/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6762410]

Anyone else experience a kind of high sensation when reading King Hegel?

[Anonymous No.6762427]

>tfw your Geist, your Volksgeist, and the Welgeist are one with the Absolute

[Anonymous No.6762432]

I like to read the same chapter of the PoS for days in a row.

[Anonymous No.6762448]

>>6762432
me too! What is your favorite? B. Self Consciousnes IV. The Truth of Self-Certainty is mine.

[Anonymous No.6762460]

>>6762448
'True Spirit: Ethical action - Guilty and Fate'. The implications of the dialectic of guilt and spirit's self division are too big, I think I am too young to fully grasp it.

[Anonymous No.6762484]

>>6762448
Is this the bit about how we can never know anything in and of itself at a given moment because the moment is already gone?

these captchas look nothing like steaks

[Anonymous No.6762486]

>>6762484
This, obviously meaning, that we can never know ourselves with certainty because we have already changed? Thought id clarify

[Anonymous No.6762488]

Is it even possible to understand Hegel?

[Anonymous No.6762495]

>>6762488
Yeah

[Anonymous No.6762516]

>>6762488
I don't get this. Tbh, I found Kant's works much more obfuscatory

[Anonymous No.6762529]

>>6762410

I imagine it's similar to the effect of chemical lobotomy. Hegel is unreadable

[Anonymous No.6762530]

>>6762529
How so?

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6762552]

>>6762410

I DO; IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT IS THAT I AM READING BY HIM, OR IF I HAVE ALREADY READ IT; I ALWAYS FEEL SENTIMENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY EXCITED DURING THE FIRST FEW MINUTES OF READING.

[Anonymous No.6762562]

>>6762552
What's the difference between sentiment and emotion?

[Anonymous No.6762566]

>>6762410
yes, i get this dizzying sickness when I read contintental nonsense

[Anonymous No.6762569]

[Anonymous No.6762599]

>>6762566
>is made anxious by the dizziness of freedom
Surprise surprise.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6762627]

>>6762562

SENTIMENT EMANATES FROM THE SPIRIT, EMOTION EMANATES FROM THE BODY; SENTIMENTS CONSIST OF SEMIOTIC UNITS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCED VISUALLY, AS IMAGES, COLOURS, SYMBOLS, OR SIGNS, AND/OR AUDITORILY, AS MUSIC, VOICES, OR NOISES, AND/OR KINESTHETICALLY, AS BODILY SENSATIONS, EMOTIONS CONSIST OF INTERIORIZED BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES.

ALBEIT DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT, BOTH, SENTIMENT, AND EMOTION, OFTEN COOCCUR.

[Anonymous No.6762796]

>>6762599
>freedom
>anything but a vain meme

[Anonymous No.6762814]

>>6762796
oh, go on. Please go on. Bring out your best philosopher and I'll bring out mine. Let's end this right now

[Anonymous No.6762832]

>>6762814

[Anonymous No.6762839]

>>6762832

[Anonymous No.6762847]

>>6762832
>>6762839
I can't stop laughing at this

[Anonymous No.6762927]

>>6762832
>>6762839

[no caps guy !!6P/WhzicJTl No.6763975]

i tried reading charles taylor's book about hegel and it was really hard for me
wah

[Anonymous No.6764134]

bros, who wants to explain for a newbie why in perception consciousness feels it is justified in separating the two conceptions of the thing into two separate and different things?

P.123
>The thing is a “one”, reflected into self; it is for itself; but it is also for an other; and, further, it is an other for itself as it is for another. The thing is, hence, for itself and also for another, a being that has difference of a twofold kind. But it is also “one”. Its being “one”, however, contradicts the diversity it has. Consciousness would, consequently, have again to make itself answerable for putting the diversity into the “one”, and would have to keep this apart from the thing. It would thus be compelled to say that the thing “in-so-far as” it is for itself is not for another. But the oneness belongs to the thing itself, too, as consciousness has found out; the thing is essentially reflected into self. The “also”, the distinction of elements indifferent to one another, falls doubtless within the thing as well as the “oneness”, but since both are different, they do not fall within the same thing, but in different things.

[Anonymous No.6764139]

>>6764134
Because it has to explain the difference between the images it receives from outside itself and the objects represented by those images. At higher stages of consciousness it knows that there is only the object in its self-identity and its images of the object are immanent within the object itself.

