/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20919457]

Without having to read the comprehensive list of western philosophy where would I start to understand German Idealism, fitche, schelling Hegel etc? I’ve read Kennys introduction to western philosophy and I’ve read most of Plato, the bible, Spinoza and Descartes. Where now?

[Anonymous No.20919486]

Kind of a strange question. You've read all that but you don't know that Kant is the daddy of German idealism?

[Anonymous No.20920249]

>>20919457
Kant, and then Schopenhauer. Hegel is a faggot and his alternatives to logic that borderline on schizophrenia, and relies on the obscurity and verbosity of the text to give of an impression of profoundness.

If you agree with the proposition that A = A, and that A does not equal -A, then stay away from Hegel since he will use his extremely autistic flawed form of logic to conclude that the negation of A and A itself are one and the same. If you want to read to understand German Idealism read Kant. Then Schopenhauer who completes Kant.

[Anonymous No.20920273]

>>20920249
Not OP, but what about Fichte and Schelling?

[Anonymous No.20920277]

>>20920249
someone got filtered by hegel

[Anonymous No.20920296]

>>20920277
If you mean filtered by his borderline retarded logic, and reliance on conceptual abstractions rather then experience then yes I was filitered by the stupidity of his work.

This fucking idiot Hegel geuinely thinks that we are somehow all the realisation of God and God is fucking logic, and that somehow we will realise the absolute idea or absolute truth through the progress of history - this is literally the end resualt of his erroneous dialect. An eternal truth is not something to be realized but is by essence something that will be found in the present not in the future.

His reliance on "reason" and conceptual abstraction is the reason his philisophy is shit, it ignores the basic human experience. Meanwhile Schopenhauer examining the human condition, why we chase sexual partners, why we want freinds, why we are filled with insatiable desires, and from these human experiences that are universal does he draw upon the concept of the will to life; this is what an actual philisopher does not draw upon 'reason' and obscure conceptual abstraction. Hegelians will throw a profusion of words with little to no meaning based of Hegels stupid dialectic, since to them profoundness and verbosity is one and the same, and philisophical truths are to be found in abstract concepts and not through human experiences.

[Anonymous No.20920309]

>>20920296
Schopenhauer is Bukowski compared to Hegel

[Anonymous No.20920311]

>>20920309
Hegel is a stupid redditor nigger who has inspired millions of his followers to transition and chop off their penises and become trannies as they reach the absolute idea of trannyism.

[Anonymous No.20920339]

>>20920296
>and reliance on conceptual abstractions rather then experience then yes I was filitered by the stupidity of his work.
It's basically the exact opposite if you look at PoS. Hegel is trying to create an experience-based groundwork for "absolute knowing" (hence "phenomology"). His logic is just one part of it. It's all ultimately ridiculous (the idea that even intersubjective consciousness can somehow come to a truth through mutual negation, which is basically turning Plato on his head by saying that the "mixed" and "indefinite" are more definite than the definite), but your post is not quite correct, if anything he is more stupid than you made him sound. He basically repackaged the Platonic idea of dialectic (the discovery of the source of axioms, dianoia) into something both historical and existential, which fails on the original Platonic account, but allegedly fits Kant's conditions of "critical philosophy" and leads to some extremely tenuous idea of truth (truth developing from "experience"). His idea of reason ultimately develops out of this existential basis (ie, the higher arises from the lower), hence why it seems so absurd to people commonly acquainted with the term, and it's also why no one ever feels like they've ever properly "understood" him; it's because at a fundamental level there is nothing to be understood, you (and Hegel) are just messing with the Platonic indefinite dyad. It keeps an apple on a stick in front of you and you keep following it hoping one day you'll be able to take a big bite out of absolute knowing.

