[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 126 KB, 666x900, portrait-of-georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel-jacob-schlesinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18865286 No.18865286 [Reply] [Original]

Is he an example of a dumb person trying to sound smart?

>> No.18865291

>>18865286
no

>> No.18865304

>>18865286
No, he was a genius, but his desire to abstract out of average linguistic understanding will always cause some distrust of the sincerity of everything he says.

>> No.18865311

>>18865286
Yes.
>>18865291
>>18865304
>t. pseuds outing themselves

>> No.18865420

not as smart as he wanted you to think he is, but still genius level

>> No.18865425

>>18865304
>the sincerity of everything he says.
Lmao

>> No.18865445

>>18865420
>not as smart as he wanted you to think he is, but still genius level
What can I take away from him that will improve my life and reduce my suffering?

>> No.18865589

Another Hegel thread where literally nothing is discussed
>hegel good
>no hegel bad!
>should i read hegel?
For someone that's namedropped in every thread, it's really amazing how I've only seen a few people actually talk about the contents of his work.

>> No.18865608

>>18865589
Yeah gets annoying. I won’t say anything about him (Kant is my phase right now) but if people critiqued the work instead of ad hominems every thread I’d be a lot happier.

>> No.18865617

>>18865445
Shitposting. (Unironically. In the Jena days these guys popped out magazines just to shit on other people.)

>> No.18865729

>>18865589
>>hegel good
Those who don't understand him and haven't read him.
>>18865589
>>no hegel bad!
Those who don't understand him and haven't read him, but edgy.

This site is a shithole, don't expect any discussions.

>> No.18865797

>>18865589
>>18865729
Forgot to mention, Hegel is a genius. PoS is the best and most beautiful book I've ever read.

>> No.18866003

>>18865286
No. He's an autist chasing a butterfly up his own butt.

>> No.18866010

>>18865286
t. a pawn mad at chess

>> No.18866139

>>18866010
What his philosophy? You couldn't even make sense of it

>> No.18866147

Has anyone thought to rewrite the entire The Phenomenology of Spirit but in plain English? Like word for word turn it into something readable?

>> No.18866259

>>18866147
Lmao, it's impossible. Harris' Hegel's Ladder does something like that but you still get paragraphs like:
This pure concept stands opposed to the determinate laws; and as a pure concept it goes beyond law as such. It is turned against law itself, because the universal law grants subsistent being to the determinate moments of appearance. These different
moments must be grasped as a unity in the law itself. Then the "concept of law" is seen to be the necessity of natural law.

>> No.18866279

>>18866139
Yes, you can, you just need Kants response to Hume seriously.
But Kant's critique is so far away from what people think they are concerned with in their life's, the reaction is just "no, ackshually I have the feel that I understand epistemology quite well and thinking further in another direction than scientific realism is wonky" (of course, they don't say epistemology)

If you just see Hegel's Geist as speculation of what "causes" phenomena, then it's not too complicated. Even if the writing is confusion.

>> No.18866285

>>18866259
>>18866147
But, to be honest, it is simpler than the original paragraph:
Universal attraction, or the pure concept of law, thereby stands over and against determinate laws. Insofar as this pure concept is regarded as the essence, or, the true inner, the determinateness itself of determinate laws still belongs to appearance, or rather it belongs to sensuous being. Yet the pure concept of law does not only go beyond the law, which, itself being a determinate law, stands over and against other determinate laws. Instead, it goes beyond the law as such. The determinateness that was talked about is itself really only a vanishing moment, which no longer comes into view here as an essentiality, for what is present here is only the law as the true. However, the concept of the law is turned against the law itself. That is in the law, the difference itself is immediately grasped and incorporated into the universal, and as a result there is in the law a stable existence of the moments, whose relation the law expresses, as indifferent essentialities existing in themselves. However, these parts of the difference in the law are at the same time themselves determinate aspects. The pure concept of the law as universal attraction must be grasped in its true significance so that within it, as the absolutely simple, the differences, which are present in the law as such, themselves return again into the inner as simple unity. The simple unity is the inner necessity of the law.

