[ 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: 181 KB, 452x572, poopyhead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20454687 No.20454687 [Reply] [Original]

As a strong non-Hegelian, what did this guy even believe? Can someone give a quick summary?

>> No.20454709

>>20454687
He was a Christian.

>> No.20454714
File: 680 KB, 1400x884, 34534069346.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20454714

>>20454687
here's a visual summary

>> No.20454720

>>20454687
>strong non-Hegelian
>doesn't even know what Hegel believed
Nigga you retarded.

>> No.20454723
File: 81 KB, 720x540, image-24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20454723

powerpoint bros where we at?

>> No.20454734

>>20454687
>>20454709
Hegel was a Lutheran as was Kant. The difference is that Hegel was a Orthodox Lutheran while Kant was a Pietist. That is why Hegel is called the "Protestant Aquinas".

>> No.20454744

>>20454734
Aquinas is a bad comparison with Hegel IMO. Hegel's "God" created the universe by necessity. Aquinas's God freely chose to do it.

>> No.20454748

>>20454720
That's conjecture. I'm not retarded.

>> No.20454780

>>20454748
It's actually hearsay.

>> No.20454797

>>20454709
Was he left wing (liberal or socialist) or right wing (monarchist/conservative)

>> No.20454825

>>20454797
>Was he left wing (liberal or socialist) or right wing (monarchist/conservative)
Hegel IS communism. This is one of the reasons Schopenhauer (monarchist) hated him.

>> No.20454905

>>20454714
it do be like that

>> No.20454934

>>20454797
he's neither but if we MUST assign him to a wing he's so far left that he appears right on issues. can't use a Euclidean political compasses to assign the best philosophers

>> No.20454949

>>20454687
He basically believed that you should not be a cuck, that your wife is your wife because a social contract that must be upheld, you are part of a society and the materiality that comes with it. Don’t be a cuck

>> No.20454953

>>20454687
Femanon here. I have a fetish for ugly guys, prolly from self hate. Anyway I always wanted to fuck older Hegel

>> No.20454957

>>20454825
And this is why Marx loved him

>> No.20454960

>>20454953
I have a thing for stupid anons. I want to give you to my ugly friend whose wife died a few years ago and now he only fucks prostitutes, and thinks he is in love with one of them, fucking idiot.

>> No.20454962

>>20454953
An individual in possession of a y chromosome likely wrote this reply.

>> No.20455699

>>20454687
>As a strong non-Hegelian
>what did this guy even believe?

how can you be a contrarian to someone you don't even know?

>> No.20455775

>>20455699
Non=/=anti

>> No.20455795

>>20454709
He was a antinomian Sorcerer.

>> No.20455805

>>20454687
He didn't believe in anything. His philosophy is a bunch of senseless words, and you cannot believe in what has no meaning

>> No.20455807

>>20454687
>fuck this guy man
>can you guys explain what he said tho i dont get it :(
to be fair this has been philosophy's reaction to Hegel for like two centuries now

>> No.20455825

>>20454953
I know this is b8, but does anyone really find Hegel unattractive? He looks like prime sugerpaterfamilias material.

>> No.20455828

>>20455825
The weird scarf he's wearing in the classic picture makes him look like a pimp as well.

>> No.20455857

>>20455825
he looks like he's melting

>> No.20455954

ITT proof that no body reads on /lit/.
Hegel was all about how self-consciousness is a product of mutual consciousness.
Hegel believed like Kant that to be conscious of some 'object' one needs awareness of one's self but went a step ahead by recognizing that other consciousnesses can be mutually aware of each other's conscious. This awareness is mediated by social convention, you know, stuff like religion, law, even theater and anecdote -- pretty much all society. However that implies a certain collective 'Geist' that emanates from all the individual consciousnesses who make up a society. Geist is commonly translated as 'spirit' or sometimes 'mind' but others prefer to leave it untranslated. Some interpret this to mean that there is some kind of 'worldspirit' and that Hegel is flirting with an almost pantheistic metaphysics. Others take it to be more of a metaphor with which to explain the matroyshka doll like observations of how the state includes factions and groups which are at their most elemental level composed of individual people with their own consciousness. This metronymy was what Hegel believed, and that certain men, like Napoleon indeed contained the entire Geist of their age.This is related to Hegelian dialectic which introduces seemingly paradoxical propositions such as Becoming is the synthesis of Being and Nothing. For things, including history intself, such as the history that is contained in a single man like Napoleon, is constantly passing from nothing to being, all is 'becoming'. The most famous of these dialectics is Lordship-Bondage, which again, since both the Lord and Slave are conscious engage in a mutual recognition of each other's consciousness in accordance with social mediation implies a collective Geist between them. But, paradoxically in recognizing his Slave as a conscious entity, he negates his own freedom, while still recognizing it. But he Slave, in doing so negates his own freedom too but only recognizes it for his Lord and Master.

>> No.20456507

Reading lectures on the philosophy of universal history he seems to believe in the "spirit" as a sort of "pantheistic" yet concrete entity which could be present from human spiritual creations (art for example) to numbers to some planet's rotation to the state (The state he says is a form of the spirit) that is subjected to a series of dialectic conflicts until it becomes apparent to itself in the west through christianity and leaves it's imprint in law, statecraft and worldview.

>> No.20456527

>>20454797
He is a moderate conservative for his era.

>> No.20456640

>>20455954
>paradoxically in recognizing his Slave as a conscious entity, he negates his own freedom, while still recognizing it
I don't quite follow, what do you mean by freedom in this context? What freedom is the master negating by recognizing his slave as conscious? His freedom to treat his slave as an object, a unconscious tool?

Also, since seemingly you actually read Hegel, has you or anyone read Peter Kalkavage's companion book for the Phenomenology, Logic of Desire? I read in /lit/, or somewhere else, that using a companion book for Hegel isn't advised because you adapt the writer's interpretation instead coming up with your own, which apparently is a bad thing.

>> No.20456708

>>20456640
>I don't quite follow, what do you mean by freedom in this context? What freedom is the master negating by recognizing his slave as conscious? His freedom to treat his slave as an object, a unconscious tool?
More like no one keeps a slave around unless they need them.
If you have a slave, then he performs a function, maybe even a function that you can't perform yourself. Hegel posited that it is in recognizing the conscious of the slave, the master becomes aware of this interdependence, and eventually the more general interdependence of all individuals in society (remember the matroyshka doll with the entity of the State as the biggest one?).
or as Hegel put it:
>"The consciousness for-the-Master is not an independent but a dependent, consciousness
>"Thus he is not certain of existence-for-self as the truth; rather, his truth is the inessential consciousness and the inessential action of the latter [the slave]"