I've been reading Hegels phenomenology all summer while lying at a german nude beach

[Anonymous No.23773745]

Didn't really understand anything but it was a 10/10 experience. Would do again. Also in a weird way I feel like I'm changing.

[Anonymous No.23773967]

>>23773745
Amazing

[Anonymous No.23774879]

The book definitely changes you as you read it. The growing dialectic that runs it not only developes itself, but the reader themselves who is in conversation with the text.

[Anonymous No.23774892]

>>23773745

[Anonymous No.23775005]

>>23773745
what's a nude beach like? do you have to go there nude? can't i just go in clothes and admire all the hot girls? also how did it influence you? Timothy Winter writes about how seeing peach juice dribble down a nude girls' breasts as a teen convinced him a god must exist idk how it works

[Anonymous No.23775014]

>>23775005
In my country nude beaches are basically glorified meeting places for faggots. I live in a strongly homophobic country so historically nude beaches, public chalets and the like were the only places where faggots could meet

[Anonymous No.23775019]

>>23775014
Should have read the Symposium instead I guess

[Anonymous No.23775629]

>>23774879
Indeed. Something weird I noticed is that I always circle the lake three times a day reflecting hegels trinity dialectic taken from the christian father, son, holy spirit triad. I wasn't aware of it until I noticed.
>>23775005
>what's a nude beach like?
Well it's a beach but without the clothes FKK culture goes way back in germany especially in the eastern Bundesländer. Honestly "beach" was a bit of an over exaggeration. There is some sand but whatever.
>do you have to go there nude?
Theoretically you could go there in swimwear. People do it but you will be looked at disapprovingly by naked germans including me.
>can't i just go in clothes and admire all the hot girls?
Like I said you could but you might be seen as weirdo and a potential creep.

[Anonymous No.23775765]

>>23773745
Hegel damn well knows how to triforce.

[Anonymous No.23776600]

It's pseudo-philosophy. All of Hegel is.

As Russell said: "Even if (as I myself believe) almost all Hegel's doctrines are false, he still retains an importance which is not merely historical, as the best representative of a certain kind of philosophy which, in others, is less coherent and less comprehensive."

In other words, it's well structured nonsense. Fun to read, but essentially useless as actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23776682]

>>23776600
You're saying this because you fully understand Hegel's system and have found issues with it, not just because you got filtered by his writing and/or never even read him but simply regurgitate memes about him... right?
You're not a pseud... right?

[Anonymous No.23776715]

>>23776600
Let's all point fingers at that idiot and laugh.

[Anonymous No.23776740]

>>23776682
The Hegelian is in a position of constant retreat from criticism, he does not hold belief in a particular interpretation or reading of Hegel, but in Hegel as a whole. If a person criticise Hegel for X the challenger will soon be told that Hegel meant Y, if, on another day, a someone criticises Y they will find out that it was actually X all along.

For the Hegelian there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect, their one and only distinction is that between Faith and Foolishness. Faith in their guru, and the foolishness of everyone else.

[Anonymous No.23776742]

>>23773745
Wait till you read the rest.

[Anonymous No.23776744]

>>23776600
Yet he was roped into it as an undergrad. He is eternally prepping the Wittgenstein bull.

[Anonymous No.23776752]

>>23776682
Having a "system" to describe reality is a concept as much alien and dated to us as it was to russel. what has hegel really brought into this world with his thinking?

[Anonymous No.23776761]

>>23776682

Give me an example in plain English of an insight or idea Hegel had that represents progress in our understanding of anything.

I could give you one for Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Plato, Aristotle, Mill or Kant in a second.

