Why Analyticfaggotry?

[Anonymous No.19194111]

Why does Analyticfaggotry even exist after Hegel turned philosophy into Science?

[Anonymous No.19194135]

>>19194111
bc the angloids can not comprehend long sentences

[Anonymous No.19194160]

>>19194111
Why do people post outdated philosophy that belongs on /his/, instead of posting literature on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.19194169]

>>19194160
>outdated philosophy

[Anonymous No.19194179]

>>19194160
Idk maybe because philosophy also belongs on /lit/

[Anonymous No.19194207]

>>19194169
>Dialectics (influential nonsense)
>World Spirit (absurd nonsense)
Outdated Philosophy

[Anonymous No.19194213]

>>19194207
are you trying to be edgy or do you really have a reddit tier take on hegel?

[Anonymous No.19194219]

>>19194207
LOL hey guy's check out this fag. He doesn't believe in the World Spirit! (Pause) HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.19194234]

>>19194213
>>19194219
Do you unironically not see that he's the Peterson of his era?

[Anonymous No.19194244]

>>19194135
Anglos are the only race of European with brains

[Anonymous No.19194263]

Imagine how useful a philosophy board would be. These arguments could stay up for weeks and get possibly filled with content.

[Anonymous No.19194264]

>>19194234
ok, now I know you are trolling, but nice b8, bro

[Anonymous No.19194266]

>>19194244
> Anglo
>European
What have you done?

[Anonymous No.19194270]

>>19194266
Keep up with the news, my guy. Anglos left Europe a while back

[Anonymous No.19194275]

>>19194244
oi mate we bloody smart indeed

[Anonymous No.19194288]

But why tho anons? Why?

[Anonymous No.19194506]

But, uh, seriously tho anons? Does anyone know why we're not all just Hegelians? But really tho I'm seriously perplexed and it is actually causing me quite a bit of distress. Can someone point me in the right direction? Maybe recommend some books?

[Anonymous No.19194553]

>>19194111
>communism
>fascism
>logo daedalus
Hegel's influence on the world has been entirely 100% negative, a fetid rot that keeps coming back in different forms.

[Anonymous No.19194737]

>>19194111
see anything by lawvere, rorty, or brandom, hegel is now analytic

[Anonymous No.19194783]

>>19194506
Kojeve explains this

[Anonymous No.19195656]

>>19194783
I have his 'introduction to a reading of Hegel' Where does he say this?

[Anonymous No.19195879]

*BTFOs Hegel*
Your move?

[Anonymous No.19195899]

>>19194263
If you want a vision of the future, picture a christian-larping boot repeating vague invocations to repentance on a human face, forever
- George Orwell, probably

[Anonymous No.19195964]

>>19194160
Tbh there's nothing more outdated than anakytic philosophy. Anyone who has an inkling of familiarity with history of philosophy will know literally thousands-old arguments that basically refute 99.999% of the analytic philosophy that has been so far. Like, do you realize that to this day physicalism is still the default position in Anglophone academia? Or that thought experiments and intuitions are still used as a philosophical starting point by the majority of analytic philosophers? How embarassing is that?

[Anonymous No.19195972]

>>19194506
Because after Hegel European philosophy had a bout of irrationalism and we still havent rrally recovered from that. Analytic philosophers instead simply cannot deal with Hegel, or even with Kant, mostly because to follow them you have to disavow formal logic (and accept transcendental, or speculative logic), which in turn destroys their entire tradition

[Anonymous No.19195995]

>>19194111
Most analytic philosophers these days take after Hegel

[Anonymous No.19196004]

>>19194111
He was a retard with is rational nonsense. Schopenhauer has already refuted this bitch by proving that irrationality rules the world.