[Anonymous No.20920350]

>>20920309
god karl popper is such a fucking midwit

[Anonymous No.20920362]

>>20920339
> It's all ultimately ridiculous (the idea that even intersubjective consciousness can somehow come to a truth through mutual negation, which is basically turning Plato on his head by saying that the "mixed" and "indefinite" are more definite than the definite).
Yeah I never actually read anything of Hegel because his idea of absolute knowing just seemed analogous to the apple on the stick, that one day the absolute idea will be acheived and that contradictions are actually inextricable from truth or something. Anyway thanks for explaining the stupidity of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.20920372]

>>20920309
lol this picture is so retarded it becomes funny

Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.20920376]

Hegel was a piece of shit bourgeois rat

[Anonymous No.20920392]

kek at all these brainlets. read hume’s essay concerning human understanding, then kant’s first critique, then beiser’s book German Idealism, then you should be set for your first skim.

[Anonymous No.20920395]

>>20920372
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.20920404]

>>20920392
Read Hume, read Kant, realize they're both wrong and go back to Aristotle or Descartes. Then you should be set to start understanding things.

[Anonymous No.20920411]

>>20920311
I've noticed this as well

[Anonymous No.20920415]

>>20920249
>muh A=A
please keep staying in your stem curriculum.

[Anonymous No.20921220]

>>20920309
All philosophers, except Guenon.

[Anonymous No.20921226]

Dragged out under the lights

[Anonymous No.20921229]

>>20919457
Read Kant, and commentaries if you need them. Then if you want, get Between Kant and Hegel and read at least the Schulze and Fichte's reply in that. Then read Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre, especially his introductions. After this read the early Schelling, then you can read Hegel. If you want, read Holderlin's two-page "Judgment and Being" when transitioning from Fichte to Schelling/Hegel. With Hegel, read the Science of Logic, not just the Phenomenology of Spirit.

[Anonymous No.20921232]

>>20921229
read/expected/got

nothing

[Anonymous No.20921380]

>>20920309
>Filtered by will and representation

[Anonymous No.20921715]

Go directly to Beiser

[Anonymous No.20921918]

>>20920339
>indefinite dyad chad spotted in the wild
I'm glad to have seen you, anon. How does one properly mix the indefinite and the definite? How does the indefinite and the definite relate to space and time?

[Anonymous No.20921933]

>le belief in Hegel

[Anonymous No.20922008]

>>20920309
Based and intelligence-pilled. I'm sick of midwits like Neetshit and Albert Cumpoo being praised. Metaphysics IS philosophy. Everything else is pot smoking cum gargles

[Anonymous No.20922468]

>>20920296
>rather then experience
dude Hegel is the first philosopher to actually use experience as a logical tool

[Anonymous No.20922479]

>>20920339
>(the idea that even intersubjective consciousness can somehow come to a truth through mutual negation, which is basically turning Plato on his head by saying that the "mixed" and "indefinite" are more definite than the definite)
Explain. I'm somewhat familiar with Philebus and Plato's concept of the indefinite, definite, and the mixed. But how does that relate to intersubjective consciousness and mutual negation?

[Anonymous No.20922496]

>>20920309
do the two different wittgensteins symbolize his two eras, assuming left to right reading real philosopher would be tractatus era and not real would be philosophical investigations?

[Anonymous No.20922554]

>>20920249
spbp

[Anonymous No.20922718]

>>20919457
Just read Kant

[Anonymous No.20922763]

>>20920249
Gotta agree with this anon. Schopenhauer was the true inheritor of Kant's legacy. Kant would have found Hegel a complete fool.

For example, despite Kant's difficult text, it can be broken down and explained in simple terms. Ask a Hegelian to do this, and you will get paragraphs of gibberish, because it is bullshit language holding up a bullshit philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20922790]

>>20920339
He just took hermeticism and applied a philosophical framework. He's a hack.

[Anonymous No.20922943]

>>20920296
>yes I was filitered
I see

[Anonymous No.20922957]

Was Hegel monochromotopically colourblind or was he monochromotopically colourblind?

[Anonymous No.20923026]

>>20920362
>Yeah I never actually read anything of Hegel
Oh really?