>> No.18866327

>>18865286
Probably smarter than most of the people but nothing original comes out of his work, he is just a theologist apologising for the church in the name of Logos and whatever else those cucks hold as dear during those years. I see anons being mad we dont discuss Hegel's ideas but why discuss about shit? Hence why Hegel is only used for shitposts. German idealism was a mistake.

>> No.18866339

Just read the chads Russel and Wittgenstein.

>> No.18866561

>>18865286
You are asking this question to a board full of dumb people trying to sound smart

>> No.18866746

>>18865286
The greatest philosopher forever misunderstood.

>> No.18866812

>>18865304
>No, he was a genius
He actually rejects the notion of genius, because it doesn't take into account how the understanding that constitutes that "genius" is based on the prior work of others. For him, Aristotle's De Anima, Spinioza, Indian Philosophy, Kant, Fitche and Schelling and others were all influences.

>> No.18866829

>>18865589
Nobody here has actually read Hegel. And the few who have either had it go over their heads (more due to lack of proper preparation and/or intelligence than Hegel being an obscurantist). As such, most of the anons in Hegel threads resort to coping about him in some form or another, by inventing memes regarding the content of his philosophy or his difficulty. Add in the non-readers who just add shit to the pile for laughs and you get the trainwreck that comes with every thread posted with an image of the Swabian on this site.

>> No.18867278

>>18865797
He wrote a book called piece fo shit? LOL!

>> No.18867320

>>18865286
he's an example of a smart person trying to sound dumb.

>> No.18867335

>>18865286
he writes like me when i need 20,000 words of filler to finish my doctoral dissertation

>> No.18867337

>>18865286
Hegel is like [s4s]. You think he’s smart people acting dumb. But that’s because you’re using the /Hegel/ interface. You should really use the [Hegel] interface and discover he’s a dumb people acting smart people acting dumb. And that this is the ultimate refinement where method replaces genius and all things are replicable as science rather than inspiration.

>> No.18867728

>>18866812
>>18866829
Is it a pseud thing to say that you are like Hegel and believe truth is not one thing but the whole process?

>> No.18867737

>>18865286
No, I am.

>> No.18867761

>>18865286
>>18865304
>>18866147
Hegel is not intentionally verbose, his lectures are known for their clarity. It's just that the topic of the phenomenology is too complex.

>> No.18869166

>>18865286
Yes.

>> No.18869255

>>18867337
Do you have any actual arguments against Hegel or just zoomer-tier 4chan analogies?

>> No.18869596

Hegel is the worst of the worst. I hate that stupid nigger like you wouldn't believe.

>> No.18869801

No

He does write philosophy like idiots seem to think philosophy should be done. When an idiot try to use difficult words and phrases and just says it in a arbitrary way that doesn't mean anything. I always hated Hegel's style. But he is a great philosopher, probably the most important philosopher since Aristotle.

>> No.18869956

>>18865589
Hahh filtered

>> No.18869969

>>18869596
>>18869801
SEETHING at great minds for not spoonfeeding is A SAD SIGHT TO BEHOLD

>> No.18869989

>>18869801
There's no way Hegel is more important than Kant.
He's one of the most important in the 19th century, but not bigger than Kant.

>> No.18870003

>>18865589
same. i've been lurking hegel threads for 7 years and i've never seen a single post articulate what hegel's claims were

>> No.18870014

>>18865589
It's because his work has a huge amount of content but no substance. It's literally impossible to have a meaningful discussion about his work without entering his intellectual fantasy world - a world that is literally detached from reality in a way that only someone continuing Kant's (although more Fichte's) legacy could do. You can discuss Hegel's ideas all day on his terms, but there is virtually nothing to discuss if you have a "common sense" view of philosophy, because his is totally removed from it.

>> No.18870032

>>18870003
Have you ever read him?