[Anonymous No.23776909]

>>23776761
How is Essence connected with Appearance?
Aristotle said that an infinity of appearances could conceal the single Essence. Knowledge could thus only be of the unitary thing behind appearance. The connection of how we jump from the latter to the former is unexplained.
Kant: appearance is collated into pseudo-essences which are what we know as 'knowledge' by our own cognitive apparatus: actual Essential reality is metaphysical speculation beyond the possibility of verification.
But how is our cognitive apparatus capable of creating these pseudo-essences out of the flux of life, if it isn't capable of knowing real Essence? God harmonised the two. How can we prove this? We can't; it's speculation.

Hegel: the pseudo essences we subjectively create are linked to the real Essence by the very same cognitive faculties which create the pseudo essences, indeed, this, not god, is what links the two: the actual process of creating the pseudo essences is conditioned by the underlying real Essences. These then slowly, as they're more fully revealed merge into one: pseudo essence - Kantian subjective knowledge - merges with objective knowledge of Essence - the Platonic Idea - to create Absolute knowledge. This Absolute knowledge is what retroactively imposed order and harmony between its two constituents and allowed their mutual procession into each other.

Think about it in terms of final causes, like in Aristotle. The final cause is the Absolute, which conditions its starting cause.

[Anonymous No.23777440]

>>23773745
Reading Hegel in the nude on a beach could be one of the most inspiring things I've read on here OP. No homo.

[Anonymous No.23777442]

>>23773745
you're a dumbass

[Anonymous No.23777476]

>>23776909
>uhm so how do you know what to know blud first you speculate while guided by the thing youre headed to oh thats fucked up cuh
agreed speculatively

[Anonymous No.23777480]

>>23773745
Did you read Hegel's prior works?

Did you read the works of prior philosophers: Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Clement, Origen, Plotinus, Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Eurigena, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Eckhart, Ficino, Mirandola, Bruno, Boehme, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Baumgarten, Kant, Fichte, and Schelling?

[Anonymous No.23777483]

>>23773745
Bring back ID's in replies, please.

[Anonymous No.23777529]

>>23777476
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.23777569]

>>23775005
>hot girls
lmao

[Anonymous No.23777583]

>>23776909
How can one talk about something like this other than in terms of historical metaphysics. How can one study this for something other than pure curiosity or academic obligations. This makes no sense at all to me. It looks clean and tautological but it's completely alien to the reality that we came to understand in the 2 century since his work.
It's poetry from a poet. It's not philosophy. It doesn't reveal anything. It adds and adds on reality until it's all such a confusing mess that you can warp it to your convenience. Hence all the bullshit pseudo philosophy it generated.

[Anonymous No.23777606]

>>23777583
>if I don't understand it then it must be bullshit
How familiar are you with philosophy before Hegel? Did you read all of Kant's critiques? Fichte? Schelling? If not the importance of what Hegel is getting at will go over your head.

[Anonymous No.23777648]

>>23777606
You said it, his importance is purely historical, in the history of thought and ideas this is what hegel brought after kant fichte and schelling. And that is exactly the way I was taught to understand it, as something in the history of ideas. And that's also how the young hegelians viewed it I'm sure, something interesting to work with.
It's only with you nerds that I met someone still giving credit to systematic philosophy as something with a connection to reality

[Anonymous No.23777660]

>>23777606
How familiar are you with the philosophy that came after hegel. I'm sure in his system that are some useful tools that shaped the way philosophers thought and worked, but you can't bring me this wibble wabble about essence and metaphysics as something that was a progress in our understanding of the world we live in

[Anonymous No.23777704]

>>23776909
To this day I still don't get it why no metaphysician ever tried to make something pratical out of category theories. If you can't even derive a distinction between English
>still
>already
>yet
>until
there's no point in what you are doing.

