isn’t real

Atonal is just an incel rage post in the form of music, nothing in consciousness was advanced through that dogshit

[Anonymous No.18787038]

>>18786998
So you think that Hegel's immanent Geist (which is usually translated as "spirit" in German anyway, which is "pneuma" in ancient Greek. I think the German word which better approximates Nous in this case is Seele: soul) is equivalent to the Hermetic Nous, which exists apart from Nature and gives her form out of love of his own reflection? I think if we're forced to make comparisons between Hegel (and German in general) and this Hermetic text Geist or pneuma would be the intermediate formed principle which is Logos embodied.

[Anonymous No.18787041]

>>18787024
I ain’t atheist. I originally read hegel to be a radical Christian but then began to maybe see he’s a mystical atheist the more I understood him

[Anonymous No.18787072]

>>18787041
I think it’s fine to interpret Hegel as an atheist and as a Christian. As with a lot of things in Hegel, apparently contradictory poles become simultaneously true. I think the true Hegelian standpoint would be finding the truth of the idea that God is and is not.

[Anonymous No.18787085]

>>18786910
indians are basically monkeys and their thinking is negroid thinking. there is no human thought outside europe. that said, hegel resembles more an indian than a european.

[Anonymous No.18787895]

>>18786794
Hegel philosophy does not deny Being, it literally starts with it...
>but hegel has many points in common with the mystics. first of all, the ideas that:
>1. the sensible world is false
>2. math is false
1) and 2) are not true. Mathematical Categories are derived in the section of Quantity in the Science of Logic, and the sensible world is characterized as the real activity of extrinsecation of the Absolute Idea. Hegel goes as far as saying that the Absolute Idea NEEDS the sensible world for its actualization (or, in theological terms, for God to be God he needs the Creation).
>for him, reality is:
>1. his dialectical "logic" (which is at best common sense)
False, and this is evidenced by the fact that his Science of Logic only takes a third of his system. Do you think he was joking when he wrote a whole Philosophy of Nature and a whole Philosophy of Spirit? Both Nature and Spirit necessarily exist in Hegel's system.
>2. "human" (basically european) "history" (basically from christianity1)
Again, nonsense. The section on Universal History is just one among many. It is not even the highest point of his system, since it is followed by the Sections on Art, Religion and Philosophy. Hegel was not Marx, he wasn't an historicist.

Can I ask you what secondary literature have you used to write this genuinely terrible account of Hegel's philosophy? Who is the retard who taught you this nonsense?

[Anonymous No.18787906]

>>18787072
>>18787041
I think that people whk read Hegel as an atheist are either really bad readers, or they're just coping. Literally reread the first pagr lf the Encyclopedia if you're ever thinking again about opting for an anti-metaphysical, anti-theological interpretation of Hegel

[Anonymous No.18787949]

>>18786637
>>18786866
nice

mite interest u
https://blackwind.substack.com/p/the-accelerationist-essence-of-k

[Anonymous No.18788092]

>>18786489
What a retarded consoirscy theory. The Corpus Hermeticum was widely cited even by the first Fathers of the Church in the II century A.D.

[Anonymous No.18788156]

>>18786449
- Hegel isn't a christian, even if you could argue he believes in a god.
- Hegel's Absolute is, in aristotelitian terms, his First Principle. ie, Hegel's Absolute is, from a metaphysical point of view, God. However, it doesn't mean that Hegel's absolute is personal like the christian god. Instead, it could be compared to the One in neoplatonism. Would you say that the One of Plotinus is a God, or not? It's basically the same question. You could argue "yes" or "no", but ultimately all that the answer would change is how you define the word "god". The One of neoplatonism is very clearly defined as non-personal; yet, it is spiritual and rational. But it does "speak" or "do" or "decide" anything. The One of neoplatonism doesn't have a will and doesn't act; instead, it IS action. It is a self-actualizing force that lacks intentionality but whose motion is supreme rationality. The exact same thing could be said of Hegel's Absolute. In that regard, you could say that Hegel is BOTH a theist and an atheist. But regardless he definitely is a mystic.