[Anonymous No.6764164]

>>6764139
>aims
>results
>not taking upon the labour of the negative

thank you for the non-answer

[Anonymous No.6764170]

>>6764164
>Implying it isn't the labor of the negative that brings about the transition to a higher state of consciousness
Bro

[Anonymous No.6764176]

>>6764170
reading comprehension my man

[Anonymous No.6764184]

>>6764176
Same to you

[Anonymous No.6764192]

>>6764176
Yeah I've been lurking and I also have no idea what you're trying to say with your greentext nonsense. Try a paragraph with coherent sentences? Or nah?

[Anonymous No.6764220]

>>6764192
If I wanted someone to tell me the aims and the results of Hegel's system I wouldn't be reading the Phenomenology.

>A statement of philosophical aims and results is only legitimate if it is seen as being initial and superficial, and is not regarded as revealing the essence of the matter in hand. For this essence is not exhausted by aims, but by the way in which they are carried out. It is not concerned with mere results, but with the manner in which they emerge. To state results without saving how one arrives at them is to present the corpse of a system, whereas merely to differentiate a system from others is to remain resolutely on its fringes.

I'm asking for someone to explain what it is that necessitates that specific development, I'm asking for someone to not say what happened but also show why what didn't happen didn't happen. Not seeing the importance of this is not seeing the importance of the labour of the negative, to read my stating this as an implication denying the general thrust of the work is shallow and shows either a lack of reading comprehension or commitment to the work.

I am honestly admitting ignorance over the logic in this section, and am asking whoever first replied to do the same if they consider their explanation sufficient.

[Anonymous No.6764222]

>>6764170
Care to explain how the labor of the negative fits into the master-slave dialectic. I'm familiar with the latter and I've read limited Hegel but I'm not sure what the 'labor of the negative' is, exactly. Is it a small part of the dialectic? Care to explain?

[Anonymous No.6764240]

>>6764220
Okay I see. Thank you for clearing that up. So you wanted the original poster to elaborate on why consciousness doesn't merely keep the two conceptions of a thing together as one thing and instead separates them into two different things?

He, instead, told you what happened rather than telling you why it didn't happen the other way.

[Anonymous No.6764247]

>>6764240
Yes.
>tfw want to banter but topic too abstruse

[Anonymous No.6764254]

>>6764222
Negation is what happens in the act of mediation. The master and slave view themselves as antithetical to each other. The negation of this perception is the mediation that leads to the slave (bondsman, rather; this is an important distinction, since Hegel's philosophy is a celebrstion of the end of serfdom more than a celebration of the end of slavery) attaining freedom and the master realizing his essential equality with the slave.

[Anonymous No.6764266]

>>6764220
Did you lose credit on math tests because you didn't show some of your work, even when your answers were correct? The logic is literally the same: if you can't show your work, you don't get credit for arriving at philosophical conclusions. He's saying that his philosophy is the product of the work philosophy has done since its inception. Felix culpa: Jesus' Truth wouldn't be significant without Adam and Eve's initial act of defiance. Yes, Hegel believed in God very strongly; the core of his system is learning to identify oneself with the Absolute. The logic behind the phrase 'Felix culpa' is the logic behind Hegelianism.

[Anonymous No.6764291]

>>6764247
Hmm. Well, from what I can gather from the passage you provided, it would seem that the two things (the thing itself and the objects the thing that are created upon our perception) must be two different things. Our perception of the thing will always be different from the thing itself because, according to Hegel, we can never fully know a thing. This is partially due to the fact that we operate in a world of 'thens' and we never know something in the moment. Thus, our perception cannot align with the object itself. And thus, our perception must be different than the actual object. Now, admittedly, I can easily be wrong or grossly misinterpreting your question or what you want, but I'm just looking for some footing here.

I really don't know why Hegel explains it can't happen the other way. It seems to me he rather explains why it must happen this way, by explicating in the difference in our perception and the actual object.

[Anonymous No.6764295]

>finally figure out phenomenology of spirit
>it's just common sense stuff

[Anonymous No.6764299]

>>6764291
*the objects OF the thing
Sorry

[Anonymous No.6764769]

[Anonymous No.6765208]

>>6762814
Deleuze, your move

[Anonymous No.6765342]

>>6765208
Wait, before we do it, let me clarify.

I'm arguing for free will in the sense that we have some degree of freedom on how we perceive and we think. I will not be arguing in favor of freedom of action.