[Anonymous No.19196009]

hegelfags explain what he grounds his whole philosophy in. the reason for the absolute needs to be external to it, otherwise its tautological. now what is the reason considering there is nothing outside the absolute?

if you provide me with sufficient ground, ill send you a cookie

[Anonymous No.19196011]

>>19196004
Hegel refuted beforehand Schopenhauer by proving that a pure Will is a nonsensical idea. You've just got aufhebung'd
>>19195995
Lmao
Also the very few analytic philosophers who do read Hegel adopt an anti-metaphysical interpretation, which is possibly the most retarded thing one could do

[Anonymous No.19196018]

>>19196011
>Hegel refuted beforehand Schopenhauer by proving that a pure Will is a nonsensical idea.
Total nonsense. And he embarrassed himself further by muh world spirit in some psychopath when millions were raped, slaughtered and tortured. One need special sort of christcuck retardation to imply that history is teleological.

[Anonymous No.19196032]

>>19196018
>Total nonsense.
I know, how could Schopenhauer make such a basic mistake? He basically repeated Schelling, but instead of indifferentiated unity he talked about undifferentiated will. And of course, just like in Schelling (or Spinoza, if that matters), the passage from infinite to finite is purely conjectural, a mere assertion that cannot, not even in principle, be argued for (since the pure, indifferentiated will/unity/substance is entirely indeterminate, and all that is finite is entirely determinate).
>And he embarrassed himself further by muh world spirit in some psychopath when millions were raped, slaughtered and tortured. One need special sort of christcuck retardation to imply that history is teleological.
Someone here does not know the difference between actuality, reality and existence c:
Let me guess, you get angry when you hear that all that is actual is rational?

[Anonymous No.19196036]

>>19196032
>you get angry when you hear that all that is actual is rational?
I laugh when I hear Hegel struggle to justify his own bullshit by making arbitrary distinctions between Existenz and Wirklichkeit which can't be rationally justified.

[Anonymous No.19196039]

>>19194506
Because I haven't read Hegel and don't intend to. I've read every other of the german idealists and am incredibly well-versed in the history of philosophy (for anything where knowledge of Hegel is a prerequisite, I just consulted encyclopedia entries on specific parts of his thought).

The reason I do not read Hegel is grounded in virtue-ethics. Every Hegelfag I know is an insufferable ass, and I avoid Hegel so that I may avoid that fate.

[Anonymous No.19196042]

>>19196032
>basic mistake?
Fuck off, dissipation-driven adaptation and Darwinism proved Schopenhauer right.
>Let me guess, you get angry when you hear that all that is actual is rational?
Yes bro the billion of years of mindless slaughter in animal kingdom, innumerable planetary disasters, house of mindless slaughter called history and all proves that reality is rational. As I have said earlier, your mind has been pregnant with bastardized christcuckery.

[Anonymous No.19196047]

>>19196042
>rational must also be pleasant

[Anonymous No.19196060]

>>19196047
No, this is what filthy Hegelians imply with an expectation of certain teleology towards a pleasant utopia and to reach it history's wheels must be lubricated with blood of innumerable beings.

[Anonymous No.19196070]

>>19194160
Have you read Plato's Camera. I'm interested in picking it up. Seems to be a cutting edge blend of philosophy with neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.19196071]

>>19196036
>I laugh when I hear Hegel struggle to justify his own bullshit by making arbitrary distinctions between Existenz and Wirklichkeit which can't be rationally justified
Don't worry, it actually makes sense (unlike Schopenhauer's passage from undifferentiatsd will to differentiated world, which cannot be rationally justified not even in principle), you just got filtered.
>>19196042
>Fuck off, dissipation-driven adaptation and Darwinism proved Schopenhauer right
There cannot be any empirical proof of Schopenhauer's Will. Incidentally, evolution fits really well in Hegel's framework too (and so it does for most post-Schellingian philosophers in general, and also for Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant... do I have to go on?). Schoppy has no special claim to that theory
>Yes bro the billion of years of mindless slaughter in animal kingdom, innumerable planetary disasters, house of mindless slaughter called history and all proves that reality is rational. As I have said earlier, your mind has been pregnant with bastardized christcuckery.
Yeah, as I have told you earlier, Hegel posits a distinction between existence and actuality, and would not claim that all that exists is actual. This is also what leads Hegel to call natural history "tragic" and to equate it to a "slaughter". The march of Spirit (which is, in this context, the progressive actualization of Freedom in the human world) is something that happens in spite of these contingent horrors, not because of them.

