Reminder for people that got memed into Hegel that his lectures on Aesthetics or History are much more enjoyable...

>I didn't have that kind of background, and I still lack much of it, and I understand as well as communicate Hegel better than them somehow. So much for 'background
If I mail you a medal will you shut the fuck up? This is like someone grandstanding about knowing 1964 Ford Falcons really well, and without any previous auto-experience! It's cool and interesting but dedicating your time to understanding it doesn't make you better than everyone else. YOU can read Hegel without any phil background because you were determined to do so, but that still isn't the optimal way, and there is a hell of a lot more to philosophy than Hegel

Prove me wrong, not hard if you know what you're talking about. I've btfo'd morons with PHDs who 'studied this very hard for 4+ years'. It seriously isn't hard to posture to the rest of the world that you're part of a really elite club that can only be understood if you read tens of thousands of pages worth of philosophers in a long line of responses to each other, but it only takes someone to finally figure out the thing to see how much of a poser you are. I don't mind that the rest of the world thinks you're just too deep for them when the truth is that you're just a moron who reads a lot but knows very little.

I'll shut up about it when you quit lying. It's not just me. It's me, the group of others I've lead in the reading groups I've led on this, and someone who started with even less than I did who now knows more than half this board despite not having an active interest. It is outright false, not just for me, but for everyone. You keep spreading a lie that just keeps people from even trying with telling them they need to read an immense amount of work just to start.

Hegel is hard, but not because you don't know history. The history is icing on the cake, it lets you appreciate how much of an autist Hegel was, but it's not what his philosophy is. Hegel is hard because you have to think, and considering the vast majority of people who claim to read heaps of Hegel and Hegelians, most of them have such a poor grasp of the very way to think the philosophy that it's amazing how wrong they are in their readings. Literally a bunch of people who can read about reason, but can only understand.

That you think my complaints against these people claiming this is so hard is elitist is strange. I'm telling you the opposite they are. I'm telling you that Hegel isn't hard and does not require the ridiculous requirements they claim. I'm telling you that YOU, joe blow, could also learn how to DIRECTLY read Hegel and have the capacity to judge what secondary literature is actually telling something true about the text. It's hard because it's time consuming to think, but if you don't want to do that then why in the hell are you trying to read or know about Hegel? Hegel's conclusions are in themselves worthless, it's the method logic which is of value in the whole thing. You can learn this method in less than a week, but Hegel is the best practice you'll get.

I've seen you arguing with people several times now, each time demonstrating that you have a very impoverished and narrow reading of Hegel, but rabidly defensive about anyone questioning you. You type paragraphs and paragraphs in defense any time anyone on an anonymous forum questions your gay little thing.

You remind me of psychoanalytic cultists, or cult-like internet Marxists like the other dude said. Very narrow set of texts, a rigid groupthink consensus about them, and creepily way too defensive about anyone questioning that consensus. Something weird going on with you m8.

>impoverished and narrow reading

Well, physics also appears very impoverished and narrow to the moron into pop-physics.

>What do you mean quantum mechanics is not literally magic? Some famous guy on TV with a PHD told me so! Reality is stranger than we can suppose! Humans cannot fathom what the world in itself really is. You're so full of yourself and clearly limited, you're like a Newtonian in the age of Einstein.

Imagination due to ignorance is fun... for children.

>Zizek
good one

What's wrong with zizek

No one is saying Hegel is magic. Lots of people who study Hegel are telling you that your reading of Hegel sucks ass (and makes no sense), AND that you're delusionally defensive about it to the point of neurosis.

You are the fanfiction.com of Hegelians.

In theory you can understand Hegel's phenomenology without background phil, PhS is a dense, contained system that explains instead of reference all that it deals with. But you must admit Hegel's entire system of history requires an understanding of the history of philosophy, how else could you interpret the manifestations of absolute spirit, it adds so much more when you can follow the progression from a knowledgeable position, ie the Cynic and Stoic dichotomy I'm pretty sure he uses in PhS. Hegel system is entrenched in the history of humanity, it's kind of ridiculous to advocate going into PhS without an understanding of it. Tell me if this is also accurate for his Encyclopedia or Science of Logic

>lots of people
You're only one person, and you're just yelling "NO!!"

The >phenomenal< sciences (History of X) require knowledge of said history, and in fact Hegel writes them providing what he thinks you should know, not assuming you do know. The philosophy of history uses, guess what? History, >his< take on history. The history of philosophy is >his< take on a whole host of philosophers.

Most of Hegel is actually quite readable without much background, not just the Phenomenology. The Science of Logic and Philosophy of Right also work this way. The Logic specifically uses other philosophers as warnings of how NOT to think of what he says, not as an elucidating assumed background he won't explain. The only thing it takes to read those right is to have read the Hegelian background of Hegel's own works.