Still game? Also, what's your position?

[Anonymous No.6765373]

Find out the one trick a local stuttgart man discovered that will make you the founder of many ideas followed in a particular school of philosophy.

Positivists hate him!!!!

[Anonymous No.6765387]

>>6765342
>>6765208
>>6762814
>>6762796


This is literally more gay than 10 guys fucking each other dick to ass in a complete ring

[Anonymous No.6765388]

>>6762516
his main arguments are straight forward enough but when it comes down to the detail it gets pretty complicated pretty quickly I found

[Anonymous No.6765401]

Reading Hegel is better than sex.

[Anonymous No.6765406]

>>6765387
which means?

[Anonymous No.6765408]

>>6765401
Nah dude, sex is dialectic

[Anonymous No.6765411]

>>6765387
Start with the Greeks and then you can play too

[Anonymous No.6765422]

>>6765411
Deleuzeism is what happens when you don't start with the Greeks, actually.

[Anonymous No.6765433]

>>6765422
Philosophy is a chain, anon.
Start at the beginning, regardless of the ideals. Although I suppose you could start with Descartes if you're lazy tbh

[Anonymous No.6765437]

>>6765433
philosophy isn't built on a foundation, its a web of ideas trying to prove eachother wrong/right

[Anonymous No.6765457]

>>6765433
That's my point.
>>6765437
Philosophy actually is built on a foundation. There is a canon of philosophical texts. Deleuze is an obscurantist who equated philosophy with the invention of concepts because he didn't want to engage with the 2400+ years' worth of concepts that every other philosopher engaged with.

[Anonymous No.6765463]

>>6765457
then what basic axioms accepted by all philosophers starting with the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.6765477]

>>6765457
Ohh I see, my mistake.

[Anonymous No.6765479]

>>6765463
Foundation doesn't imply acceptance. To argue against a previous philosophical position is to accept it in some sense as pertaining to the realm of philosophy and to build upon it in a negative way. Being unable to reject that particular position may have led to a different generation of ideas.

To say philosophy is not in anyway founded upon certain things is to say that it is people just putting forward their own claims without consideration of anyone else's, or to say when they do consider someone else's it is only ever in a gross misunderstanding of their claims.

[Anonymous No.6765487]

>>6765463
I said there was a canon of philosophical texts and that philosophers discuss topics discussed in those texts, not that all philosophers agree on a set of axioms. Philosophers are people who engage seriously and critically with this discourse, not people who create concepts. The creation of concepts may be a consequence of engagement with philosophy, but it's an inadequate definition of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6765515]

>>6765463
>A statement of philosophical aims and results is only legitimate if it is seen as being initial and superficial, and is not regarded as revealing the essence of the matter in hand. For this essence is not exhausted by aims, but by the way in which they are carried out. It is not concerned with mere results, but with the manner in which they emerge. To state results without saving how one arrives at them is to present the corpse of a system, whereas merely to differentiate a system from others is to remain resolutely on its fringes.

This was quoted by an anon earlier in the thread and as >>6765479 said, philosophy isn't necessarily about reaching an end. It's about the labor of the negative. It's about arguing against a point to prove your own, and in that way, building another philosophy. Each philosophical text in the canon serves to elevate the next one, and it is essential in understanding the proceeding texts.

[Anonymous No.6765519]

>>6765463
wow, you stupid cunt

[Anonymous No.6765593]

>>6762552
Why do you feel the need to only speak in caps? It's so visually jarring.

[Anonymous No.6765735]

>tfw sometimes I daydream about making online philosopher/author trading cards and original Hegel would only have 100 printed.

[Anonymous No.6765861]

>>6765422
>>6765422

what greek philosopher/philosophy does Deleuze not have the means to dismantle

[Anonymous No.6765864]

>>6765735
It would be funny if you printed 10 Adorno for absolutely no reason and he was the most exclusive card

[Anonymous No.6766261]

>>6765861
That's not the point. At all. Not even close

[Anonymous No.6766269]

>>6765864
Ultra rare
10 printed
Series 1

[Anonymous No.6766350]

>>6765735
anniversary edition #rare vaporhegel with shiny effects only 50 printed pls

[Anonymous No.6766458]

>>6765373
Hegel shared a lot in common with positivists. Do you mean the logical positivists? They basically stole his shit.