>>20920339
>no one ever feels like they've ever properly "understood" him
Thank god that you're literally the first and only person to understand Hegel in these 200 years.

[Anonymous No.20923028]

>>20919457
>philosophy
/his/
Jannies, I'm sure you got this right
This isn't really a shit board where everything goes, and no one gives a shit?
Wait, what, really? It is?

[Anonymous No.20923032]

>>20922763
>For example
where's the example

[Anonymous No.20923038]

>>20923026
>>20923028
Shit shit

[Anonymous No.20923101]

>>20923026
>Thank god that you're literally the first and only person to understand Hegel in these 200 years.
He never impleid this.

[Anonymous No.20923126]

>>20922008
>>20920309
But Schopenhauer is a systematic metaphysician, not some memexistentialist fluff (though he was influential to the latter due to his focus on ways of overcoming the will).

[Anonymous No.20923138]

>>20919457
Fichte is very clear actually, from what I've read. You can read him with what you have, though perhaps reading Kant's Prolegomena would help if you have difficulties.

[Anonymous No.20923148]

>>20923138
What did you read?? Wissenschaftslehre is very dense and confusing.

[Anonymous No.20923153]

>>20922763
>for example
>its not an example

[Anonymous No.20923166]

>>20923032
Transcendental Idealism: we only know reality as our senses/brain presents it to us.
Categorical imperative: don't do things unless you want everybody doing them.

Now, sum up some Hegel without using his BS terms.

[Anonymous No.20923255]

>>20923166
That is such a stupid fucking example and misrepresentation of Kant. It would be like if I gave an example of summing up Hegel "Hegelian dialectics: a thing has its opposite and when those two meet a third thing, which is better, pops up", or (much less extremely) "Lordship and bondage: two people meet and one is scared of the other, but the one that isn't scared is the one who's really dependent on the other one".
There's a reason both the first Critique and Phenomenology are 500 page books and not collections of aphorisms of Eastern "wisdom". Especially Hegel whose system is so fluid, alive and beautiful.

[Anonymous No.20923293]

>>20923255
How does it misrepresent Kant?

Kant's text follows a logic, like a mathematical proof. Hegel is just a string on nonsense. Book summaries exist for a reason, do not get upset that Hegel cannot be broken down because he cannot be explained without reverting to his own rambling.

Take Schopenhauer
>Epistemology: We know only the representation of reality based on our sense data and brain.
>Ontology: We know internally there is something other than empty phenomenon in ourselves, this is the will
>Aesthetics: Art distracts our mind and allows us to contemplate objects outside of our desire for them, quieting the will.
>Ethics: Asceticism is the will turning on itself, becoming self aware at the pointless struggles and turning toward renunciation.

Again,summarize Hegel, which you cannot do.

[Anonymous No.20923334]

>>20923293
What we know of reality IS reality. Nothing exists ourside of the consciousness. All that is is a moment of a process of the self-actualizing absolute. Being only a moment of the whole the reason cannot grasp absolute in its entirety due to the limitations of time and space categories which the reason cannot escape. This, incidentally, is the reason why you cannot pack it up in neat little abstractions without losing the whole point as the absolute exists in totality of its system.

[Anonymous No.20923491]

>>20922943
>I’m a massive faaaaaaagggooooooott !

[Anonymous No.20923667]

>>20923491
Mad because filtered utilitarian cock of immediate stepped in wrong neighborhood

[Anonymous No.20923686]

>>20920249
>he doesn’t accept Heraclitus’ unity of opposites
>he doesn’t accept things require an opposite to ground themselves

The existence of Christ calls into the existence of the anti-Christ for a reason

[Anonymous No.20924056]

>>20919457

[Anonymous No.20924093]

>>20920339
>>20921918
>>20922479
indeterminate dyad chad... pls respond... only non-retard in this thread... maybe this entire board...