[Anonymous No.23777733]

>>23776740
>he does not hold belief in a particular interpretation or reading of Hegel, but in Hegel as a whole
Correct interpretation of Hegel. Das Wahre ist das Ganze, remember.
>>23776740
>If a person criticise Hegel for X
Here's the problem with this: going by rule of thumb people "criticizing" Hegel normally haven't read him beyond a few pages (if at all) which immediately shows or they are just regurgitating a stale old critique some supposed authority made in order to seem smart. They almost never refer to actual text and it is simply very obvious that their frustration comes from a feeling of intellectual inferiority caused by the complexity and intellectual challenge of having to actually engage with his work.
You don't have to have read his entire work to criticize the fact that he sometimes expresses himself ambiguously or uses different words for the same thing (which, to be honest, is part of his method and, in my opinion, an advantage rather than a disadvantage, as dealing with clear definitions (which he btw provides in science of logic if you search for them) would curtail his work).
That being said if by "criticizing" something you just blatantly reveal that you have only read a fraction of his work, which as stated many times by him, can only really be understood as a whole, and criticize something about it that he has made clear elsewhere, then this only shows that you're just being an infantile contrarian shouting "Look guys! Actually the emperor is not wearing any clothes!" while being naked themself. They are basically ashamed to admit that there are things that go beyond their academic horizon. If these people would simply continue reading instead of throwing the book into a corner in frustration, they would experience that many if not most things that initially seem strange and inconsistent actually make sense after reading them several times or diving deeper into his work, so much so that one finds oneself actually ashamed of not getting it the first time when one accused him of being inconsistet while having overlooked the fact that his expression wasn't gibberish in the first place but actually represents an outstanding linguistic and philosophical achievement.
>For the Hegelian there is no right or wrong
See there it is. A statement so blatently wrong I somewhat regret writing all of this. I don't really care about hegelians but for Hegel there absolutely is a right and a wrong. It's once again one of his very basic points. He talks about this all the time and it forms the basis for his dialectical method. There's simply no way to miss it having read a single book by him.

[Anonymous No.23777766]

>Casually develops a philosophical system that combines the truths of all previous ones, making them superfluous.
>"Das Schlechteste kommt von mir."
How can one person be so humble?

[Anonymous No.23777779]

>>23777766
Has anyone ever expanded his system?

[Anonymous No.23777816]

>>23777779
People tried but they failed. There isn't really a point of expanding something we do not fully understand yet.
The best attempt to structure and permeate his system has been made by a few german lads (Martin Grimsmann & Lutz Hansen) imo:
https://hegel-system.de
As with all of Hegel being able to read german really helps with the understanding part but there's a translation so do not fear.

[Anonymous No.23777827]

>>23777816
Kein Problem.

[Anonymous No.23777832]

>>23777779
You can’t really take it as an explicit set "system". It is basically in a malleable form in which you can use its own logic to advance and modify itself. Hegel knew he was not the end all and be all of philosophy however he was able to give language to the overarching framework of thought and its movement in its totality.

[Anonymous No.23778397]

>>23777827
Basiert.

[Anonymous No.23778426]

>>23776761
>Give me an example in plain English of an insight or idea Hegel had that represents progress in our understanding of anything.Only one? Alright here you go:
There is a type of criticism in which in criticizing we maintain something about the position we are criticizing and that this type of criticism is also the source of our own insights and beliefs.

[Anonymous No.23778435]

>>23776761
>Give me an example in plain English of an insight or idea Hegel had that represents progress in our understanding of anything.
Only one? Alright here you go:
There is a type of criticism in which in criticizing we maintain something about the position we are criticizing and that this type of criticism is also the source of our own insights and beliefs.

[Anonymous No.23778960]

>>23777816
>As with all of Hegel being able to read german really helps with the understanding
I think a major problem regarding Hegels international recognition is that he is basically untranslatable even if some people made a really good effort.
His philosophy is extremely closely interwoven with the german language.
Because of this I really pity anyone who is unable to grasp Hegel's true genius due to the language barrier
I would like to illustrate this with an example.

Hegel uses the term “Aufhebung” to illustrate his dialectical method. In german "aufheben" can mean "to lift something up", "to dissolve something" or "to raise something to a higher level"

[Anonymous No.23779023]

>>23778960
He also uses it to mean to protect as well.