[Anonymous No.6766464]

>tfw everyone wants to talk about reading hegel but no one is actually reading him
>no one can answer any questions about the text

absolutely pathetic. kill yourself /lit/ you pretentious piece of shit

[Anonymous No.6766479]

>>6766464
I think a lot of anons are reading him. I'm reading him. What is your question?

[Anonymous No.6767081]

>>6766464
>>6766479
kek at how quiet the butthurt kid went

probably didn't read hegel

[Anonymous No.6767093]

>>6767081
Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking.

[Anonymous No.6767097]

>>6766261
point being?

[Anonymous No.6767121]

>>6767097
It has nothing to do with dismantling the Greeks. It has nothing to do with proving them wrong. It has to do with building off the work other philosophers have provided beforehand, or at least engaging with their texts in some way. I'm not sure why you assumed this was a challenge pertaining to Deleuze's ability to dismantle the Greeks

[Anonymous No.6767159]

>>6767121
Why waste the time posturing as some dogmatic academic 'starting with le greekz'? One of the main tenants of Deleuze is the active, revolutionary agency of philosophy and concept-creating as opposed to some static armchair pseudo-wisdom. That's not to say he didn't know his shit though.

[Anonymous No.6767207]

>>6767159
>im soooo BORED with this continuous string of philosophical discussion that has occurred for thousands of years
>finally! Some guy that just restarts! Yes!
I mean, I get the appeal. It doesn't make him right, however

[Anonymous No.6767256]

>>6767207
>doesn't make him right
back to my original question, what within the greeks can't he absolutely wreck

>just restart
he was well-read in numerous philosophers and overall more well-read than anyone on this board

[Anonymous No.6767266]

>>6767256
>back to my original question, what within the greeks can't he absolutely wreck
I mean, it's like you can't read? Reread thread
>overall more well-read than anyone on this board
Yeah, no shit. He didn't engage philosophers in his works. He made up his own concepts. That's the point. Nobody is saying they're smarter than Deleuze

[Anonymous No.6767293]

>>6767266
>reread thread
I understand your point but why should historically collect every philosopher and philosophy when his own far exceeds it?

>didn't engage philosophers
He published multiple books on his various favorites and if you consider Freudians philosophers (they are), Anti-Oedipus is grand collage of ball-breaking.

[Anonymous No.6767309]

>>6767293
>I understand your point but why should historically collect every philosopher and philosophy when his own far exceeds it?
>when his own far exceeds it?
Oh wow, so you think Deleuze is actually the best philosopher? You consider him to be the end of philosophy? This is starting to smell...
>He published multiple books on his various favorites and if you consider Freudians philosophers (they are), Anti-Oedipus is grand collage of ball-breaking.
Haha holy shit you actually pulled out Freudians as an example of Deleuze engaging philosophers relevant to the canon. That isn't a stretch, it's a snap

[Anonymous No.6767330]

>>6762488

Holy shit this picture.

[Anonymous No.6767338]

>>6767207
Deleuze doesn't restart philosophy. He's weary of the whole crowd that wants to turn away from the tradition.

Almost all of his books are on other philosophers.

[Anonymous No.6767347]

>>6767309
>best philosopher
Well this is a Hegel thread and that's what I came here for. Georg killed philosophy, Gilles buried it. Almost anything folks today (Zizek, Badiou, Butler) say can be traced to or articulated with Deleuzian terminology.
>haha holy shit
Freudians are philosophers you fool. And he wrote (better than anyone else mind you) entire books about Kant, Spinoza, Bergson, Nietzsche and Foucalt.

[Anonymous No.6767349]

>>6765433
All of philosophy takes place on the same page.

There isn't turning the page. No going forward or backwards or beginning at the beginning.

You always jump straight into the middle of thinking.

[Anonymous No.6767360]

>>6767330
welcome to 4chan

[Anonymous No.6767373]

>>6767349
Bullshit. You need more background to read Nietzsche than to read Parmenides. This should not be a controversial claim.

[Anonymous No.6767376]

>>6767349
>make nonsense claims
Care to back this up?
Or do you just want to say "this is how it is" and make vague analogies

[Anonymous No.6767401]

>>6767373
Thus Spake Zarathustra is the first philosophy book I ever read and I am now fluent in neoplatonism, stoicism, german idealism and analytic and continental philosophy. Parmenides is perhaps more esoteric than Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.6767410]

>>6767347
I think you are very, very confused as to what engaging the text means.