[Anonymous No.20924118]

>>20920415
Actually stem people are the only ones with the cognitive power today to love and appreciate Hegel. I was introduced to Hegel because all my fellow math major friends were Hegelians. Schopenhauer fags are always lit majors who get filtered by actual difficult thought , making them turn out of desire to seem "smart" and cognitively comparably capable to stem majors, to the only philosopher they can digest(as they are self aware enough, or too vain, to simply admit their favorite is Camus and the one work by Sartre they've read)

[Anonymous No.20925102]

>>20919457
>where would I start to understand German Idealism,
Kant, and then Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.20926157]

>>20924093
last chance to try to get him to respond

[Anonymous No.20926226]

>>20923334
This is anon you were replying to. I do not get to say this often, but that is possibly the only summary of Hegel done on this board that made sense and remains true to what he said. If you are not a teacher, you should be. Maybe one day we Schopenhauerians and Hegelians can join forces to spread Idealism.

[Anonymous No.20926296]

>>20924118
Einstein and Schrodinger both liked Schopenhuaer keep coping

[Anonymous No.20926301]

>>20923334
>Nothing exists ourside of the consciousness.
proof?

[Anonymous No.20926398]

>>20926301
How is that the thing that needs proof?

[Anonymous No.20926412]

>>20926398
How does it not need proof? Everything needs proof. Whatever is outside of our consciousness is unknown. Nothing coherent can be said of it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Account for the void or one day it will account for you.

[Anonymous No.20926435]

>>20926412
Claiming that nothing exists outside of consciousness is very different from claims that something does exist outside of it. That is what needs proof.

[Anonymous No.20926454]

>>20926435
They're both identical in that any positive statement about the existence or non-existence of things outside of consciousness requires proof. It is literally the unknown unknown. It's something you cannot speak about coherently until it becomes known, which may be logically impossible. So, without a proof for any claim about what exists outside of consciousness, you have to be intellectually honest and claim agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.20926496]

>>20926454
How is denying the existence of something beyond the possibility of understanding a positive statement? Ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of god.

[Anonymous No.20926508]

>>20926496
Because you're affirming the non-existence of something. Either something exists, or it does not exist. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.20926532]

>>20923334
You can't think of something that does, here you go.

[Anonymous No.20926541]

>>20926301
You can't think of something that does, here you go.

[Anonymous No.20926655]

>>20923334
This is not Hegel. Reality (wirklichkeit) inheres through our knowledge of existence, our consciousness of it. We are able to grasp knowledge of existence because objects (outside of our consciousness in a meaningful sense though in a complex relation to it) are inflected with the same negativity which subjectivity is. Subject and object are both moments of the same absolute (negativity), which develop according to their Idea, some reason, either logic or physical laws—hence idealism. Reason did grasp the notion of the absolute in the phenomenology, which in its notion is the principle of all reality (though not all reality fully determined). Reason is not bound by time and space categories—that’s Kant, not Hegel—only experience is. The absolute doesn’t exist in the totality of its system, Truth does, but yes that’s why you can’t package Hegel into neat little abstractions—his system is an organic whole, each part can only be justified in the explication of the whole.

[Anonymous No.20926889]

>>20926655
I'm not very familiar with proper terminology in English (or German for that matter), plus I'm not particularly smart, so I took some liberties.
When I said reality, I merely took a word out of the post of the fellow who demanded a summarization. I suppose existence (thing in itself?) would be the correct term to employ here? As far as our ability to grasp existence is concerned, I always thought that the idea of object and subject being two sides of the same coin was a decent enough justification for why it is possible in the first place. We're a means for the absolute to reach the stage of being not only in itself but for itself as well and for that to happen we must posses tools to know it in its totality.
When I was talking about reason I meant Verstand. As far as I can tell the absolute, according, to Hegel cannot be reached(understood) by Verstand as it's merely (although a necessary) moment of becoming of the absolute spirit. Full understanding of absolute can only be reached at the stage of Vernunft. Since experience doesn't exist outside of subject can these categories not be applied to the subject (in this case Verstand)? I know there's a dialectical reason for why Verstand perceives things in the way it does but to me it seemed to be more intuitively clear to explain it by putting blame on these two categories for the sake of clarity (plus I'm frankly not that well versed in the whole thing unlike you seem to be). Since we're talking here with people who support the system which are grounded, as far as Hegel is concerned (if I got it correctly) in the realm of Verstand I thought it was worth mentioning. I am surprised to hear that absolute, truth, system, notion, concept, being in and for itself, mind (Vernunft), the absolute spirit are not the name of the same thing so hopefully you'd be able to provide some further information on this topic as well as correct me on any of my misunderstandings of the subject at hand that are sure to crop up.