>> No.18870044

>>18870014
HIs philosophy is completely self-encompassing, you can start reading him without any previous knowledge of Kant or Fichte or anybody really. Phenomenology is written like that, unlike anything written before or after. Once done with preface (which gives and requires a lot of context, but which you can honestly skip if you're there just for arguments and the building of the system) and the brief introduction which gives some insight into what's going on, you start with literally no prerequisites, no terminology or anything. Just "imagine that what you see is true, it is something with no deeper meaning".
Of course, his system is huge and spans over many books and lectures, but the point remains.

>> No.18870053

>>18870044
this

>> No.18870054

>>18870044
I have an immense interest in Hegel but I have always heard you need at least a solid grasp of Kant in order to get into his essential writings. I think his lectures would be ok to read by themselves, as I have also heard other people say.

>> No.18870063

>>18870054
you heard wrong

>> No.18870064

Am I the only one here who has actually read from start to finish a book by Hegel? So far I have read all the major lecture cycles, the Phenomenology and the Science of Logic, and after these finals I'll read the Encyclopedia. I genuinely have the impression that none of you mfers ever read a word of him

>> No.18870078

>>18870044
No you need to read fichtes science of knowledge and schellings transcendental idealism

>> No.18870079

>>18870044
Frankly, this is bullshit. There are entire sections which can be understood only if you're really familiar with Schelling's philosophy of nature, and unfortunately they're all in the first part of the book
Also I'm sure how ironically dumb it is to abstract Hegel's system from the history of philosophy, given the place that history of philosophy holds in his system

Don't be a pseud autodidact: if you want to read Hegel work on your knowledge of history of philosophy, and do it well, since when he writes he assumes perfect familiarity with it from you

>> No.18870082

>>18870078
you don't know what you're talking about. jannies escort this pretender out of this thread!

>> No.18870101

>>18870078
Schelling is absolutely necessary, but Fichte is completely useless if your goal is to understand Hegel. Fichte is dismissed by him as a pseudo-philosopher (he says that Fichte's entire system is based in a mere assertion), and his first principle is usually discarded in a sentence or two everytime he mentions it.

>> No.18870111

>>18870054
If you haven't understood Kant you can't understand why Hegel is wrong and never solved the problems Kant raised

>> No.18870124

>>18870101
>Fichte is dismissed by him as a pseudo-philosopher
Yeah, that's why Hegel personally asked to be buried next to Fichte after he died. In reality, Fichte was the only genuine philosopher carrying on proper enquiry after Kant, who wasn't suckered into romance ideals and other cultural bullshit which corrupted pure philosophy.

>> No.18870141

>>18870124
I'm not sure why he asked to be buried next to him, what I know is that he never concedes any compliment to Fichte in his major writings. What I said about Fichte basing his entire system on a mere assertion is something Hegel repeats in almost every book and lecture cycle of his. He also uses virtually none of his concepts and terminology, and the little he uses is there only because he is taking it from Schelling.

>> No.18870295
File: 90 KB, 960x603, german idealism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18870295

>>18870054
>>18870078
I'm not saying that you should just randomly pick up the most difficult philosophical book ever written and start from there. I advise everybody interested to read dozens of philosophers who came before Hegel, just as I did. The most historical context you would need is for the preface where he doesn't even name the philosophers he talks about. Reading Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Fichte and Schelling (and/or those whom I haven't read) helps, but not in the sense that is usually implied when someone recommends you to do so. Hegel won't quiz you about someone else's philosophy and only then give you an explanation of his arguments, but reading those will teach you to read philosophy in general, to mentally prepare you for more difficult tasks.
Again, Phenomenology is a great book. Kant's first critique has a great introduction where he clearly explains many terms which he will be using throughout the book to develop his system. Hegel doesn't do something like that, all the terms he ends up using are introduced naturally when time for them comes. But he doesn't explain those terms really, and that's the kicker, because it's like being kicked in the balls every time he mentions it, but you have no idea what it means because the meaning of one single term is explain through its being used in many contexts and its 'evolution' with the evolution of thought (literally and figuratively) in the book. Science of Logic is one long explanation of the Absolute. Pretty much any idea (in the sense of a philosophical system, not a Hegelian 'Idea', maybe mentioning this makes it seem more convoluted, just ignore this) and context of any idea is introduced like this. Sometimes it feel sudden even though a paragraph elaborating a single idea can go on and on.