The only thing people apparently can't be assed to read is the Philosophy of Nature, because that work assumes an immense backdrop in the natural sciences of his time, but EVEN THERE the logic is graspable.

You're just wrong, plain and simple, on the issue that the method and logic require an immense history. They're designed for the opposite: the history itself is irrelevant. The coming to be of a science and the actual science are not the same thing.

Dammit this pic always triggers me.

>Hegel system is entrenched in the history of humanity, it's kind of ridiculous to advocate going into PhS without an understanding of it.

It's not just an issue of whether Hegel is "self-contained" or not. It can't be an issue of that, because self-containment of a text (in the widest sense of "text" as "anything that can be 'read' for its 'meaning'") is inherently nonsensical, as Hegel knew and partially prefigured in its modern understanding. There is no pure text standing by itself. We understand texts the same way we understand a sentence spoken by a random dude on the street: hermeneutically, with reference to what we already know.

You are already reading hermeneutically if you try to understand Hegel with a layperson's knowledge of philosophy, or no knowledge of philosophy at all. You have to have SOME idea (Vorgriff; Befragte; prae-iudicium; etc.) of what Hegel means by "negation" in order to guess at what he REALLY means (Erfragte). You can be drawing that from many sources, but all of them will boil down to "previous uses or analogous uses of the term 'negation' that could apply in this situation if I stretch my existing concepts a bit." That is how meaning-interpretation works, it's how understanding works, regardless of the source of the Vorgriff. So you can be drawing it from common-sense uses of the term in day-to-day language, or you can be drawing it from more or less related philosophical texts you've experienced, or you can be drawing it from someone explaining a specialised usage (which will also have to be understood in terms of other meanings you already know, i.e., hermeneutically).

The upshot of all this? ANY READING OF ANY TEXT IS ALWAYS ALREADY HISTORICAL AND HERMENEUTICAL. To say you can read Hegel as "self-contained" is non-sensical, it is literally "empty" (as Hegel would say). If the guy means it in a relative sense, then what he might mean is: "Only modern common-sense Western parlance is necessary for understanding Hegel." This would be a trite and bizarre position even if he did hold it, but he doesn't. What he really means is: "Accept me as your sole guide on the hermeneutic process of induction into Hegel's texts. I can show you how to unlock the mystery of Hegel's 'logical method' using everyday language, but only if you follow MY usage of that language closely."

So he's not saying "read Hegel in a vacuum," because this is nonsensical - it's like saying "see something in the absence of light." There is no sight without light. He's also not making an extremely minimal claim for just how much "light" is needed. He's saying only HIS light is the correct one. And he's also proudly trumpeting that OTHER lights (i.e., other, more mainstream, scholarly, subtle, nuanced, less bizarre) readings of Hegel are BAD lights. He is literally saying he's proud of not having tested his own reading of Hegel against other readings, hermeneutically.

Concluding:

Even if this A.W. hack weren't simply a shitty teacher on a merely personal/pedagogical level, because of all this, he is showing how fucking bad he is at German philosophy and at Hegel in particular by having an unsubtle conception of how to read texts.

And on top of all that, his "LISTEN ONLY TO ME, SOME FRAUD" version of Hegel pedagogy doesn't answer the question of: "Why should I listen to you and not anybody else?" The best he offers on this note is that academics are ivory tower faggots, whose readings of Hegel must all be wrong.

tldr: Shitty Hegelian; shitty German idealist; completely unaware of ANY thought contemporary to Hegel (Ranke, Schleiermacher, Hegel himself), in a way that is pre-Hegelian and Kantian in its ignorance of historicity. Bad Hegelian teaches broken non-Hegelian Hegelism.

"In the like sense the beggar boys of Murillo (in the Central Gallery at Munich) are excellent too. Abstractly considered, the subject-matter here too is drawn from ‘vulgar nature’: the mother picks lice out of the head of one of the boys while he quietly munches his bread; on a similar picture two other boys, ragged and poor, are eating melon and grapes. But in this poverty and semi-nakedness what precisely shines forth within and without is nothing but complete absence of care and concern – a Dervish could not have less – in the full feeling of their well-being and delight in life. This freedom from care for external things and the inner freedom made visible outwardly is what the Concept of the Ideal requires. In Paris there is a portrait of a boy by Raphael: his head lies at rest, leaning on an arm, and he gazes out into the wide and open distance with such bliss of carefree satisfaction that one can scarcely tear oneself away from gazing at this picture of spiritual and joyous well-being. The same satisfaction is afforded by those boys of Murillo. We see that they have no wider interests and aims, yet not at all because of stupidity; rather do they squat on the ground content and serene, almost like the gods of Olympus; they do nothing, they say nothing; but they are people all of one piece without any surliness or discontent; and since they possess this foundation of all excellence, we have the idea that anything may come of these youths."

