"For me Heidegger has always been the essential philosopher...

>>t. someone with no understanding of philosophical terminology

What did he mean by this

>What did he mean by this?

What does your question mean?

You are an idiot. Foucalt didnt read Heidegger through Hegel. Hegel died in like 17__? Heideger was kickin about in the 19oos

>Implying people don't read both Hegel and Heidegger through Plato who died two millennia ago

Wait, sorry for the ignorance, but wasn’t Heidegger well after Hegel?

>philosopher’s works stop existing when they die

Fuck I hope you’re joking user.

>being able to directly read a philosopher post-haste through one that is already dead

Trying so hard there bud.

Yes, but Hegel’s historicism was still permeating philosophy at the time, it still is even to this day.

You mean Heraclitus?

What's your point? Explain yourself in a way a drunk person would understand, because I'm drunk and don't understand what you're trying to imply about Hegel's legacy

I can’t explain a tradition that stretches back thousands of years if you’re drunk and don’t have a basic understanding of the terminology used.

I just want to know if you resent Hegel or not. Assume that I have a basic familiarity with his significance. This isn't a complicated question.
Are you implying that Hegel was opposed to drinking good German beer? Because if you are then I've got some news for you: he drank good German beer all the time. If you can't explain Hegel to a drunk man then you don't understand Hegel.

>directly read a philosopher post-haste through one that is already dead
What did he mean by this?

Hegel sees philosophy as something that cannot come to complete conclusions about the things we interact with, be it systems of organisation, social movements, human rights etc. it only comes to life when we recognise the limitations of thought. Philosophy proper then, according to Hegel comes to light in an absolute moment of History when all the fundamental problems of philosophy and it’s limitations are recognised. For Hegel, philosophy just becomes a continued granting of individual rights throughout the ages because humans are essentially ‘rational’ because we recognise that we don’t have direct access to things as they are in themselves.

I do reject Hegel because philosophy is no longer philosophy, it becomes absurd, this historical recognition does not actually solve any of the problems we face, it only mediates them through a system, which Heidegger rejects also because he wants philosophy to get back in touch with the basic premises of ‘being’ or how we actually are detached from the historical process, because of being is rooted in time and moments in history, this still doesn’t solve the problems faced when we understand what ‘time’ or recognising certain moments actually mean.

>For Hegel, philosophy just becomes a continued granting of individual rights throughout the ages because humans are essentially ‘rational’ because we recognise that we don’t have direct access to things as they are in themselves.

>Hegel fag Green texting because he has been shown up in regards to the underlying fundamental,and ultimately facile resting point of what Hegel’s philosophy stands or falls by.

>Hegel is a Marxist

That’s the problem isn’t it? Hegel’s philosophy doesn’t explicitly exclude or invalidate movements like Marxism from being legitimate.

His philosophy allows for these types of interpretations to come about due to the dialectical and historical nature of his philosophy, for Hegel, almost anything is permitted because history is ‘rational’.

>That's somehow a problem

yes

Are you going to keep posting smaller versions of the same image?

If you want to forfeit your rights to a social movement composed by a bunch queer, fat positive, demi sexual Marxists then yeah, it may eventually become a problem for you.

I only have 2 versions
>Hegel is a post-Soviet American liberal 'Marxist'

Based Hegel time traveler

Hey user maybe that leftist push is the catalyst to stimulate an even stronger reactionary movement

Do me a favour, copy everything I have just said and store it away somewhere, you’re going to need it some day when some chubby cunt Hegelian tries to tell you check your privilege and that your opinion doesn’t matter.

Maybe I'm the chubby cunt
Maybe you're a brainlet
Maybe I'm right and you're wrong
Who knows?

t. Karl Popper

/r9k/ detected
Lel

Gee a society ruled by a constant back and forth movement of reactionaries! What a fantastic philosophy to ground our society in!

>tfw it's true but idiots like you still think about practicality before truth

Isn’t the dogmatic faith in the dialectical movement of history ultimately a very practical and naive lens in which to view society through?

Hegel put practicality before truth, not me.

OK, man

So this is the power of a Hegelian?

