/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23131954]

I don’t get it.

[Anonymous No.23132601]

>>23131954
Make sure you read the following
https://righthegelian.com/reading-list/

[Anonymous No.23132610]

>>23132601
jesus christ who the FUCK would read all this shit?

[Anonymous No.23132637]

just watch this 200 hour series of lectures on it it'll tell you everything

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

[Anonymous No.23132699]

>>23131954
Shocking...

[Anonymous No.23132702]

>>23132637
he shot these over the course of 10 years. wtf. hegelians are fucked up.

[Anonymous No.23132726]

>>23131954
>I don’t get it.
That's the point. You do whatever you want with it. It's like lego for pseuds.

[Anonymous No.23132908]

>>23131954
You're not supposed to

[Anonymous No.23132953]

>>23132726
That's the impression I get. I have no idea what you're even supposed to take away from it and nobody seems to be able to explain that. Is any specific/definite example of absolute knowledge even given by Hegel? It's seemingly unlike any other ostensibly serious work of philosophy I've tried to read, where it just seems to assume its project is justified and yet it's not really clear what problem would actually be sorted out be reading it.

Like, what's an example of an actual philosophical problem that this would 'apply' to?

[Anonymous No.23132973]

>>23132953
>I have no idea what you're even supposed to take away from it
It is a becoming ontological critique of Kant's epistemology of being.

[Anonymous No.23132976]

>>23132953
>Like, what's an example of an actual philosophical problem that this would 'apply' to?
Who is a knower and how do they know the world?

Kant: knowing is the singular absolutes' contemplation of perfect being. The outside world doesn't exist. Prussia is indeterminate.
Hegel: actual cognition is fractured in space and time and is a reactive process to stimulus that takes a form of internal contradiction's ("failures") of knowing producing an ever more perfect knowing. The outside world can exist and can be "known" in this sense as activity. Also Prussia is awesome.

[Anonymous No.23132985]

I don't think even Hegels understood himself.

[Anonymous No.23132991]

[Anonymous No.23132994]

>>23131954
>I don’t get it.
Hegel's a fag. Now you know.

[Anonymous No.23133026]

>>23132973
>>23132976
Then why does he immediately go out of his way in the preface to excuse himself from any explicit comparison to prior philosophies in the body of work, despite at the same time acknowledging that they naturally build onto each other instead of being mere refutations of what came before? Like, am I supposed to take that at face value or am I supposed to read some other work of his where he does discuss Kant and his relation to his work explicitly?

The PoS is just full of shit like this where he says something, and claims it's justified by something else, but that thing would seemingly imply the opposite of what he said, with the above being a specific example (and yes, I get that has has the whole dialectic logic going on where seemingly opposing things can exist in opposition as part of something greater, but here I'm making it clear that I'm talking about him making specific claims about what he's even doing and how he's going about it which are so very odd).


>The outside world doesn't exist.
Kant doesn't really claim this, as what we see of a thing would naturally reflect some aspect of the thing, just only as it's presented to us, though the "really real things 'in themselves'" aren't something we have direct access to outside of our presentations of them, which pre-prescribe the possible forms of things at they appear 'for us', and the constitution of our senses determines the 'matter' (though this is more open ended and we have less power to reason about 'possible matter' and so can't constructively A Priori create a 'mathematics' of taste).

[Anonymous No.23133051]

>>23133026
>Kant doesn't really claim this
Kant's discussion of epiphenomena's apparent independent existence is radically deficient.

Piece of Shit exists in the context of pretty much everyone having taken his undergraduate courses, remember. It'd be like trying to read Lacan without comprehending ecrits or seminars? Europeans don't cite obsessively like Yanks as if they know their penis is small. Europeans cite like men confident in their ability to whip a woman into a fit of frenzy, fuck her, and then walk away without ejaculating to get on with the real business: other men.

The fact that the Young Hegelians "got it," and that Kant is read as a protospective critique of Hegel pretty much indicates that *everyone else* gets Hegel. It seems to just be our American Friends who failed to understand the trajectory of Spinoza, via the Scots, to Kant, and thus aren't referentially prepared for Hegel.

I mean, it isn't Buddhism people. Hegel is fucking simple.

OTOH I'd argue Kant is just taking Hume's argument seriously.

[Anonymous No.23133328]

>>23131954
Read the introduction - again -

[Anonymous No.23133968]

>>23131954
Philosophy isn't for you then

[Anonymous No.23134178]

>>23132991
lmao

[Anonymous No.23134249]

if you dont want to do the work to heighten yourself and youre expecting philosophy to lower itself for you, just quit it already, philosophy isnt for dilettantes like you

[Anonymous No.23134422]

>>23131954
It's hermeticism/gnosticism disguised as a philosophy. Read up on literature on those religions and then go back to Hegel, you'll understand it. Absolute knowledge is Gnosis.

[Anonymous No.23134497]

>>23132610
If you just want to read philosophy because you've heard it makes you smart or whatever then doing so will seem like a chore and a waste of time. If you have questions that you must answer because they are fundamental to you then you will read everything on that list and consider it to be just the beginning.
>>23134422
Definitely not.

[Anonymous No.23134650]

>>23131954
I drew from Hegel extensively in my dissertation. Here's what I used to break it down:
https://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/how-to-fake-your-way-through-hegel/