[Anonymous No.19196073]

>>19196032
retarded word salad

[Anonymous No.19196074]

>>19194263
Slowness is good. Gives me time to write a long-form response with references (in APA style of course).

[Anonymous No.19196076]

>>19196060
19196060 is a nice get, too bad it was wasted on a middle-school tier interpretation of Hegel's philosophy of history

[Anonymous No.19196080]

>>19196073
Which parts confuse you, my dear illiterate friend?

[Anonymous No.19196085]

>>19196076
History is going nowhere pal, pull your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.19196095]

>>19196085
I would have agreed with you, had I known literally nothing about history and philosophy

[Anonymous No.19196100]

>>19194506

Because hegelianism is idealism and rationalism taken to extreme. The consequences of this was a framework which radicalized Germany into thinking they're above the others and pre-wired them to accept totalitarian ideologies. So in a sense Hegel led to WW2. After the war, philosophers saw how absolute idealistic philosophies like Hegel's (where everything is just Absolute Rationality trying to be self-aware) lead to disastrous results. And that's because in such idealistic philosophies humans or the individual is not the center of the system, but more like he's subsumed to an abstract force. In Hegel especially the individual doesn't matter, his internal experience is not taken into account, but only his external relationship with others. Moreover, the State > the individual and history understood in Hegel's way assumes that the individual has no agency over the course of history, that it just "happens" to him. This allows one to say that humans are just "pawns in a greater scheme" and thus create ideologies (like nazism's ideas that Germany was meant to be great and that they're aryans or like marxism which saw history purely as a conflict of classes in which the individual has no say, he's just subjugated to this class struggle that defines his existence).

So after WW2, existentialism started to become more popular exactly because of that. Existentialists sought to switch the focus of philosophy on the individual and the way he experiences the world subjectively, how they relate to other people and to seek meaning or create meaning starting from the analysis of their position as experiencing subjects in the world (so from "inside"), not from some abstract force that leads human activity (so from an external point of view). Simpler put, for existentialists experience precedes essence, while for idealists like Hegel, essence precedes (and determines) human experience.

Now you should understand a bit why philosophy and the world in general had enough of Hegel's shit after WW2.

As a note, existentialism can be traced back to Kierkegaard. Existentialism existed before 20th century (Nietzsche, Schopenhauer as well were existentialists). So it's not exclusively a current that popped up out of nowhere after WW2 as an answer to Idealism, but it gained momentum after the war since "the end game" of idealism is Hegel. He took to the extreme the rational consequences of Idealism. Of course this is not to say that all of Hegel's philosophy is useless. For example the "master-slave" dialectic was picked up by an existentialist (Simone de Beauvoir) to explain the women-men relations in the society of her time (or how living in the body of a woman severely limits the possibilities of what you can do. Back in her time women were expected to marry a wealthy man and have kids, so they had no freedom to pursue their own projects or hobbies).So I guess in a sense it's also Hegel's fault we have trannies.

[Anonymous No.19196103]

>>19195964
there seems to be new revitalization of hegel in analytic philosophy, someone like david corfield even now are trying to embrace lacan in math

[Anonymous No.19196109]

>>19196100
Did you really have to write a shitt wall of text just to regurgitate the nonsense Popper spouted 80 years ago?

[Anonymous No.19196117]

>>19196095
Yes you got impregnated by the christcuckery off course you believe in such nonsense when most of ancient and other civilization believed in cyclical history.

[Anonymous No.19196121]

>>19196109

You must be retarded if that's what you understood. I'm not sure why you think it's nonsense as well since everything I've said there is fact, not a personal opinion.

[Anonymous No.19196126]

>>19196103
If you're talking about the Pittsburgh school, they're fake Hegelians who try to rrad him in an anti-metaphysical way (which is as retarded as trying to read Spinoza as a teleologist, or Kant as a consequentialist). Basically, people who kinda like Hegel but are too scared of the parts that do not neatly fit into their scientistic views. Their motto, basically, is that there is no Geist. I wouldn't count this as a "revitalization": it feels more like a parody.
That said, I think this applies to most figures in Western classical philosophy: analytic philosophers have, in most cases, failed to recuperate them.

