Hegel

Where’s the best place to start with Hegel? I’m interested of his ideas of spirit and history

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean.htm
empyreantrail.wordpress.com/method-and-system/
amazon.com/Hegel-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/019280197X
dlx.b-ok.org/genesis/274000/ca61c29da6e2b63b2fe7d79c1c818273/_as/[Peter_Singer]_Hegel_A_Very_Short_Introduction_(V(b-ok.org).pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Hegel is a moron.
Don't start with him.

Parmenides and Heraclitus. Hegel presupposes extensive background knowledge in western philosophy. Don't listen to the pseuds who didn't do the requisite reading and deluded themselves into thinking they understand what the fuck he was talking about

marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean.htm
This helped me, but I was just reading Hegel for the sake of getting into someone difficult, which is a dumb reason. If you want to learn about Hegel to learn more about the history of ideas or about 19thC German culture, which is probably a better reason to give up the time you need to understand him, maybe work backwards from Marx or from the Romantics.

His aesthetic theory is relatively accessible and changed my life desu

do not read this """version""" of hegel

lmao

correct. the more non-hegel you read, the more you'll understand hegel. All the greeks are a maximum prereq, then the early moderns, then fichte, shelling, kant.

>Parmenides and Heraclitus

This is a misleading recommendation to make, and I would argue is not very representative of Hegel's thought.
Hegel is thoroughly Aristotelian in his mature metaphysics, and Heraclitus and Parmenides are the exact opposite people
who ought to be read first, or primarily insofar as they offer few substantive similarities to Hegel's systematic project, and most of which Parmenides and Heraclitus do share with Hegel
are often held in common with other major Greek philosophers such as Plato and as previously stated, Aristotle.

It has been well argued that Hegel can be read in himself, but to best understand his language and subject matter one would be well served to have familiarity with most cannon thinkers,
or movements at least, and have a good working idea about Kant's project.
I would recommend Fichte and Schelling in theory, but demonstrably, I have almost never seen a person well-acquainted with Hegel actually well-acquainted with them. Barely anyone has a strong grasp on Schelling in his completeness, and in a massively depressing way nobody gives Fichte the credit he deserves, or makes the effort to understand him
beyond his relation to Schelling, Kant and Hegel.

If you want secondary literature, or at least a good account of biographical and historical detail for Hegel, I would urge you look at Frederick Beiser's "Hegel".

Marx

Start with Marx and work backwards.

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/method-and-system/

Start with the Science of Logic first two chapters (read the Encyclopedia Logic's intro + their overview of these concepts).

Then read whatever the hell you want. It's not that hard.

>Where's the best place to start with Hegel?
The taint. Then move all the way forward in circular motions

>be me
>reading the Phenomenology
>carefully grasping the history of phenomenae
>stumble upon this thread
>'start with the greeks.jpg'
>what

The Greeks are a pre-requisite for pretty much everything related to philosophy. You can grasp some parts of Hegel without ever reading Plato and Aristotle, yes, but you'll never get the totality of Hegel's philosophy without an understanding of the Greeks, since they're the foundation of western philosophy.

EVERY TIME

To all those who know / understand Hegel:

What do you think is meant by the Absolute?

What is a universal?

Foreword and Introduction to the Phenomenology.

This isn't really fair. He's substantially toned down what had been his prerequisite- the entire Science of Logic. Ever picked that thing up? The Encyclopedia Logic's more 'user-friendly' and takes one directly into what I feel's Hegel's most beautiful volume, the Encyclopedia Philosophy of Nature. A. W.'s one of a handful of legitimately helpful posters on this board. On matters Hegel, take his advice.
>t. oldfag

Absolute is that which developing itself dialectically reaches itself.
A universal is something that necessarily is present.

WARNING: This guy is a pseud and some kind of insane person.

it's the concept of the closed metaphysical system that the consciousness will create

The absolute is the complete form of the spirit

Start with Philosophy of History. It's an easy read and has a theme that you already know about(general knowledge history).

amazon.com/Hegel-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/019280197X

Singer believes Hegel's ideas on history are the easiest to get into.

I'm not being critical, I'm just continually amazed by AW's ability to be summoned, Satan-like, by any discussion of Hegel anywhere

dlx.b-ok.org/genesis/274000/ca61c29da6e2b63b2fe7d79c1c818273/_as/[Peter_Singer]_Hegel_A_Very_Short_Introduction_(V(b-ok.org).pdf

Hm. Well. I suppose there IS that..

I've studied mysterious arts unknown to mere normies.

The Philosophy of History is such a terrible place to begin. It makes even less sense than the Phenomenology if you don't know what the logical terms mean in a deep sense, and the method is the most obscure in the lectures. I've read a third of it, and it took me a bit to catch on to what was going on logically. People mistake the ease of reading and comprehending the historical aspects of it with understanding the logic behind the arrangements. I've got an exposition essay on its method I've been working on, and I'm not aware of anyone else explaining the Phil of Hist in the way I do.

Basically, if you don't already know the Logic's core the Phil of Host will ruin your comprehension of Hegel because you are bound to misunderstand what it is about, what its movement really is, why it necessarily develops as it does, and what it all really means.

>Basically, if you don't already know the Logic's core the Phil of Host will ruin your comprehension of Hegel because you are bound to misunderstand what it is about, what its movement really is, why it necessarily develops as it does, and what it all really means.


Of course you are going to not get it the first time. PoH will still easy anyone with the lexicon Hegel uses. The main themes of history there are pretty much seeped into pop-culture after Hegel, people just don't know about it.