>> No.18870306

>>18870141
The Phenomenology was written as one big attempt to break free from Fichte's self-positing I and everything that was entailed by it. I'm not implying Hegel tried to build upon Fichte, just that it's silly not to notice that his desperate attempts to steer away from "solipsism" (so that he could come to his Absolute) were basically all driven by Fichte's philosophy. Schelling was a less important sidekick by comparison. I don't know how many people here have even read Fichte, but his reasoning is not illogical and the appeal to "intellectual intuition" that a lot of people cite as fallacious is both less prominent, and not as controversial as most people criticize him realize. Far less controversial than a lot of other leaps guys like Schelling and Hegel made in their ultimate formulations. Not to mention the unoriginal dependence on others like Spinoza, which Fichte was almost entirely free from, allowing him to be entirely original with his insights.

>The I must posit itself in order to be an I at all; but it can posit itself only insofar as it posits itself as limited (and hence divided against itself, inasmuch as it also posits itself as unlimited or “absolute”). Moreover, it cannot even posit for itself its own limitations, in the sense of producing or creating these limits. The finite I (the intellect) cannot be the ground of its own passivity. Instead, according to Fichte’s analysis, if the I is to posit itself at all, it must simply discover itself to be limited, a discovery that Fichte characterizes as a ‘check’ or Anstoß to the free, practical activity of the I. Such an original limitation of the I is, however, a limit for the I only insofar as the I posits it as such. I does this, according to Fichte’s analysis, by positing its own limitation, first, as a mere “feeling,” then as a “sensation,” then as an “intuition” of a thing, and finally as a “concept.” The Anstoß thus provides the essential occasion or impetus that first sets in motion the entire complex train of activities that finally result in our conscious experience both of ourselves as empirical individuals and of a world of spatio-temporal material objects.

>> No.18870313

>>18870111
Rather the opposite, if you haven’t understood Kant you can’t understand why he is wrong and Hegel right.

>> No.18870569

>>18870003
>>18870003
An Absolute Spirits enacts its logical will on Human History. Its endgame is the prussian state and Protestant Christianity. Economy should be Adam Smith-based. The carrier nation of the Absolute Giest(a particular volkgeist) will change in different eras.

>> No.18870584

>>18866147
Tom Rockmore does this in his PoS book. Its still quite long, but he condenses it a bit. Even Rockmore acknowledges sections that are incredibly dense.

Based Greg Sadler also is still working on his half hour hegel series, god bless him. Greg goes section by section, breaking every piece down- very in depth. Greg also has a good knowledge of German and helps distinguish possible translational challenges, for example with Begriff or Geist. Greg’s content is video format tho.

Hegel himself in the preface tells you not to be a bitch, and quit reading secondary sources, just read the original, and dont be a coffee house homo, eating the fruits of others’ labor.

>> No.18870593

>>18865286
Read him in German

>> No.18871246

>>18869255
That was an argument IN FAVOUR of Hegel thank you.

>> No.18871374

I read every work of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and everything in-between, including Hegel and Schelling's brief journal and all of Hegel's early writings and essays prior to reading PoS. I read both volumes of Harris's Hegel's Ladder in its entirety along side PoS. At this point I have finished the Science of Logic, Philosophy of Right, and Philosophy of History.

Disagreeing with Hegel isn't being filtered by him. But here are the facts about PoS,

Hegel is not non-sense nor obscurantist babble. But he combines three things which make it appear so:

1. Hegel's language is highly technical. If he says immediate, mediate, universal, particular, singular, ground, posit, essence, reflect, objective, subjective, infinite, finite, contingent, necesary - he is speaking in terms of his own logic as outlined in SoL. A proposition may appear to have a seemingly random conclusion if you don't already have a grasp of his logic, as the specific connection of proposition to conclusion is here implicit in categories he's set up elsewhere.