[Anonymous No.19196132]

>>19196071
>There cannot be any empirical proof of Schopenhauer's Will.
There are many proof in representation. If you ask any evolutionary expert he will tell you that evolution has no endgame. This is perfect compatible with idea of a blind Will. Schopenhauerian blind, irrational and dumb Will doesn't all in with any of other idealists.
>The march of Spirit (which is, in this context, the progressive actualization of Freedom in the human world) is something that happens in spite of these contingent horrors, not because of them.
Yes bro the day of resurrection and salvation is closer than ever.

[Anonymous No.19196146]

>>19196121
You're going with the age old "le Hegel totalitarian" meme. Like, do we still need to take you clowns seriously, even though reading thr first pages of the Philosophy of Right would be enough to dissipate this nonsense? Hegel says that the only normative standard for historical progress is Freedom, and how do you retards (who have clearly never read a page of Hegel) respond? By saying that Hegel is a theorist of totalitarianism. Hegel explicitly rejects any form of authoritarianism that deprives the citizen of his self-determination, and how do you retards respond? By saying that for Hegel the individual is just a cog of the machine (if that's the case why didnt he defend orientsl despots, absolute monarchies, or even the Prussian state?).
Do these responses deserve even the slightest amount of engagement? They just make it clear that you havent even read the 10 pages Introduction of the work you're criticizing.

[Anonymous No.19196151]

>>19196126
while i agree with you, with how brandom and rorty didn't want to embrace hegel's madness like zizek said.
hegel that was found in math, is so much more sincere than it looks. it is power fuck to everything previous analytic philosopher and formalist math have stood for.

[Anonymous No.19196156]

>>19196132
>There are many proof in representation. If you ask any evolutionary expert he will tell you that evolution has no endgame.
It might be beyond the point, but I think that such a pronouncement on evolutionsry theory is purely speculative, and as such unscientific.
>This is perfect compatible with idea of a blind Will.
It is also compatoble with the notion of Nature as pure externality (Hegel), or of Nature as pure mechanical necessity (Leibniz,Spinoza, Kant), or of Nature as pure opposition to the I (Fichte), or of Nature as chaotic movement (Plato and the chora)... do I need to go on? Again, evolutionary theory is not Schoppy's prerogative.

[Anonymous No.19196159]

>>19196146

What freedom if everything is the Absolute Reason determines everything, fucking retard ? Hegel wasn't a theorist of totalitarianism, I've said that his philosophy ALLOWED totalitarian movements to justify themselves by borrowing elements from his philosophy. You're a fucking retard that can't read.

[Anonymous No.19196173]

>>19196156
>It might be beyond the point, but I think that such a pronouncement on evolutionsry theory is purely speculative, and as such unscientific.
Bullshit, they have spent their whole lives studying the patterns, it is not "unscientific" because they don't agree with you. Every sort of Metaphysical claim implied a rational or conscious agent except Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer is the Truth.

[Anonymous No.19196189]

>>19196146

-

[Anonymous No.19196250]

>>19196159
>What freedom if everything is the Absolute Reason determines everything, fucking retard ?
Hegel is not Leibniz, contingency is a constituent element of Nature.
>Hegel wasn't a theorist of totalitarianism, I've said that his philosophy ALLOWED totalitarian movements to justify themselves by borrowing elements from his philosophy.
Can you please explain how the fuck a political philosophy that places Freedom as its only principle "allow" totalitarian movements to justify themselves with it?
Either you mean a) that Hegel's philosophy permits this kind of borrowing, or that b) this kind of borrowing (or co-opting) was only nominal, and leaves the original intact. I assumed you meant a), since b) is simply a retarded point to bring up in an Hegel thread (also it is a point that can be applied to literally every philosopher/artist/jurist/whatever in history).
It is also empirically wrong to claim that Hegel was relevant in sither Nazi Germany or the USSR.
>>19196173
>Bullshit, they have spent their whole lives studying the patterns, it is not "unscientific" because they don't agree with you.
They could have spent 1000 lives studying those patterns, the inference would still be unjustified and not conclusively confirmed by empirical data.
At best you can say "we have not managed to identify any teleological goal concerning evolutionary theory". And I am not even touching on the point for which the notion of teleological goal is arbitrary, and that as such literally anything can fit into it (it all depends on what the initial goal was: even a chaotic framework can be teleological, if the original goal was to produce chaos). To say that there definetely is no teleological goal, instead, requires a metaphysical argument.
>Every sort of Metaphysical claim implied a rational or conscious agent except Schopenhauer.
So? (I'll ignore the fact that this claim is objectively false, even in the case of the philosophers I've mentioned previously, like Spinoza)

