Hegel

Whats with the Master / Slave things on computers? Seen in the Bios menu

you can boot from the master

His "theory" comes down to:
>ALL PROGRESS IS GOOD, WHAT ARE CONSEQUENCES LMAO
>CONSERVATISM IS BAD
>His Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis is the basis for modern democracies, producing short term solutions which end horrifically for the sake of... PROGRESS
>Marx utilizes "Hegelian Dialectic" extensively, thus influencing all future communists (e.g. Lenin)

I dont understand Hegel or Kant at all. I thought myself great with English until I tried their translations. It is like, ok I understand individual words but when they forn a sentence im at complete losEven after reading all SEP material of them i still dont understand original works like copr, or pos.

Im probably 95 iq giga retard so whatever

You got spooked by the random Capitalization making you think there is some secret meaning you aren't aware of, didn't you?

One of the errors people who suck at introducing this to you is their mistake of telling you the Phenomenology from the end point instead of from the starting point. There is no special meaning to these words at the beginning.

It takes a long time to learn how to read shit you ain't never read before

Everyone finds Kant insanely dense. No one gets through Kant without difficulty.

Most people find Hegel completely impenetrable. The problem isn't just that it's dense, it's that he uses 14 different terms without fully explaining what they are, because he assumes you've read his 85 other works. He writes shit like
>The movement of Spirit is completed in the self-realization of the moment of Spirit at which its ownness is given back to it in itself.

Just think of Kant's sentences as constructed from a set of colour-coded concepts, like a Lego structure, and your job is to be able to figure out how it was put together by knowing what the blocks do. For Hegel, it's the same thing, except fifty times worse because no one is 100% clear on what any of Hegel's terms mean. The most elementary ones have tons of disagreement about them.

>because no one is 100% clear on what any of Hegel's terms mean. The most elementary ones have tons of disagreement about them.

Spoken like a true theorylet who started in the wrong place and never did the proper reading order.

There is almost no disagreement as to what Hegel means anywhere except for the Phenomenology Hegelians. The Logic focused ones have almost no term disagreements because Hegel is pretty solid about >structures< of concepts and does not rely on mere definition. Most debates are about his system's aims as a whole, and most of those come from people who want to read into Hegel things he never explicitly says.

Like, it's not even about the Logic alone, Hegel is this way in the Phenomenology as well. He's very straight forward about the >structures< he's using and makes his use of concepts be always structural. When you see him state equivalences of terms it is on this basis, the structure, that it is clearly meant.

this is the most retarded thing i've read this year
have a (you)

I don't know about the OP, but my friend AW and I have been working with the logic of Hegel's system for a few years, and this is our commentary:
empyreantrail.wordpress.com/

I would say "This is a very reductionist reading of Hegel," but it's not even reductionist; it's just plain wrong. Wikipedia is not an accurate source for complex systematic philosophy.

I am actually impressed by the craftsmanship of this post.

>attempting to provide simple explanations for texts where the experience is to be carried out by the reader or at the very least unpacked in careful commentary
>misunderstands hegel this egregiously in a post complaining about others misunderstanding hegel

christ...

>saying nothing of value
>being this much of a desperate pseud

I just wanna say you guys have helped me understand Hegel a lot more than I would have otherwise, your blog is great quality. Keep up the good work fellas.

>thinks that reading two chapters and spending 1.5 weeks with material is enough to comment on the phenomenology let alone hegel's larger and more mature project

youre like a little baby troll.

>if I'm too stupid to do it, then no one is intelligent enough to do it.

What's wrong with you?

That's what makes it worth doing. :)

If anyone is interested, we also run a reading group on Discord. Tweet at me for details (@Sophic_Hegemon).

Can you tell a little more about your credentials and what sort of scholarship you reference when discussing Hegel?

At this point I'm wary of anything sui generis

>credentials
>philosophy

...Are you in the right class? You do know the original text and author and your trust in your own reasoning are the only valid basis to judge this right?

How can you judge what you do not know yourself? That's foolish.

Many Hegelian professors including Dr. Gregory Sadler, Dr. Daniel Pascal-Zorn, and Dr. Ken Foldes have shared and endorsed our content, and we do not reference anyone but Hegel; it is an isolated commentary without relying on secondary literature, i.e. other commentaries.

your blog is bookmarked. you guys do a good job of articulating what Hegel is up to. thank you

Well, I study Hegel, and Hegel reception is one of the most complex and confusing things in the entire Western philosophical tradition.

>trust in your own reasoning

I do trust my own reasoning, but only about things I have some hope of taking hermeneutic hold of. Resorting only to the original text doesn't make much sense with Hegel, because he's responding to Fichte, Schelling, and Kant. In fact it doesn't even make sense internally to Hegel's "system," because it's so intertextual, and because several leading interpretations of Hegel make the case that he drastically changed his earlier ideas halfway through.

