What is the best secondary hegel lit?

[Anonymous No.19701581]

I remember there was a chart/meme with some hegel stuff but I can't find it now

[Anonymous No.19701607]

[Anonymous No.19701628]

>>19701607
is that actually good or just an /x/ meme

[Anonymous No.19701729]

Charles Taylor, Hegel
Frederick Beiser, Hegel

Those two are good starts for basics

[Anonymous No.19701787]

we've been through this before:

>a pound of lsd
>bbc sissy hypno
>estrogen supplements

then you should start to understand hegel

[Anonymous No.19702826]

>>19701581
There's based, and then there's based.

[Anonymous No.19703021]

>>19701581
yup, that's the one, we can go home now
>>19701729
don't forget Walter Kaufmann's Hegel, together they form the Three Hegels or the Hegel Trilogy
https://youtu.be/ofA3URC1wyk

[Anonymous No.19703063]

Unfortunately, none and I've read MANY books on Hegel. They somehow all manage to forget H's fantastic Aesthetics, penetrating Philosophy of World History or the moving Philosophy of Region. Instead they focus on minor epistemological crap and are constantly trying to "outsmart" old Hegel instead of bringing relevant content to the table. I'd say that the worst example of such petty hair-splitting is Althusser's work on Hegel (angry midget Popper is another sorry example). Ironically, the closest to a decent study of Hegel can be found in Lukac's Young Hegel: the Marxist bits are so laughable (he even quotes Stalin... seriously?!) that in some twisted way they only compliment the surprisingly relevant analysis of H that Lukacs does. Either way, Hegel studies are a pit of despair and that's why I prefer to read source materials. Many people tend to think that H boils down to Phenomenology and Philosophy of Right. Well, it doesn't!

[Anonymous No.19703072]

Unfortunately, none and I've read MANY books on Hegel. They somehow all manage to forget H's fantastic Aesthetics, penetrating Philosophy of World History or the moving Philosophy of Religion. Instead they focus on minor epistemological crap and are constantly trying to "outsmart" old Hegel instead of bringing relevant content to the table. I'd say that the worst example of such petty hair-splitting is Althusser's work on Hegel (angry midget Popper is another sorry example). Ironically, the closest to a decent study of Hegel can be found in Lukac's Young Hegel: the Marxist bits are so laughable (he even quotes Stalin... seriously?!) that in some twisted way they only compliment the surprisingly relevant analysis of H that Lukacs does. Either way, Hegel studies are a pit of despair and that's why I prefer to read source materials. Many people tend to think that H boils down to Phenomenology and Philosophy of Right. Well, he doesn't!

[Anonymous No.19704436]

>>19701581
Sorry, can't help you because the best secondary lit I've read wasnt in English. Anyway

Avoid Kojeve and this >>19702826
Avoid this >>19701607
Absolutely avoid Taylor (I haven't read Beiser yet, so I will suspend my judgement on him) >>19701729
Absolutely avoid Kufmann >>19703021

These can all be interesting books and authors, but they simply get him wrong, and as such they will actually harm your first reading of Hegel. I advise you to read them AFTER you've read Hegel (especially Kojeve and Hyppolite, who are interesting in their own right; Magee is tremendously interesting, although he's just wrong about Hegel; avoid Kaufmann like the plague).

>>19701628
It's a downright wrong interpretation of Hegel's philosophical project, but it is very interesting in it's own right, both as an introduction to hermeticism, and as a source on Hegel's readings of the mystics and the hermeticists

[Anonymous No.19704478]

>can't even read secondary literature on Hegel because "everyone gets him wrong"
Lmao what a joke. Hegel sounds like the biggest pseud, not even his biggest appreciators got him.

[Anonymous No.19704506]

>>19704478
It's not that everyine gets him wrong, it's that English-speaking Hegelian scholarship is really shit at the moment.

[Anonymous No.19705059]

>>19704436
don't be a cocktease about the lit that wasn't in English. If it's the best thing you've ever read on hegel, drop it in the thread so at least some of us can have a crack at it.

[Anonymous No.19705624]

>>19701581
This is a meme thread about how Kojève didn't get Hegel ... or?

[Anonymous No.19705795]

>>19705059
I advise everyone to read everything they can find from Claudio Cesa, Franco Chiereghin (especially his works on the Jena Logic) and Dieter Heinrich.

[Anonymous No.19705897]

>>19705795
there we go. excited to look into these characters

[Anonymous No.19706173]

>>19705795
>Dieter Heinrich
I'm glad he's reliable, I planned to read some of his books.
What do you think of Terry Pinkard? His book on German philosophy was my introduction to German Idealism. He may not be accurate and perfect for all the philosophers, but is have you read it? What do you think about Hegel's section in it?
You read the other books on Hegel in Italian and French? I'm brazilian so they are kind of accessible to me.

[Anonymous No.19706226]

Twitter faggots pretending to be into Hegel is the worst thing that ever happened to people trying to get a handle on Hegel, they all divebomb any thread about him to recommend whatever shit they hear talked about on twitter or by some political streamer.

[Anonymous No.19706232]

>>19706226
I also worry that this is the case. why not share what you recommend?

[Anonymous No.19706242]

>>19701581
This video
https://youtu.be/QLGd-z3qdAU

[Anonymous No.19707481]

>>19701581
>needing secondary literature
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.19707524]

Kojeve can be really interesting, but the emphasis in the title of that book should on 'reading' specifically his reading of Hegel and how it fits his broader philosophical project. It absolutely isn't an introduction to Hegel as such.

[Anonymous No.19707546]

hegel nerds answer this:

what does hegel think of the principle of sufficient reason? what in his system makes the rational necessary as to be a limit on reality? why can't the irrational be? what is the reason the absolute is the way that it is instead of any other way, even an incomprehensible other way? where can he ground the absolute if he says the ground needs to be external to be sufficient and there is nothing external to the absolute?