[Anonymous No.19196254]

>>19196250
*leaves the original philosophy intact

[Anonymous No.19196272]

>>19196071
>Don't worry, it actually makes sense
Uhh yeah, sure it does. It makes so much sense that you can't explain it.

[Anonymous No.19196276]

>>19196272
I didn't bother because you could easily pick up the encyclopedia and read the two sections on Existence and Actuality in literally 5 minutes, so I stocked to responding to other posts which dealt with more general critiques of Hegelian philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19196290]

>>19196276
*sticked

[Anonymous No.19196304]

>>19196250

>Hegel is not Leibniz, contingency is a constituent element of Nature.

Hegel is not Leibniz since Leibniz clearly states that God is nature itself. In Hegel though the "Absolute Spirit" is also pantheistic and equivalent to God because it determines how individuals progress in the world. Individuals are "segments" of this Absolute Reason which seeks to gain self-awareness. In this sense, the individual is nothing more than a "tool" for this Absolute Reason to realize itself. In this project, sure, contingency happens, but the individual is determined and stricly influenced by this all-pervasive force that is Absolute Reason (or Geist). So in this sense it's pantheistic and deterministic (just not as deterministic as Leibniz, it's a matter of degree). Hegel's philosophy is a last attempt to reconciliate theology with philosophy (keep in mind Hegel was religious). He even fit Christianity into his philosophy as a necessary stage of development in the Geist's project of self-awareness. So Hegel's philosophy is deterministic, just not for the whole nature, but the individual. And since it's deterministic for the individual, history is also deterministic, so in this sense the individual himself doesn't have much freedom since he's just an instrument through which the Geist seeks to gain self-awareness.

>Can you please explain how the fuck a political philosophy that places Freedom as its only principle "allow" totalitarian movements to justify themselves with it?

Related to Freedom, I've answered above in relation with determinism. Maybe I expressed myself wrong. What I mean is that Hegel's philosophy managed to sediment into the germanic thought the "common good" (or of the state) prevails over individual's needs. His idea that the Geist manifests in certain states across history (making abstraction that he said history ended with him realizing the Geist and Napoleon's entrance in Jena), like Napoleon's France. For Hegel the prussian defeat and the blow to the monarchy was just part of the dialectical process in which absolute monarchy (thesis) is taken down by a revolutionary force (antithesis) after which monarchy is restaurated but with liberal principles (synthesis) and the Prussia was exactly at that point of development. You probably forget how Hegel's philosophy was extremely well received by Prussians (he would fill entire class amphitheaters with people that came to listen to him, even though most people probably didn't understand shit). Hegel influenced the idea that Prussia should unite with the other germanic people under one state, even if indirectly. He helped foster a superiority complex for the germanic people which made the soil fertile for nazism (among other factors).

[Anonymous No.19196347]

>>19196276
I have, just because he wrote about it (which I already acknowledged) doesn't mean he was able to justify it rationally. My original post still stands >>19196036

The arbitrary distinction here is actually one of the prime fault points of his entire philosophy which people rarely capitalize on.