Engaging the text has absolutely nothing to do with knowing about philosophers. It has nothing to do with writing separate interpretations of philosophers. In his personal philosophical works (STOP. Reread those last five words. Okay) he does NOT engage their concepts.

Also, Deleuze wrote better books than ANYONE ELSE on Kant, Spinoza, and Nietzche? Are you fucking delusional? Have you read all the desperate interpretations? You are making some absolutely embarassing claims right now. I don't even know what to think. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if you haven't even fucking read Deleuze and you're parroting some crackpot CC professor. Jesus Christ.

Freud is relevant to the canon. That's what you're going with?

Seriously mate, I think I've seen all I need to see here. You're going with the following:
>Deleuze is the better than any philosopher that precedes him
>Deleuze wrote the best interpretation of Kant, Spinoza, and Nietzche
>Deleuze engages Freud and thus he actually does engage philosophers relevant to the canon

Fucking embarassing the people I argue with sometimes. It's like, they trick me into thinking they have half a clue about what they're talking about but when you get into specifics, they fall apart.

[Anonymous No.6767414]

>>6767401
truu

[Anonymous No.6767422]

>>6767410
Desperate meaning separate. Damn phones

[Anonymous No.6767433]

>>6767410
You really don't get Deleuze...

But oh well.

[Anonymous No.6767449]

>>6767433
Nothing I said has to do with getting Deleuze. I pointed out that all your claims are horseshit.

But that was a very nice rebuttal

[Anonymous No.6767452]

>>6767081
>>6767093
you guys are idiots

[Anonymous No.6767463]

>>6764134
Since no one else has appropriately answered your question herein Hegel applies a tetralemma of dueling dualisms which is also applied to how we conceive of the one and the many.

[Anonymous No.6767465]

>>6767410
Considering your attachment to 'textual engagement' (which I would love for you to define in your own words seeming that it's not knowing/interpreting the concepts of the text in his own words) I'm sure your wouldn't find Deleuze's books on other philosophers 'better'. Sure there are more lengthy, psychotically exact examinations of those writers but they lack Deleuze's own intellect/voice to further extrapolate upon. I find this more intellectually stimulating and for me, stimulation = better. If I wanted a biography or historian for Kant or Nietzsche I would read that, but those academics lack the philosophical vigor and open-mindedness Deleuze has to further break down or conceptually unify their theories. Every single concept of Deleuze's can be broken down to seemingly unrelated concepts of writers before him, those you've claimed he never read.

also

Freud is canonically relevant, fuck you, that made me mad. Literally every Continental after Freud is either influenced by him or must over-come him, such as Deleuze.
But please continue acting so smart.

[Anonymous No.6767469]

>>6767449
oh and by the way

>>6767433 is not me

>>6767465 this is

[Anonymous No.6767474]

>>6765208
I SUMMON MY FAITHFUL SERVANT
JULIUS THE MYSTICAL TRADIONALIST OF ITALY

[Anonymous No.6767480]

Different poster here but
>>6767465
>stimulation = better
That explains a lot.

The problem with his writings on other philosophers isn't that they aren't enjoyable, it's that they aren't accurate.

[Anonymous No.6767485]

>>6767474
Hegelian synthesis between Julius Evola and Giles Deleuze occurs. You end up with techno-occult accelerationist Nick Land.

[Anonymous No.6767493]

>>6767480
Accuracy wasn't his motive. He only wrote about people he already agreed with and even then they were a mere platform for to posit his own claims.

[Anonymous No.6767495]

>>6767480
Deleuze's books about other philosophers are more about Deleuze than other philosophers. Different guy here.

[Anonymous No.6767499]

>>6767495
Exactly. Which is why saying that they are the best books on those philosophers is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6767507]

>>6767485
lol I got about half way through his dark enlightenment thing before realizing he's sincerely a racist in no ironic or satirical fashion.

[Anonymous No.6767512]

>>6767499
True. It's like reading Zizek's book on Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6767519]

>>6767495
Is this not what every philosopher in history has done while referring to a past philosopher?

[Anonymous No.6767528]

>>6767519
Naw. Commentary is an ancient art. It make the source primary and itself secondary. Deleuze is not commentary.

[Anonymous No.6767539]

>ctrl+f "occult"
>1 response, made in jest

For shame.

OP, THIS is why you feel strange reading Hegel. He's literally weaving a spell.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

[Anonymous No.6767562]

>>6767485
nigga it was a funpost
shame you didn't get it
pic related