The only way to get a really firm grasp on Hegel is to try to get a general view of his historical interpreters, see which of them you initially agree with, use those for historical and interpretative context as far as they can take you into your own reading of Hegel, and always compare with other interpretations so that you don't get dogmatic tunnel vision. A sui generis reading might be interesting, but there are very many that aren't interesting, or aren't interesting any more. Because reading Hegel requires hermeneutic ingress, like I said, you can guess a lot about one by knowing the bibliography of its author. Knowing that a reading is influenced by Royce would be a big difference from knowing it's influenced by Brandom.

Are you guys metaphysical Hegelians, out of curiosity? If so, how do you handle subjective (Fichtean) idealism?

Not grilling, genuinely curious.

>Resorting only to the original text doesn't make much sense with Hegel, because he's responding to Fichte, Schelling, and Kant.

I'm not who you were responding to, but and I dispute this claim of needing others to understand Hegel properly. Fully, yes, but not properly.

Yes, a response made to them, but on his own ground in the Logic. Unless you show me some proof that the Logic is not conceptually self-standing I don't see the fit of this criticism. The Logic was not written built on top of neither Schelling, Fichte, nor Kant as a presupposition, but instead constructs its own path. While reading these other philosophers reveals the stakes and the arguments at the time, reveal the nuances which at face value are not apparent, they do not at all ground the proper comprehension of Hegel's concepts.

I find very little disagreement within Hegelians who read Hegel through the Logic and not through the other works first. The Neo-Kantian readers are doing their own projects, the pragmatists as well, and if one reads the texts as such with what they themselves say in concept structures I find that there seriously cannot be much disagreement unless one is projecting in things not explicitly there, or just dismissing the Logic's method. and giving primacy to some other ulterior motive for the project.

>The only way to get a really firm grasp on Hegel is to try to get a general view of his historical interpreters, see which of them you initially agree with.

This is nonsense. The proof is that I and Hyperion have done the inverse: we read Hegel first, thought about it, and sought lines of inquiry on what we found making sense. I do not and never will hold to a camp interpretation because I have good reasons for my confidence in the grasp of the method. This is not to say we have a grasp of all of Hegel, we don't, but we don't intend the blog to be putting forth Hegel from the standpoint of his finality or Absolute, rather, it is something for intermediate beginners from intermediate beginners that have found quite a LOT to consider in an amazingly little scope considering the volume of total works. Pretty much everything on the blog is following Hegel's path from within, rather than despairing with impatience and jumping to get answers from outside. We've worked out the logic ourselves, and this is why we have the confidence we do, I can and most certainly have argued against people who are more "qualified" than myself.

What does "metaphysical" mean here? Do we think Hegel's system is about God? Yes and no. Do we think it is about Being's mature? No. Do we think it's about existent nature? Yes and No.

We don't actually have a camp here. It's clear Hegel is interested in the intelligibility of the Absolute, whatever it is. It's also clear that Hegel takes the cognition of what is to be very intimately tied to the truth of what is. Absolute knowing is absolute knowledge is Absolute being.

Typo
>Being's nature*

Continuing: Clearly Hegel's logic has a lot to do with what the world is and is like, and to deny this is something ludicrous. Hegel is clearly not intending to be taken as just talking about the mind and cognition, he very clearly intends the structures of thought to map the structures of existent nature as well.

>I do not and never will hold to a camp interpretation because I have good reasons for my confidence in the grasp of the method.
>We've worked out the logic ourselves,

Honestly, I commend doing that, but I would encourage you to put it in dialogue with other interpretations of Hegel. There's nothing wrong with not having a camp. I'm as suspicious of the academy as you are. But beyond being healthily suspicious there's no reason not to read Houlgate's outline of Hegel's Logic or Pippin's book and see where you think they went wrong, so you can clarify it for others. As a philosophy student that's what interests me the most, putting ideas into dialogue, because then I can see the axioms (supposedly) self-evidently unfolding more clearly by contrast, and hone my own understanding.

For example I've never been able to accept subjective/absolute idealist readings of Hegel for various reasons, but you seem to have the opposite gut reaction:
>to deny this is something ludicrous. Hegel is clearly not intending to be taken as just talking about the mind and cognition, he very clearly intends the structures of thought to map the structures of existent nature as well.

I've always thought Schelling's Naturphilosophie was a completely different animal, and that Hegel is more like Heidegger than Schelling, with the neo-pragmatists like you said. But because my knowledge of the Logic is fuzzy, I'm interested in re-reading several metaphysical interpretations like Taylor (and your thing, why not) now that my idea of Hegel has been honed, and then reading the Logic. Somewhere in your (and Taylor's) understanding of Hegel is a zig instead of a zag, some place we disagree that allows you to veer into some kind of absolute idealism. I could (and will) read your thing to find out where that zig is, but it's also possible for that kind of thing to come out in basic conversation, using other authors as hermeneutic stepping stones. For example I already know a lot about your project and can put you in the absolute idealist "camp," regardless of how you qualify it, which is precisely how I know your project is interesting in the first place. Conversely I'm not interested at all in yet another epigone to Pinkard and I'm definitely not interested at all in Brandom.