2. Hegel's style is much like Fichte and Reinhold, in that in some cases his conclusions actually don't follow necessarily from the propositions even when his own logic is taken into account. When you read someone like Fichte you often get the sense of "That's one way it could be, but it's not necessary, it COULD be otherwise". Even if you fully understand Hegel's systematic logic, the assumption that Hegel is always right will confuse you when he isn't, and you'll be left with the feeling that you must be missing something. Sometimes you are missing something but absolutely he oversteps all the time and often is just wrong.

3. Hegel is sometimes obscure in his application. When Hegel is talking abstractly and formally it's often not obvious what content he has in mind. FIchte did this aswell but usually followed up at the end, e.g, after using "x" and "y" in abstract relations to one another for 20 pages without telling you what these are, he will eventually say "and x is space, and y is time". But Hegel will be abstract sometimes without consummating it. Most of these areas are still contentious in their interpretations.

All of that said, PoS is overall a pretty bad work. Kierkegaard is 100% spot on when he said,

"If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic.”

>> No.18871382
File: 286 KB, 1079x1063, sometimes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18871382

I see this channel, which is pretty good, just released a 50min vid on Hegel today

https://youtu.be/X34lB3kW14k

>> No.18871428

>>18870003
Objects of the mind inter penetrate their opposite. Logic in the sense of Greek formal logic is impossible for the human because terms subvert themselves. Exploring the constitution of a term reveals its own necessary subvertion as an object of consciousness.

This is danke shite support Prussia.

>> No.18872699

bump

>> No.18872709

>>18871374
Great post. Have you read Hegel's natural philosophy?

>> No.18873110

>>18871374
best commentary I've seen since lurking Hegel threads here
also that Kierkegaard quote is spot on

The lasting legacy of idealism to modern philsophy/science and intellectual thought directly is dimishing by the decade. I have a graduate degree in continental philosophy and this would be my own personal reccs re: Hegel

Read primary source Hegel, PoS etc and associated commentaries ONLY if you want to be a pissing Hegel scholar OR you intend to specialise to a postraduate level on metaphysics influenced by German Idealism (Zizek et al, American Idealism etc)

If you intend him as a primer for Marx than just read Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Right and then MOVE ON.

If you intend him as a primer for 20th Century French Philosophy then just read Kojeve's lectures/commentary on PoS and then MOVE ON.

If you are just generally interested in philosophy but have no formal training stay away from the misery of trying to read Hegel jesus christ.

>> No.18873563

Hume, then Stirner. That's it. Nobody pragmatic gives a fuck about "philosophy" after German idealism rendered it a jargonistic incestuous shitpit. Pseudo-positivism saved the rest of the humanities during the same period, only philosophy was too weak to make it out alive.

>> No.18873722

>>18873563
Do you consider the existentialists like Camus to be jargonistic writers?

>> No.18873771

>>18867728

It's not a pseud thing to say because what your implying of me is right in a sense, but the kind of language game used is not the one I wish to play.

While Hegel talks of "truth" he likens it to a bachavelian party where people get pissed and pass out constantly i.e., "truth" isn't stable. It's better to not use the term truth in Hegel, but ceartainty i.e. I am certain that such-and-such is the case. Because any certainty I have that I understand the world as it "actually is" i.e., truth, tends to be rendered either wrong or incomplete in diffrent degrees.

>> No.18873801

>>18870079
This is correct. THIS IS HEGEL'S WHOLE DAMM POINT PEOPLE! I fucked up on a section because I didn't read de anima, so had to re-read it to understand it better.

>> No.18873816

>>18870064
Mate, I've got notes paragraph by paragraph up until he talks about Physiognomy and Phrenology. The role of the Lord and Bondsman can effectively be reconceptulised as a kind of TOTE cycle.

>> No.18874563

i saw a bunny

>> No.18876185

>>18865286
Hugel? Quite a cringe piece of shit for me.