I am a brainlet tier phylosophy reader

50 pages of Hegel teaches you all you ever need. Now, the question is: can you handle the struggle of 50 pages where you're demanded to learn how to think from zero? One does not simply 'read' Hegel because Hegel does not write to tell you something he knows, he writes so you can experience how one comes to know what he knows.

Hegel is pretty easy if you read the first and third sections of the Encyclopedia, the first 3 sections of Logic of Science. It really makes most of his lexicon crystalline, and it directly explains the underlying dialectical relationship between propositions.

Just do this leg work first and you'll be able to read Hegel fluently

Seconded

Do people actually think Heidegger is hard to understand?

HERE HE IS BOYS

I bet this guy believes that the Absolute is Subject that is Substance

>he doesn't
baka

Kant's pretty easy desu, and Hegel is much funner than any western philosophy since the Greeks. With both you actual have to study though. I reccomend taking notes and then writing using them to write mini essays for summary

I bet this guy is a Christian nationalist who believes that men and women represent two aspects of the ethical law of Spirit

god I love Hegel

>Hegel
>fun

Anyways the funnest modern philosopher is objectively Wittgenstein

Once you get his rythm he drags you into a world unlike any other. Constant splitting, inversion and sublation

I think it's Kierkegaard

>Zarathustra crap
lol you don't even deserve to read Hegel

I was thinking about including him (and oddly enough, schopenhauer) but I decided against it

he's a little too moody desu

hegel would be the best if he could actually write and if he put some effort into supporting his points beyond "well X didn't work because of some technicality so obviously we have to go to [completely unrelated position]"

You really saw no connection going on in the Phenomenology? I mean, yeah, if you have no clue the major shifts seem to come out of nowhere, but it's clear he isn't making completely unrelated moves even if you have no clue. The move from Consciousness to Self-Consciousness is connected on many other levels of consideration beyond the sheer phenomenal logic, and so is the move in the latter with desire and life. Shit is dense and done for really dense logical considerations, but it's not disconnected in the slightest.

I was being facetious with that but still, he doesn't give enough support for his moves. I don't think they're unrelated or unreasonable, but with the scope of the phenomenology and the number of moves he makes one wrong play can cause the entire project to crumble, and Hegel just makes short work of it, besides maybe a couple of offhand "you're dumb if you disagree with me" quips

You need a companion volume to Hegel.

he's 100% right. Hegel gives justification for his movements, but it's not impossible to argue against them, and if one of them fails his entire project fails.

Are you gay?
You sound like a fag

Also, anyone wonder what a Hegel + Winnicott blender would pour? Like if the only thing Hegel got wrong, as well as all of Germany since forever, is that they take shit too seriously. Which is great Bach and Luther, sometimes it’s really not Joseph and Adolf. A hegelianism in today in the light of play rather than in solemn exasperation. Is the Spirit not really just playing? Albert Einstein was a really giggly guy. You find it in music especially anything freestyle / improvise / jamming a sense of Geist entering, a shared experience, everyone, through play, manifests in their totality. I think play is a super cool correlary to hegels thought. Just saying.

Didn’t like what I say? I’m sorry. Have a good night.

Stop trying

Be a nice person it’s worth it

Kant you might be able to read without too much outside help, but a lot of his terms and concepts are obviously in dialogue with contemporaries. It's possible to read Kant with fairly minimal knowledge of how he's using his terms, because some of them are obvious enough, but you will need that basic knowledge and guidance. And the more you know about the historical context of those terms, the more you will benefit.

Once you understand his context and his basic architectonic, he becomes very easy to read. The first Critique is only hard for the first couple hundred pages, and the rest are all antinomies of reason and shit that are trivial to read once you already understand what he's doing and why.

Hegel you absolutely cannot understand without guidance and substantial historical context. Whereas Kant is dense but relatively straightforwardly, using a relatively small set of key concepts (like, for example, what he thinks a "concept" even is, which is quite different from a lot of other conceptualisations of "concept"), Hegel is taking up a very odd mixture of contemporary issues and concepts and blending them together idiosyncratically.

You will learn literally nothing by reading the Science of Logic alone, without a guide. The few people who have attempted to read the Logic didn't even understand it, according to modern commentators, of which there are still few. Heidegger is one of the most brilliant men who ever lived and he didn't understand it, he got it all "wrong" despite his encyclopedic knowledge of Western philosophy. Heidegger is actually a good counter-example to Hegel, because he's similar to Kant in that he's very dense and difficult but he falls into place quickly with hard work. Like Kant, you can read Heidegger's Being & Time with relatively minimal guidance, if you're dedicated, because once Heidegger's architectonic is clear to you, the rest falls into place really easily. One good class on Heidegger is basically as good as another.