[Anonymous No.18788165]

>>18788156
>But it does "speak" or "do" or "decide" anything.
sorry, I meant DOES NOT.

[Anonymous No.18788512]

>>18788156
Hegel explicitly states that God is personal all over his Lectures on Philosophy of Religion, which by the way also contain harsh critiques to any theological notion that see God as an indeterminate, abstract transcendent (like the ones of Plotinus and the one of the Hermeticists). Also Hegel's God definetely has a will and definetely acts: it is not pure action, rather He is a subject capable of acting. His activity is grounded on Him being a Subject and Spirit.
I must stress this: these are radical misunderstandings of Hegel's theology. With this post you've basocally said the opposite of ehat he believed.

[Anonymous No.18788771]

>>18787906
A lot of respectable Hegelians interpret him as an atheist. It’s the difference between the ‘hermeneutic’ school and the ‘metaphysical’ school really, which is a recurrence of the original split between the Young and the Old. I personally prefer the latter spiritualist interpretation, but I still think Žižek’s reading of Hegel for example is ingenious.

[Anonymous No.18789595]

>>18787949
I like this article, I hate the obvious knee-jerk take that "Kpop is accelerating capital!!" and all this type of 20th century pomo critique type stuff.

Kpop has many interesting implications that are FAR better than the 20th century. Thanks for posting

[Anonymous No.18789675]

i'll probably never read hegel

[Anonymous No.18789703]

>>18788771
I don't regard them as respectable, especially if you're referring to the interpretations made by the Young Hegelians (who can be excused due to the fact that the edition of the Lectures on Philosophy of Religion available to them was mostly doctored). Analytic anti-metaphysical interpretations are equally laughable.
Obviously here I am specifically referring to exegesis. It's fine if you want to go past Hegel and try to use some of his points to construct an atheist philosophy, but to say that Hegel and his philosophy is atheist is just historical misinformation. It's not even a philosophical question: it's factually wrong, and, as I have said, anyone who has read even just the first page of the Encyclopedia should know better.

[Anonymous No.18789708]

>>18789595
thanks, is mine so u (and anyone here) should give me critique if u have im not 100% satisfied with it

[Anonymous No.18789718]

>>18789708
im actually writing my own thing on kpop so great start, i bookmarked it

[Anonymous No.18789757]

>>18789718
post it in my comments when you're done, or dm in twitter ive linked or whatever im interested

my essay is p minimal but i wanted to keep it short for the adhd retards, im considering either making changes or even starting a completely new one

something i completely ignored are the effects of kpop getting top-down kickstarted in the span of a couple years, whereas wpop had a (relatively) organic evolution from rock n roll or whatever back then

[Anonymous No.18789773]

>>18789757
>whereas wpop had a (relatively) organic evolution from rock n roll or whatever back then

keep in mind wpop/wrock was sometimes created or astroturfed by the CIA as cold war propaganda

[Anonymous No.18789780]

>>18789773
yeah thats why i said relatively, nothing was really organic but there was some continuity

[Anonymous No.18789831]

>>18786449
People who genuinelly like kpop culture should be regarded as unwise and unfit for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18789840]

>>18786449
People who genuinely like kpop culture should be regarded as unwise and unfit for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18789845]

>>18789840
knee-jerk pleb take

hating kpop is taking the bait

[Anonymous No.18789904]

>>18789845
But kpop culture is truly unrealistic and vain.
Girls should be feminine and submissive, but those qualities are only shown in kpop through appearance and fan service.

[Anonymous No.18789923]

>>18789904
these values will be promoted to the populace in any case
wpop doesn't have those at all btw its all yassqueens

[Anonymous No.18789959]

>>18789904
>But kpop culture is truly unrealistic and vain.
reality itself is unrealistic and vain

[Anonymous No.18789985]

>>18789923
>>18789959
Don't get me wrong, I dislike most cultural trends that happened after the 1400s.