[Anonymous No.20926907]

>>20926541
I can. It's something called object permanence.

[Anonymous No.20926915]

>>20926907
But object permanence exists in the realm of your consciousness? Every thing of which you are aware does. That's the whole point. You can't think of single thing that does not. It's literally impossible since the moment you think of it, you guessed it, it becomes part of you consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20926920]

>>20926296
it's the difference between the mathematician and the physicist
mathematicians are far more prone to mental illness so its no surprise they favour hegel
you know the average mathematician today is a platonist? i mean, they genuinely believe in a magical aspatial and atemporal realm within which all of their triangles, their rings and fields, their topological spaces exist
madness

[Anonymous No.20926930]

>>20923686
there is absolutely no sufficient reason to and never has been a sufficient reason to accept the unity of opposites
on the other hand, modern quantum physics together with the arguments of the mathematical intuitionism school does provide reason to reject the law of the excluded middle

[Anonymous No.20926936]

>>20926930
Without an opposition an object doesn't exist is it not sufficient?

[Anonymous No.20926939]

>>20926907
1. Prove object permanence.
2. That's not what the poster above meant and by extension what Hegel means by consciousness and the things not existing outside of it.

[Anonymous No.20926967]

>German Idealism

Not so fast.

[Anonymous No.20926976]

>>20926889
Can you remind me the definition and difference between Verstand and Vernunft. I keep mistaking them for each other seeing them in three different languages. I have somewhere written down for Kant, but not for Hegel.

[Anonymous No.20926989]

>>20926915
I don't know if "exists in consciousness" is the right way of putting it. The way I understand object permanence is that it is a heuristic-like relationship with the "unknown unknown." For all the baby knows, after the veil is put into place, that monkey could have ceased existing. But our experience with things disappearing and reappearing while remaining intact shows that there's a strong likelihood that objects continue to exist despite us not being conscious of them. There's no guarantee though. On the other hand, a baby with no object permanence has no relationship with the "unknown unknown." Out of sight, out of mind.

[Anonymous No.20926994]

>>20926939
Then what does he mean?
>>20926920
>they genuinely believe in a magical aspatial and atemporal realm
not what Plato believed.

[Anonymous No.20927013]

>>20926994
>Then what does he mean?
You're thinking of solipsism. The perception of reality doesn't leave anything out. There isn't a thing with such unimaginable nature that we are limited by our senses to only know some of its filtered attributes.
Prove object permanence.

[Anonymous No.20927014]

>>20926976
Again, take what I say with a grain of salt, but I'll try to explain things as I understood them to the best of my ability (which is unfortunately not much).

Essentially Verstand is a part of the subjective spirit that's concerned with analyzation, abstractions and formal logic. The object of verstand in never "alive", even if it used to be. The moment it enters the realm of Verstand it's all but dead, dissected and refrigerated. Naturally all natural sciences as well as mathematics employ this moment of becoming of the absolute spirit when they engage in act of knowing.

Vernunft is a stage of the absolute spirit where dialectics rule. Where every previous contradiction is resolved and where the living breathing concept resides contemplating itself. Sorry for overly illustrative explanation, Hegel would not approve.