The problem with Hegel, by contrast to both these dudes, is that his architectonic has NEVER been clear enough to generate consensus about its interpretation. Ever. Regardless of what anyone tells you about their authoritative reason of Hegel that is the really correct one, 99% of Hegel scholars would disagree with them. One class on Hegel is NOT as good as any other. If you take a class on Hegel, you will most likely get a garbled version of pseudo-Hegelian Absolute Idealism. At best, if you're lucky, you will get one of the major authoritative readings of Hegel - ONE of them, and the other ones will strongly disagree.

That's why "reading Hegel" involves reading ABOUT Hegel, getting a feel for what his architectonic might be, getting a feel for the loose consensus about his architectonic, and especially getting a feel for the particularly fuzzy points that are the real flashpoints for dispute and disagreement. Start with secondary works on Hegel by Houlgate, Pinkard, Taylor, and others.

the problem with Hegel though is most of the secondary gets him wrong.

Yeah but there is no way to discern the right interpretation without wading into that shit and getting your bearings. By the time you know what you think Hegel is saying, you'll also know a lot about why you think 80% of the major interpreters of Hegel are retarded.

>Zarathustra
>literally crap without any philosophy in it

Lee la traducción de Gredos (también estaba en otras editoriales, creo) para la Crítica de la razón pura y las traducciones de Roberto Aramayo (Alianza) para las otras dos críticas (la Crítica del juicio se llama Crítica del discernimiento). Las traducciones de Morente dan asco.

>don't forget to start with the Sadler

How good of a philosopher can he be if no one can understand him?

You need tens of years of academic study in order to read and “understand” Kant and Hegel

yeah i can second this

You need decades to master their thinking style, so that you can improve it and use it creatively. You can understand most of their main concepts and discoveries in a few years of costant study, and it takes so long mainly due to how much philosophical works have they produced in their lifetime, rather than the density and obscurity of their work. You can get a working understanding of Hegel's SoC and Kant's Critiques in less than one year, but it will take a lifetime to replicate these systems in your own way. Hegel and Kant are less imprenetrable than one might think, as long as you study their terminology and their treatises on Logic, which clear every doubt about the structures of their work. It's hard like manual labour is hard, it wears you off, but conceptually it's easy, since they've laid their systems down for everyone to read them.

Also daily reminder that Hegel's death-bed quote is fictional.

Only Anti-Hegelians think that Hegel can't be understood in the slightest.

If you have no attitude for philosophy he is pretty hard. If you're used to decode every sentence and think it through, and if you read the SEP page about his main concepts and terms, he becomes extremely consequential, therefore approachable.

This is less true of his lectures on Greek philosophy, which require formal philological training and a good grasp on Ancient Greek, and his published notebooks, which are just unreadable (he did not publish them for a reason).

A good starting point to get used to Heideggerian language and dialectics is "What is Called Thinking?"and his essay on Nietzsche, Holderlin, philosophy and poetry. They can be read by pretty much anyone with bar to no preparation, and they're EXTREMELY consequential. These are by far his clearest, most accessible works.

I don't think a Hegelian Christian nationalist would be anything like your average conservative. If you took the blind dogmatism out of Christian faith, national identity and the notion of ethical gender roles, but still argued for their historical-philosophical validity, and tried to defend the position that in a modern society they do not need to be subverted but transformed, you'd be a postmodern neo-Marxist in the eyes of the "but muh sacred traditions"-crowd, and a fascist in the eyes of most progressives.

That, from the very beginning, was the reason Hegels philosophy fragmented into right and left Hegelians after his death. His more politically inclined students never truly grasped the fundamentals of dialectic thought, and, when left to their own devices, they instantly fell back into pre-Hegelian metaphysical dogmatism.

>mfw tengo la traducción de morente para cdlr pura y la de aramayo para cdlr practica
igual son epubs, depues los descargo como dijiste, gracias

not gay, only virgin
any recomendations of manuals "about" hegel?
also what does he even talk anout in his "science of logic" I & II? It sound like gnoseology but i thought this guy was known by his methaphisycs

de quien es la traduccion de ed. gredos?

>Phylosophy
What faggot Euro shithole 'country' puts that first Y where an I should go?

good post

I think it's Nietzsche. He's witty, intelligent, with a wicked sense of humor

I prolly fucked that up and i don't know how to make spoilers

"where all da philosophies at hurrrrr'

you seem like a try hard faggot

Pedro Ribas. Cuando lo escribí no tenía ganas de ir a por el libro.

Wittgenstein is fun only because thought experiments are fun in general. Hegel is fun because once you get him you can start linking everything he has said, and it's all coherent, at least on his own term. It really turns your brain into a fine-tuned machine. Spinoza and Kant did the same.

gracias, ya lo descargué.
>everything is unperciptible to the mediocre eye, let's go see modern art and read zarameme
The only good Nietzche works are "beyond good and evil" and the moral... one.

>NEETzsche
>intelligent