[Anonymous No.19196547]

>>19196117
>the ancients
You mean the people with no knowledge of history or philosophy
>le ANCIENTS believed it so it must be true

[Anonymous No.19196560]

>>19196547
>You mean the people with no knowledge of history or philosophy
6/10 bait

[Anonymous No.19196620]

>>19196304
Sorry if I didn't respond right away, I missed your response
>Hegel is not Leibniz since Leibniz clearly states that God is nature itself
For Leibniz nature is created. Everything is necessary only insofar as God creates Nature by using a complete concept as a framework.
>In Hegel though the "Absolute Spirit" is also pantheistic and equivalent to God because it determines how individuals progress in the world.
But this is simply not true, Hegel is not Fichte. In Nature he leaves a space for contingency, thr Absolute Spirit has to "fight" his way through to affirm itself in the world. For Hegel Absolute Spirit isn't some sort of puppet master that control everything (or that is able to "make sense" out of every existence). He also criticizes this view at a logical level in the Science of Logic, when he affirms that a state of things in which everything is absolutely necessary becomes absolutely contingent when it is considered a totality (insofar as it would be entirely contingent that necessity had to manifest itself in this or that form, instead of another). Necessity, to Hegel, makes sense only in relation to contingency: Spirit can be necessary only insofar as it can integrate in his own being thr contingency that surrounds it. This view goes against both historical determinism and pantheism.
>He even fit Christianity into his philosophy as a necessary stage of development in the Geist's project of self-awareness.
If you've read the Phenomenology you know that this has very little to do with his philosophy of history, and that what is saved of Christianity is its philosophical content, rather than its mythology and its eschatology (it shouldn't surprise that Hegel did not believe in any afterlife, which is the crux of the Christian eschatological project).

>What I mean is that Hegel's philosophy managed to sediment into the germanic thought the "common good" (or of the state) prevails over individual's needs
First of all, this isn't Hegel's prerogative. Apart from Stirnerian anarchism literally every political position (from the Presocratics to our days), including classical liberalism, takes this point for granted (which is also why we have laws: to protect the community from individuals willing to subjugate other individuals for their own goals). Secondly, Hegel's whole political philosophy is designed to avoid the outcome for which the individual becomes a mere cog in the State apparatus. His model is not the one of a machine, but the one of an organism. State must be an institution in which humans can self-determine themselves, in such a way that pursuing their own goals can be compatible with pursuing the goals of everyone. Hegel talks specifically about healthy egoism, and rejects all political positions in which individuals are asked to abandon their individuality for the good of the State. As I've mentioned, this is also why he harshly criticizes oriental despotism, absolute monarchies and Prussia.
1/2

[Anonymous No.19196648]

>>19196304
>>19196620
2/2
>and the Prussia was exactly at that point of development.
Three things:
1) the thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme is bunk.
2) the historical process you've described is nowhere to be found in Hegel's philosophy of history, especially considering that
3) he definitely does not take an apologetic stance toward Prussia, nor is Prussia even close to the forms described at the end of the Philosophy of Right. Hegel claims that the highest level of Spirit, in history, has, up to his time, manifested itself in the form of liberal constitutional monarchy. Do I have to remind you that Prussia had no constitution, nor was a liberal country? And that in fact Hegel lived at the height of absolutism and authoritarianism of the Prussian State? A time in which even suggesting that Prussia ought to have a constitution was enough to be ostracized by society at large, as it happened to many Hegel colleagues? The British Empire was much closer to the constitutional monarchy described by Hegel, but even that fell short of it (as one can read in the last pages of his Philosophy of History - pages in which Prussia is barely mentioned, and only in relation to Frederik the Great).
>Hegel influenced the idea that Prussia should unite with the other germanic people under one state, even if indirectly.
Asking for national unity, instead of sticking to a literal feudal system governed by an absolute monarch, is hardly related to nazism, especially when in doing so you formulate the matter in such a way that would exclude any form of totalitarianism. This link seems to be extremely tenuous (if links as tenuous as this apply, then we can link basically any thinker in history to Nazism)
Furthermore, this was a tendency present among German intellectuals all over the 18th and 19th century, for obvious reasons. I'll also add, concerning what you say here:
>He helped foster a superiority complex for the germanic people which made the soil fertile for nazism (among other factors).
that Hegel was not a nationalist, and held national characters as the second lowest determination of Spirit (the absolute lowest one is racial constitutions), and absolutely despised all nationalists in his time (e.g. Fries). Hegel was specifically ignored by Nazi propagandists due to this fact.