>Isn’t the dogmatic faith in the dialectical movement of history ultimately a very practical and naive lens in which to view society through?
you can't be dogmatically dialectical
that's the very nature of the dialectic
to even disagree with is a hypothetical antithetical step towards a greater rational unveiling of the truth
you're trapped... by the.. nightmare you keep waking up into

Foucault is a dud, the idea he would compare himself to Heidegger is disgusting.

it was Foucault's last interview
in his final years he was coming around to Heidegger and the Greeks

"For me Heidegger has always been the essential philosopher. I began by reading Hegel, then Marx, and I set out to read Heidegger in 1951 or 1952; then in 1952 or 1953 – I don’t remember any more – I read Nietzsche. I still have here the notes I took when I was reading Heidegger – I’ve got tons of them! And they are much more important than the ones I took on Hegel or Marx. My entire philosophical development was determined by my reading of Heidegger. I nevertheless recognize that Nietzsche outweighed him. I do not know Heidegger well enough: I hardly know Being and Time nor what has been published recently. My knowledge of Nietzsche is certainly better than my knowledge of Heidegger. Nevertheless, these are the two fundamental experiences I have had. It is possible that if I had not read Heidegger, I would not have read Nietzsche. I had tried to read Nietzsche in the fifties, but Nietzsche alone did not appeal to me – whereas Nietzsche and Heidegger: that was a philosophical shock! But I have never written anything on Heidegger, and I wrote only a very small article on Nietzsche; these are nevertheless the two authors I have read the most. I think it is important to have a small number of authors with whom one thinks, with whom one works, but about whom one does not write. Perhaps I’ll write about them one day, but at such a time they will no longer be instruments of thought for me."

That's actually a nice approach in my opinion
It's quite hard to tackle both, and in a sense it's easier to simply "ignore" trying to get into something deeper out of respect.

citation needed

You can be, you are placing an uncertain further above humanity’s perfection, instead of judging and evaluating values you relativise them and sacrifice your personal indentity for some unknown end. It’s very similar to Christianity.

***uncertain future

This is one of the most superficial critiques of Hegelianism I've ever encountered. There is literally no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

Top kek.

This is not an argument

>and sacrifice your personal indentity for some unknown end. It’s very similar to Christianity.

Absolute plebian

wtf french post-structuralism is profoundly german now!

You're not even a Heideggerian. You're just a pseudo-Nietzschean who picked up the superficial elements of his history of philosophy and using it to complain about muh EsJayDoubleyous no more elevated than average /pol/tard. A fucking monkey in a suit howling a new catchphrase because no one takes Cultural Marxism seriously anymore

This still is not an argument

>whole argument has been historicizing another thinker
>moment its applied to him its not an argument

>Make retarded claims about Hegel
>Someone tells you you're an idiot
>'hurr that's not an argument'
No shit it's not an argument, you idiot

if the claims are so "retarded" then how come you aren't able to provide actual arguments against them? hmmmm

Because I don't feel like it
When I started replying to you I was drunk
Now I'm just not in the mood to do anything but fuck with you
But if you actually read Hegel you'd see that your assertions are factually incorrect and that his philosophy of history is not identical to the primitive Marxism that you claim he espoused
At least if you weren't retarded you'd see it

You've been speaking as if Hegel was some sort of post-structuralist who never made any positive claims which is untrue on even the most glancing readings

>mfw brainlets confuse Fukuyamaism-Hegelianism or French post-structuralism or Marxism-Leninism with Hegel's actual system

pseud

NOT

AN

maymay

ARGUMENT

>Too bad he read him through Hegel

No. He "read" Hegel through Kojève, as well as the rest French philosophers at that time (Hyppolite, Lacan, etc.).

>I could but I won't ;)
fuck off, pseud brainlets

I could, but I won't

Foucault destroyed my life. Literally. I have a degree in psychology and got into post modernists like foucault and Deleuze. I read all i could find from them and lived by it. i got into a state of nihilism that i was about to die. good thing i got back into therapy and started another uni. Im doing Computer science now and ive never been so happy. oh and here some observation : for some reason i was able to fuck tons of chicks using those guys bullshit, i trully believed it tho, if you fake it i think you can achieve the same score.