I dont get it

[Anonymous No.22747714]

[Anonymous No.22747758]

>>22747714
He had a shitty idea of using the antinomies to make synthetic knowledge through concepts possible. he wrote all that shit to make it seem like he actually succeeded.

[Anonymous No.22747761]

>>22747714
The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk. You won't get Hegel and will never get Hegel unless you actually do the work of reading the whole system and acheiving an intellectual intuition of the idea of the system as a whole and the role all the parts and moments play in the system and their true meaning in the context of that intuition of the whole. In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.

[Anonymous No.22747798]

>>22747714
It's simple, you just realize that certainty of self is the object and vice versa completely through intuition and then his whole system just writes itself into your brain automatically, accompanied by the faint scent of schnitzel.

[Anonymous No.22747834]

basically his deal is he claims to have rationally deduced all the categories one from the other beginning with the essential concept of Being or "Is", since that is the concept which all other concepts must have to even BE a concept (or anything at all). And in the end he claims to have gone full circle in his deductions so that the final conclusion of his dialectic is the same place where he started (except now at a higher standpoint since you realize now that the beginning was not an arbitrary starting point but itself already a rationally grounded conclusion of previous unconscious cycles of the dialectical process [think for example of literary theme where the hero ends up right back where he started but now with a new perspective gained from his journey]).

[Anonymous No.22747857]

>"fuck yeah time to read the phenomenology lets go"
>get to pic related
AAAAIIIEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.22747901]

>>22747714
Hi anon, I'm a grad student, focusing on Hegel.

I'm not gonna stick, so dont bother replying. I'm not going to read whatever you say, or anyone else. I will tell you about my relationship with the text, and offer you a reading list I think will help

deal? Ok

First of all, I'm going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you have some basic, very basic knowledge of Early Modern philosophy and Kant. You'll need it if you dont.
I had some mastery of greek philosophy, plato and aristotle anyways, I had a pretty good mastery of Spinoza, and the scholarly literature. As you already know, Hegel mentions spinoza a lot in this text, especially to oppose his concept of substance, or the idea of substance in general. Hegel, in my view, is a sort of bundle theorist. Perhaps Im wrong, i dont really care. Then I had a class on Kants critique, where one of the top scholars in his field taught it to me. I also had to get a mastery of Leibniz and descartes. Descartes ideas are very sedimented in Hegel, at least, Descartes methodical ideas. When I got to Hegel, I read the phenomenology, and followed Halfhourhegel for a while until Sadler started getting tedious to watch. I didnt understand the text the first time around, and I dont think I understand it now, but thats okay. Following up, I looked at the philosophy of right, easy enough, the lesser logic, easy enough still, albeit condensed and unclear in some places which I found clearer in the greater logic. Then the philosophy of nature, and finally the science of logic. The SoL took me about 3 months to read, on a summer between my semesters. Because I was afforded a generous stipend, I could spend several hours a day reading. Several hours a day, for 3-4 months is necessary for this text. Constant note taking, rereading, and reference back to other authors or the lesser logic was necessary to grasp it. And like a wine, I did not appreciate all of it at first, but things dawned on me over time. I do not agree with Hegel, but I dont agree somewhat with his methodical approaches.

I am going to provide you a list of what to read, and I really only suggest the utmost minimum you will need.

Heraclitus fragments
Permenides fragments

There are some excellent copies of these fragments form university of toronto iirc

Follow up with early modern philosophy directly, I'm no expert on medievals and idk what youll need, if anything, perhaps just Maimonides for Spinoza. In that case, look there.

Then you want descartes, theres a 3 volume translation of his complete works, 1-2 is good. Theres one of its kind, you should find it easy

Read everything, really, his discourse of method, principles of philosophy, the world, and so on. Then, if you want help, between two worlds by John Carriero is good, if you need help on the meditations. The discourse on method is absolutely necessary, if you really struggled through the SoL you will find it helpful.

Hackett's philosophical essays of Leibniz
Post 1 of ?

[Anonymous No.22747908]

>>22747761
>Being, Pure Being, without any further determination--

[Anonymous No.22747917]

>>22747901
Sorry, ive run out of room.

As I was saying.

After you have read Leibniz' basic stuff
Read the essay concerning by Locke, Hackett's abridgement is fine enough

Then, this is very essentail, follow with cambrdiges copy of Leibniz' new essays in response to Locke

Then read Spinoza, Hackett has a complete works volume. Read the short treatise on god man etc, and the emendation of intellect, then the ethics, and there are many many of his letters you must read. At least letter 12, this is important to Spinoza and Hegel. Im not going to fetch my copy and tell you which letters are important, Hackett has a smaller copy of spinoza with them and it has just the important ones save a few.
Spinoza is difficult to grasp for some, but, theres not any good literature or analysis on him desu, so just take a look at Plato Stanfords page
"Spinoza's theory of attributes", and an article, I forgot the title but its in a journal called the chicago conference on spinoza. Its the first article, on Ip10. The plato stanford covers this. Understanding Objective vs Subjective interpretation of Spinoza is essentail.

Moving on, Take a look at Berkeley and Hume. Berkeley has the treatise, and dialogues. Hume's treatise of human nature and the shorter treatise on understanding, is also important. Mainly the human nature.

Ok, so you're done with early modern philosophy. And I want to save you time, truly. Please give me your trust.

Kant's first critique should be fine, secondary work about it is essential too, idk what though. I had an expert help me directly, so I can't say.

Then, read Fichte's sun clear report. its 20 pages, you can find it on Jstor.

You're looking pretty good now, and let's say your interest with Hegel only extends to the Logic, it shouldnt, but lets say anyways.

Read the Lesser Logic first, and then, if you want, you can take a look at "Introduction to Hegel's Logic" by Hartnack, it's rubbish, but decent rubbish. Then, watch Stephen Houlgates lectures on Hegel's Logic. They are on youtube, in a black and white thumbnail. Then, and only then, try to reread the SoL. You may find it this time around much easier.

Listen to me or dont, idrc, I just like the text, and I want everyone to like it too, as so many dont even try. You should feel proud of yourself you tried at least once to do that

post 2 of 2

[Anonymous No.22747920]

>>22747917

[Anonymous No.22747926]

>>22747901
>Because I was afforded a generous stipend, I could spend several hours a day reading.
lucky

[Anonymous No.22747930]

>>22747920
this is quite funny, thank you. I hope my peers like it. I've been getting into some trouble for saying mean things, I'm curious where this will get me

[Anonymous No.22747932]

>>22747926
eh, depends on where you get in, and if you were willing to slave on teaching for them

if you are not in grad school, dont worry. Everyone provides one, generally enough to cover your rent, and a bit more.

[Anonymous No.22747941]

>>22747901
>Then I had a class on Kants critique, where one of the top scholars in his field taught it to me.
sweet

[Anonymous No.22748106]

>>22747714
>start with the encyclopedia of logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34NdrVEkp1w&list=PLeKqw0EgTxgfnNKNU_I1nsU2xrOWhVsQj&index=21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOEiKw1g5uA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8PB99amuDQ

[Anonymous No.22748545]

>>22747901
>grad student
>focusing on hegel
>"Perhaps Im wrong, i dont really care"
channers are beyond help

[Anonymous No.22748697]

>>22747761
Great post. I couldn't say it anyway else.

[Anonymous No.22749780]

>>22748106
Johannes is a fraud cuck.

[Anonymous No.22749785]

>>22748545
Why? Better than being some over confident tard who thinks he knows everything. You know NOTHING.