[Anonymous No.20927020]

>>20926994
>not what Plato believed.
oh I know, that only makes it even more annoying. you get mathematicians who have never read a word of philosophy in their lives declare that they're platonists all because they've heard some distorted, comical in fact, misinterpretation of the theory of forms
logicians tend to be free from this criticism, who typically opt for a sensible version of formilism

[Anonymous No.20927063]

>>20927013
>Prove object permanence.
You can't. It's just a heuristic that helps us navigate a world of uncertainty. Every instant of object "permanence" is really just a guess.

[Anonymous No.20927142]

>>20926989
You see the thing with object permanence is that it's concerned with individual items that come from immediacy of our senses. But consciousness goes further than mere beholding. The same moment we come to perceive monkey it becomes something more than just an idiosyncratic individuality it becomes an image with a degree of permanence that will outlive its source. In a sense our consciousness itself becomes a foundation upon which the object's permanence nests. At that point who is to know what came first: a monkey or its image? They appeared at the same time as far as we're concerned. Who is to say that the monkey that we see was not evoked by the power of our own mind? Had we not know of monkey, would it have existed in the first place as you yourself pointed out there's no guarantee. The only guarantee we have for existence of anything is our consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20927264]

>>20927014
>Hegel would not approve
I'm afraid you may be right, but thank you nonetheless.
Yeah, I somewhat remember Verstand being the "either-or" part and the inability to think beyond self-imposed limits, while Vernunft is the overcoming the understanding with higher syntheses of knowledge, negative aspect being dialectic and positive being speculation.
The terms themselves make more sense when translated to Serbian compared to English.

[Anonymous No.20927266]

>>20926889
Existence in English can mean both Dasein: determinate being, and Existenz: mediated or concrete being, the reflective parallel to dasein. Reality in English can refer to either Realität or Wirklichkeit, though Wirklichkeit is better translated as actuality. Realität, unreflected in itself, has no truth, is being precisely as ungrasped, merely existing. Wirklichkeit is Realität as conceptually grasped through the Idee inherent in it.

>We're a means for the absolute to reach the stage of being not only in itself but for itself as well and for that to happen we must posses tools to know it in its totality.
This is achieved in Absolute Knowing in the Phenomenology. Though we don't need to know the absolute in its determinate totality, we need only grasp the Idea of it. You will never know the determinate totality because it is the nature of the absolute to continuously develop further determinations.

>>20926976
>>20927014
Reason is Vernunft, not Verstand, the understanding (one translator, at least, translated Vernunft as understanding, but this isn't the typical convention in English). Understanding draws distinctions between things, Reason grasps together what understanding separates—it is understanding separated from the separations it draws. Reason is the latin ratio, the rational; understanding, intellectus, merely the analytical.

It's correct that the understanding cannot grasp the absolute—because the ab-solute is inseparable— and reason can (and has), but Verstand and Vernunft aren't distinct stages, they're different faculties, coexisting, Vernunft dependent on Verstand.

The reason a philosophical system can't be grounded—but must be an organic whole in which each part is justified within the system itself—has nothing to do with the categories of time and space or the notion of the transcendental, but rather with the nature of the concept itself. idk if that's even what you're getting at desu.

>I am surprised to hear that absolute, truth, system, notion, concept, being in and for itself, mind (Vernunft), the absolute spirit are not the name of the same thing
ah... read hegel before attempting a summary then.

and quit doing this:>>20927014 you're only muddying things for the person who asked.

[Anonymous No.20927322]

>>20927142
You're focusing too much on object permanence, which again is just a heuristic, and not the problem that it's supposed to deal with, the unknown unknown. Like you said, it showcases the power of the mind to deal with things it doesn't know and come out largely okay. But it doesn't know these things. It's just guessing. Consciousness can be aware of such a concept as an unknown unknown, but the unknown unknown always escapes the grasp of consciousness. If consciousness could grasp it, then it would be known in some way, but it never truly is. It recedes from sight over the horizon.