[Anonymous No.19196649]

>>19196347
Can you make explicit your contention with that view? I'm asking because I dont think you actually know what that distinction consists of

[Anonymous No.19196908]

>>19196620

>Sorry if I didn't respond right away, I missed your response

It's ok. I thought you went away so I went to read which is why this reply comes with a delay.

>In Nature he leaves a space for contingency, thr Absolute Spirit has to "fight" his way through to affirm itself in the world. For Hegel Absolute Spirit isn't some sort of puppet master that control everything [...]

I agreed that he leaves space for contingency. I'm not seeing the Geist as a puppet master because that would imply a higher consciousness, but more like a passive immanent force (insofar as rationality is not something we create, but something that happens to us through the accident or contingence that we're born as humans, thus exists independently of our actions as a passive force, which can be employed actively by any individual to a lower or higher degree). The fact that you mean the Geist is in the nature is in accordance with my point that it's immanent. It exists as an underlying principle or force which guides human action. Insofar as human actions are the product of rationality (manifested in reasoning or in analysis of the course of action), humans are bound to act through the "lens" of reason and necessity (which at a meta level is Absolute Reason). I'm not speaking about metaphysical determinism, but existential determinism (or ontological but applied just to humans).

Moreover, if we take Hegel's view from Science of Logic, in which everything can be reduced to reason or relations of necessity (like a closed circle which explains itself in the end), isn't this a sign of the immanentist charactersitic of Hegel's philosophy ? Moreover, since everything (including human action) is following certain rules (or logic / necessity), isn't this proof of the deterministic characteristic of Hegel's philosophy ? Sure, contingency IS possible inside the system, but the system itself is defined by certain limits outside of which humans cannot act, including Reason itself (since it's not transcendental). So even if the Reason undertakes an arbitrary choice (which we can call contingency), then this very process is deterministic because it can be reduced to a simple cause-effect relation. In this sense history is deterministic. Sure we can agree that the facts out of which history is comprised are contingent (meaning it could have been any other way), but in a sense this history is the history of human actions as done between certain limits of human action (meaning that human action can diverge in a limited amount of ways when looked at an individual level since humans are constrained by their organic constitution).

>what is saved of Christianity is its philosophical content, rather than its mythology and its eschatology

Yes, I meant Christianity from a philosophical perspective. For Hegel it's a necessary step in humanity's evolution on the path towards awareness of the Geist.

[Anonymous No.19196992]

>>19196620

>First of all, this isn't Hegel's prerogative. Apart from Stirnerian anarchism literally every political position (from the Presocratics to our days), including classical liberalism, takes this point for granted (which is also why we have laws: to protect the community from individuals willing to subjugate other individuals for their own goals).

Yes, I didn't mean that this is something new. What I mean is that Hegel fosters this "spirit" (not understood as Geist) of nationality, of dedication towards the state and its ruler, fosters this identification with the state, as in the state becoming the identity of the individual, the good of which takes priority. Again the idea of putting common good above individual good is not new, but the leap towards identification with the state and its goals promotes or presents a pre-condition or wiring which makes the citizens more receptive to state propaganda which can direct their action in any sense and even justify totalitarian measures (again, as I said, there's other factors too like justifying that a common enemy exists for which citizens have to sacrifice in order to defeat it).

>Secondly, Hegel's whole political philosophy is designed to avoid the outcome for which the individual becomes a mere cog in the State apparatus. His model is not the one of a machine, but the one of an organism. State must be an institution in which humans can self-determine themselves [...]

As a passing remark, the way a body functions is extremely similar to a machine. The difference is only in an organism's way to act upon the world intentionally and to make sense of the world in which it exists.

I know Hegel doesn't support absolute monarchies, which is why he sees the French Revolution and Prussia's defeat at the hands of Napoleon as the factor which will change Prussia for the better thrrough the influence of the values of the French Revolution (even though paradoxically germans were at odds with the French and their pure emphasis on Enlightenment specific rationality which led to a counter-cultural movement - Romanticism). But I'm not saying that Hegel is promoting obedience through force.

