/lit/ - Literature

I used to think he was a pseud but I've been reading some Hegel lately and I'm pretty impressed. In many respects he is, dare I say it, based.

>The real is the rational
Revolutionaries BTFO
Trads BTFO
/lit/ BTFO

So anyway, I'm a plumber and I don't have a lot of experience with German transcendental idealism, so excuse my thinly veiled disgust.

In Chapter 3 of the "Phenomenolology of Spirits", entitled What the Doormouse Said, Biff Hegel claims that

"spirit is a bone."

Now, that's a bit puzzling to me because it appears to be obviously false. I know bones. I often have to fish them out of garbage disposals, drains, septic tanks, etc. Spirit is pretty much the complete opposite of a bone; I have never had the ultimate cause of a clog turn out to be the World Spirit embodied by Napoleon, for example. I've never had anything resembling the Emperor cause one of my customers to call on my technical services.

So if you'll permit me to smugface a bit, isn't it time for y'all to leave the "Cave" of your respective parents' basements and learn a trade?

Thanks.

-an actual worker

>>11271749
As long as it is young Hegel I wouldn't mind desu

By explaining that positivism is a historically conditioned concept

Like trying to jump into a viscous abyss. It can be fun though, he uses his own words to denote his own concepts so you're kind of in a unique abstract world where everything inverts and splits and reconnects. Sorcery desu

Is reading Hegel worth the effort?

freedom is only the knowledge of being a part of a greater plan

Why are all the best philosophers virgins?

>>5165088
At what point did you realize that the more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity, the more it tends to expect a given philosophical system to be either accepted or contradicted; and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees in it simple disagreements. The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole. But he who rejects a philosophical system [i.e. the new philosopher] does not usually comprehend what he is doing in this way; and he who grasps the contradiction between them [i.e. the historian of philosophy] does not, as a general rule, know how to free it from its one-sidedness, or maintain it in its freedom by recognizing the reciprocally necessary moments that take shape as a conflict and seeming incompatibility.