[Anonymous No.20927468]

>>20927266
> idk if that's even what you're getting at desu
I was trying to explain why verdant is incapable of grasping the absolute and is concerned with its particulars. Do I understand correctly that time and space categories of subject's experience are consequence and not the cause of such inability?

>Verstand and Vernunft aren't distinct stages, they're different faculties, coexisting
Are they not different moments of dialectical motion? Is the fact that they coexist not the result that verstand is resolved into vermunft and not negated by it? Is coexistence of all moments of becoming not true to everything that makes up the absolute?

[Anonymous No.20927828]

>>20927468
Understanding is incapable of grasping the absolute because the absolute is only arrived at dialectically, or in speculative thought, Vernunft. With only understanding you are stuck with Kant at the transcendental limit, and dualisms of appearances and the thing-in-itself, and the understanding and sensibility. It takes Reason to hold the transcendental limit as also a limit of things-in-themselves, to see the limit as the positive condition of grasping them. Time and space are categories of the understanding, it isn't a causal relationship. The inability has to do with the nature of mere understanding.

>Are they not different moments of dialectical motion? Is the fact that they coexist not the result that verstand is resolved into vermunft and not negated by it? Is coexistence of all moments of becoming not true to everything that makes up the absolute?
This reads as pretty garbled to me. Dialectic is the form in which reason grasps things, not the understanding. Verstand negating itself is Vernunft, there isn't a resolution, just a complication. Maybe this will help clarify the absolute: https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/the-general-description-of-the-absolute/

[Anonymous No.20928274]

>>20919457
Beiser's Fate of Reason will pretty give you the historical and intellectual background to what the German Idealists were reacting to. He also has a series of books on German Idealism itself, which I haven't delved into, except for his introduction to Hegel, which is one of the best works of secondary literature I've ever read.

After that background you should pretty much be able to read Fichte/Schelling/Hegel straight.

[Anonymous No.20928450]

>>20919457
Absolute idealism is not related to the original idealism which started with berkeley and ended with schooenhauer. Calling Hegel an idealist is retarded.

[Anonymous No.20928454]

>>20928450
Also Plato was not an idealist either, he was a realist. Idealism is anti-realist.

[Anonymous No.20929305]

>>20928274
baser beiser enjoyer

[Anonymous No.20929546]

>>20928450
Hegel was a radical empiricist.

[A.W. No.20929811]

>>20919457
Seeing as no one has actually given you any real advice or pointers, I suggest you become familiar with the driving problems which lead to German Idealism's unique solutions. For this it's less a matter of reading priors, but of figuring out how the GIs interpreted them. "All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism In German Idealism" is a great book for the post-Leibniz tradition's particular attempts to defeat classical skepticism, and how we can see a direct thread of this problem running through all the way to Fichte/Schelling/Hegel given how each, at certain points in their early thinking, tackled the issue of overcoming skepticism once and for all. Beiser's "German Idealism", Pinkard's "German Philosophy," and Förster's "The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy" cover similar background and run similar, but not exactly the same, threads. Without the grasp of what problem they were solving, the GIs remain a mysterious bunch even if interesting due to their peculiarities.

>>20927828
Also, nice to see my stuff being shilled here. Looking through that blog, it needs an update.

<—As for all these people discussing what Hegel's Idealism was without knowing anything, learn something.

[Anonymous No.20929990]

>>20919457
>Hegel
That motherfucker wrote pure nonsense and therefor CANNOT be understood so don't waste your time. If there is any value to be extracted from the verbal diarrhea that is Hegel's body of work, it is imitating his style with the intention befuddling and confusing other people so they don't see your scam coming.
>inb4 filtered
Fuck off, Alchemists!

>>20920277
>>20920415
>>20922943
>>20923667

Shouldn't you Charlatans be preoccupied with destroying entire continents, committing mass genocide and chopping your own dicks off?

[Anonymous No.20930415]

>>20929811
Hey, nice blog post. It was the first google result that wasn’t something written for undergrads by someone who’d never read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.20930431]

>>20920249
You’re a retard. You should read Hegel.