>The Poors are carefree and do nothing just like gods

Yeah, real fucking penetrating insight over here

10/10

>Yeah, real fucking penetrating insight over here
This but unironically

>You are already reading hermeneutically if you try to understand Hegel with a layperson's knowledge of philosophy, or no knowledge of philosophy at all. You have to have SOME idea (Vorgriff; Befragte; prae-iudicium; etc.) of what Hegel means by "negation" in order to guess at what he REALLY means (Erfragte). You can be drawing that from many sources, but all of them will boil down to "previous uses or analogous uses of the term 'negation' that could apply in this situation if I stretch my existing concepts a bit."

100% confirmed to have not read the Science of Logic's introductions, first chapter, nor the Phenomenology's Introduction. There is no question about most of Hegel's terms, they're not definitions.

The logic is designed to not be an interpretation game.

>but language assumptions
are not determinative of concept structures.

You can convince the ignorant, but I actually read. As opposed to you, I don't tell anyone to listen to me. I tell them to read the text, to think, not to just read a bunch of people they have no interest in and which they won't understand in their rush to get to Hegel. Isn't it interesting that people like you have not an ounce of faith in your, nor anyone else's, capacity to reason for themselves, or for someone to put forth a structure which they don't leave to question.

I bet you can't even into Becoming to see the immanent link of the various interpretations.

>tfw philosiphy majors get to read Kant and Hume and all I got to read in undergrad was Mccabe thiele
well fuck

I like this, it's like reading a Platonic dialogue, except it isn't shitty exhibition

>>tfw philosiphy majors get to read Kant and Hume
Yeah, maybe 50 years ago. Modern philosophy programs are Marxist indoctrination factories. You'll literally only see guys like Kant referenced in feminist critiques about their latent transphobia or how Enlightenment reason was a patriarchal plot to oppress women and non-whites.

>Modern philosophy programs are Marxist indoctrination factories.
I agree with the sentiment but use a different word because that just isn't what you're trying to say

Fine. Modern universities, including the philosophy departments, have a singular goal, and that is to instill a sense of guilt and desire for self-flagellation into all whites.

Literally never read Marx in 4.5 years of Phil at a very liberal Canadian university. Only read Marx in 2 political science courses. If you want to take courses on Marx, you pretty much need to go into sociology. Having said that, I read a lot of Kant, Heidegger, Plato, Nietzsche, Descartes, Hume, ect. I think your ideology is getting in the way of your understanding of the real world.

Fucking bullshit, stop making this shit up. You have almost certainly not ever studied in a real philosophy department at a decent university. In the anglo world 95% of departments are analytic that they don't touch anything in the Hegelian tradition to begin with. And pretty much every continental department. no matter how leftist, is going to teach Kant because he is still the prerequisite of modern metaphysics and epistemology.

>p-please don't take away our tax breaks, president Trump! We aren't just a collection of sycophants grovelling for money from blue states, we also fill out autistic truth tables!

Why the fuck are you even here since you obviously have no desire to engage with anything related to actual philosophy?

I like how the Wikipedia article on Kant goes out of its way to mention his stance on homosexuality.

>Canadian
>Trump
wow

Hey man truth tables are useful

Not everyone is a failure treading water through a masters in philosophy who comes on Veeky Forums to desperately try and defend their life ruining decisions.

Yeah some of us are NEETscholars and wagecucks

Hegel is for scribes and other state-subsidized drones.

>"useful"
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean in the context in which you use it.

A literature or humanities board will find literary and historical theory more applicable to their daily lives than abstract conceptions of universal mind/spirit.

>hegel isn't heavily rooted in esoteric tradition and shouldn't be considered sorcery
imagine being this much of an academycuck

magic isn't bad
a=/=a
hegel was a warlock

AW is autistic, but he's in the right here.

You know, I really don't care about all the false things people spread on this board about Hegel or my comprehension of Hegel, but this accusation is one which I cannot let stand.
I have been one of the most consistent pushers of legitimating sorcery and making it reputable again. How dare you question my commitment? I literally mentioned something on this just last week! twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/931350741586927616

I am a philosophy major and literally had to read both Kant and Hume this year, Kant in both metaphysics and ethics

based

stop replying to idiots like the guy you just did. they're windbags and the definition of a pseud.

>literally does pic related on twitter after getting into arguments on Veeky Forums about philosophy
>this dude exists
woah

>Liking a charlatan

I seriously hope you guys don't do this

really activates the ol' almonds