>Conversely I'm not interested at all in yet another epigone to Pinkard and I'm definitely not interested at all in Brandom.

... My point being, I'm not interested in them even though I'm in their camp. I more or less already know what they're going to say.

tldr: There's nothing wrong with saying:
>I have an elaborate close reading of Plato that sheds new light on his ideas.
>"Oh yeah? Where do you side on the reality of the forms?"
>I think they're metaphysically real, sort of.
>"So you're like such-and-such?"
>Sort of, but he makes a mistake that I avoid, in that he ... [etc.]

Hegel's conclusions are so comically wrong and plebeian that I don't see any reason to bother with his convoluted arguments

By saying I'm not in a camp does not mean I cannot be put in a category, rather, it simply means I have no allegiance to a reading.

The reason I do not engage other readings for the most part is due to my immediate interests and manner of study. I want to get >my< conception of Hegel. I have read Houlgate's introduction to the Logic (after I had settled on my own interpretation) and found myself in general agreement including the claim that the difficulty of Becoming is so key and a high point in the Logic as a whole. It is, from within the text, the most difficult thing I've encountered due to its multiple correct readings, which aren't at odds if one sees them in proper moment. I've also read Winfield, White, Kreines, but I don't take my readings from any of them and instead compare them to mine. If I don't understand it, I do not simply accept what they say, and it has already happened that I merely took the convenience of a claim to stand in until I get to the text myself. For example, I've changed my mind on the universal's description away from how Winfield describes it, not because I think it's false, but because I now have a more nuanced conception thanks to further direct reading.

I don't quite know what the absolute idealist stance means here. Does it mean that everything is the Idea? Does it mean that everything is structured as the Idea? Does it mean the Idea is the intelligible principle of things? Clearly things aren't what are inside inside our heads, but clearly things also do have objective structures which we intelligibly know. Is absolute idealism this complete intelligible capturing, hence merely an epistemic idealism?

It's not at all to do with a distaste of academia, it's rather a challenge to think this all for myself and thus have my own certainty.

You're still giving it too much credit; it's not even wrong per Wikipedia.

s/wrong/right/

Why would I read Hegel when I can just read Kierkegaard and smugly dismiss it all as pompous nonsense?

Or even better, this guy

How are they wrong?

>For example I've never been able to accept subjective/absolute idealist readings of Hegel for various reasons, but you seem to have the opposite gut reaction
Absolute idealism != subjective idealism
I cant rememberer how fichte doesn’t fall into solipsism when he does criticism of thing in-itself (i know there is a good argument), but he definitely rejects object as completely irrelevant since subject can only directly experience himself.

Hegel although relies on "pure thinking" (for him this is only logical place to start) shows how knowledge of object is attainable and illusory problematic is only present when we don’t accept dialectical unity of subject and object.

One thing that is not all that difficult in hegel are his introductions. His philosophical position and his aim are clearly written in them so I don’t think you can misinterpret him - his position is absolute idealist.

brainlet, get off Veeky Forums

this is less what he said and more the complete opposite of what he said

Brilliant bait, 10/10, unironically good job

Can I pseud my way out of Hegel and read Kuno Fischer like the Neetzsch?

>>The movement of Spirit is completed in the self-realization of the moment of Spirit at which its ownness is given back to it in itself.

But I understand this completely and have barely read anything.

Wow this stream of events look suspicious

It's less about whether Hegel is easy and more about the fact that it's a meaningless waste of time

The only people who like Hegel are people who insist that you can't derive any value from his writings or apply them in any way but they're "worth reading" for an unspecified reason

Good reasons to read Hegel or at least take him seriously,

i) To understand the history of philosophy and witness the death of grand philosophical systems until Whitehead; Reaction to Hegel influenced the foundational thinkers of most mainstream Western thought,
i.e. Late Schelling, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Pierce, Dewey, Russell, Moore (and by extension Wittgenstein), Marx, Feuerbach and many others.
Most people influenced by those listed have only a vague idea of what the revolt was against, and take the wrongness of Hegel to be self-evident without having made any effort to assure themselves of this self-evidency.

ii) Presents some of the best critiques of the respective idealism of Kant, Fichte, Schelling and also Spinoza's pantheism.
The former two by putting forth the best case for how the idealist can explain knowledge of objects and circumvent subjectvism,
the latter two for being able to elaborate on the social dimension of nature found in culture, society and state.

iii) To see what an Aristotelian looks like gone mad.