The obedience I'm talking about is obtained through more subtility, by making the individual see that the needs of the State and his own are the same and by having the individual identify with the State. To this end, Hegel contributes (if arbitrarily or not is irrelevant as I'm not talking about his intentionality, but the effects of his philosophy) with a nudge towards gullibility or vulnerability which was exploited by Nazis in full later on.

>Three things:
1) the thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme is bunk

Not sure what you mean by "it's bunk". It's invalid ? It's out of context ? It's sudden and unrelated ?

[Anonymous No.19197043]

>>19196908

1/3

>>19196992

2/3

>>19196648

And now 3/3:

>2) the historical process you've described is nowhere to be found in Hegel's philosophy of history [...]

Hegel considered his work Phenomenology of the Spirit to be the "end of history" because he's the first person which realized the existence of the Absolute Reason and the process it undertakes to self-awareness, thus marking a period of transition (this has to be understood through the fact that Hegel saw history as a process in which the Spirit seeks self-awareness. So once this self-awareness manifested with Hegel, history ended).

>3) he definitely does not take an apologetic stance toward Prussia [...]

I agree he didn't agree with the Prussia of his time, which is why he was actually happy about the invasion of Napoleon's troops in Jena.

Quote from his letter to Niethammer, October 13th, 1806:” I saw the Emperor -this soul of the world- go out from the city to survey his reign; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it. ”

He saw the French Revolution as the antithesis to the monarchy (after all, french revolution was the fight against the monarchy and ended with the deposition of the monarch, no ? So the status quo is the thesis, the revolution is the antithesis, the movement which seeks to change the status quo). But Hegel, as you said, supported a constitutional monarchy and the French Revolution played an essential part in this, as understood dialectically it was necessary to shake the status quo and to facilitate change (or synthesis).

That's why I meant that the Prussia of Hegel's time was in a period of transition, not that it was at the stage of synthesis (constitutional monarchy) in Hegel's time pre-defeat.

>Asking for national unity, instead of sticking to a literal feudal system governed by an absolute monarch, is hardly related to nazism, especially when in doing so you formulate the matter in such a way that would exclude any form of totalitarianism [...]

Of course. But again, what I meant is that Hegel prepares the ground (of course he doesn't foresee nazism, it was a century later) for nazism. He's not aware of it, but seeing in the project of unification the expression of Geist, of the germanic people being this "tip of the lance" (or pioneer) in the Geiist's manifestation of his times, he influenced the subsequent thinking heavily and the superiority complex of the germanic people (pride which was essential in Hitler's speeches where he talked about the great german culture that's destroyed by jews, etc, effectively creating an Us vs Them situation that justified WW2).

[Anonymous No.19197220]

>>19194213
>implying leftist philosophy reddit doesn't suck Hegel's cock
Retard

[Anonymous No.19197440]

Seeing Hegelfags argue makes me never want to read him just for this reason

[Anonymous No.19197446]

>>19194506
It'll simply lead people to become Stirnerian egoists.

[Anonymous No.19197456]

>>19197220
>Implying one cannot suck on a cock, choke on it due to poor technique, then cry about it.

[Anonymous No.19197463]

>>19197446
It really doesnt. you are probably underage,never read hegel, and post Stirner "Spook" memes. Its actually a massive backstep in terms of rigor.

[Anonymous No.19197469]

*farts*

[Anonymous No.19197555]

>>19197440
Read it as a theologian work makes it more tolerable. Even though it is written like an "aesthetic man" would, reading deeper makes one wonder if he was attempting to create the perfect deistic worldview.

[Anonymous No.19197612]

Hegelbros I really admire Hegel despite not having reached to the point of being prepared to getting deeply into him, I think I share some ideas with him, but I'd say his teleological progress of freedom is kinda stupid. What would he say about vaccine passports, suppression of thought and data that contradict the purely political mandates and common sense concerning the disease?

[Anonymous No.19197644]

>>19196032
this has cat boy deleuze energy

[Anonymous No.19197668]

>>19196100
good post

[Anonymous No.19197682]

>>19196146
you are missing out on a fundamental aporia in this thought which haunted both Kant and Hegel: absolute rationality and freedom are incompatible. Schelling has an essay on this.