It takes me 1 hour to read 1 page and at best I understand maybe 1 sentence of what I've read

>He has already ingested 9 pages of Hegel

You need to read some Schopes as an antidote immediately

why is there a can in your mug

Once you're familiar with the terminology of the Rationalist-Empiricist debates then his language is very straightforward. Its just a matter of taking it slow and steady and making sure you understand each chapter before moving to the next since they all build on each other.

Max Muller translation bites hard.
Back when I did this I didn't see the translation as a problem to solve, but a hurdle to jump...

When I read it again I am going to have a couple of translations with me.

I was lucky to have it on good authority by a very well read user on here to go for Guyer's translations, have had no qualms with it

I have. I'm stuck at the part where he explains a concept being equal to itself is not something you can guess from the concept itself.

Then stop reading you fucking retard.

You have the exact same handwriting as a friend of mine
Did you happen to be left handed at a young age and then forced to write with your right hand?

No but I do hold my pen in a retarded way so its probably the same effect

proud of you son

OP I could help you with parts of it from Sense Certainty up to Self-conciousness and Reason

Jesus Christ, the state of this fucking board.

watch sadler's hegel series

Also look at Leibniz.

Was Leibniz one of the first to think kf binary? And why does he find it so significant?
Is it because complex things can be represented by by the simplest ones

>mfw that thread where Analytards were claiming Analytics invented computer science

I can only read a simple work of literature given to highschool students (moby dick) at a rate of 12 pages an hour. English is my first language.

Not you again

no, and because its the basis for all thought and all information systems, our interpretation of all physical phenomena and is literally the language that this demon we call nature speaks in.

What's "kf" binary? ESL here.

You have a few choices:
>Read an introduction and come back to it in five years
>Push through it at a normal pace, take in what you can and allow it to settle in your mind
>Just read other books you are interested in at the moment
Some things take time, and you aren't doing yourself any favours by struggling through something clearly beyond your current abilities. No shame in it either. The chances that anyone at an undergaduate level understands this book, or could say something relevant concerning it, are basically none. So ignore all the brainlet shaming and read things at your current ability and slightly above. Anything well beyond your ability should only make up a small percentage of what you read.
Another option is to struggle through a page or two a day. It will sink in over time using this method or just working through it and taking the parts you understand. You are left with little more than a fragment but this will help quite a bit when you are ready to come back to the work.

Rec me some undergrad level philosophers/books?

you have girly handwriting and i would defeat you in a physical confrontation.

philosophy is mental masturbation read something worth your time

Like what?

k is close to o on the keyboard

Fuck, I'm laughing my ass off here. Thanks.

good on you?

why does everyone want to read Phenomenology of Spirit? pic related is what you should read, it's the proper answer to Kant

reminder this is the final boss

kek

anyone who pretends they 'understand' hegel in more than a sentence by sentence manner is a crypto brainlet.

actually intelligent people recognize him and his followers as charlatans who produce word salads for fellow charlatans and idiots to read undue significance into.

abandon this continental babble and start reading real philosophy immediately.

Which would be?

My fists started curling when I read this.

Hegel's hyper-theoretical work (PoS, Science of Logic) should be much easier to understand if you start with those parts of his System of the Sciences that deal with a topic you have made some transformative experiences with yourself, which is to say, topics which you have thought independently and deeply about. For instance, if you're familiar with the classic Greek plays Goethe, Schiller and Shakespeare you should read the parts of Hegel's lectures on aesthetics dealing with poetry, if you know your Plato and Aristotle the parts of history of philosophy which deal with them, or, if you're well-versed in the history of Rome, you can read his account of its ascent and downfall in philosophy of history.
When you come back to PoS you'll be surprised by how lucid it is.

>real philosophy

>read
>ever
I just watch SciShow on YouTube like a true intellectual

genesis and structure of Hegel's phenomenology of spirit by hyppolite

read alongside. All the annoying French daddies did it

or, if you're just getting into philosophy, give up and read some fucking digestible and fun philosophy/literature for a while in stead of this crusty ass shit, then once you really are interested in learning about the western cannon study some modern philosophy and then try to tackle Bagel. Not saying Hegel is bad but god damn he's a pain in the ass to read most of the time.

Kant asserts that we are only ever able to know that we are interacting with the phenomenon.

Lyotard, a post-modernist, would say that we are unable to know if our senses are capable of experiencing and revealing the objective reality of anything.

Hegel is shit and a waste of time, as is most Western philosophy beginning with Descartes. The exception to this rule is Nietzsche who is at least stimulating and entertaining, and you really only need a more-or-less superficial understanding of the western philosophers who preceded him to be able to appreciate his work.

Who would you see as the (valuable) precursors of Nietzsche in the pre-Cartesian western philosophical tradition then?

>waste of time, as is most Western philosophy beginning with Descartes.

Yeah what a waste of time, you're better off shitposting here and watching porn

Aristotle, Scholastic philosophy, Platonism, Neoplatonism, Middle Platonists like Plutarch, what little we know of presocratics, Islamic philosophers etc

>Yeah what a waste of time, you're better off shitposting here and watching porn
Reading Hegel is admittedly a better use of time than those activities because it will teach you how not to become hoodwinked by western sophistry and psuedo-philosophy

high brow humour

Really? Because from what I've heard in general of people's takes it's not Nietzsche who is the best candidate for being labelled the heir of the Greeks of Scholastics.
What aspects do you see in Nietzsche that tie into the standard pre-Cartesian western canon, and Islamic philosophers?

Would you say that taking notes is necessary for understanding formal philosophy in general? I am teaching myself and simply reading as a hobby and I haven't taken any notes so much as just read thus far. Will I get less out of it if I don't make exhaustive notes?

His aesthetic and religious lectures are incredible, and easier to read than the extant remains we have of Aristotle. The secondary sources and concepts in PhoS are also incredible, and are similar to Heraclitus and Parmenides. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Why these Veeky Forums memes are so funny?

>What aspects do you see in Nietzsche that tie into the standard pre-Cartesian western canon, and Islamic philosophers?
He doesn't really, although he likes to pretend to have found precursors to himself in Epicurus and Heraclitus. In someways Epicurus more closely fits the bill than the latter, but still no cigar imo. I recommended him because he is stimulating and entertaining. He's a talented writer. Also he is the embodiment of Western philosophy eating itself alive, the dissolution and endgame of western philosophy.

Not him but notes helped a lot from Kant onward, even for less abstract guys like Marx. Try and write about it or explain it to others as well

>the dissolution and endgame of western philosophy.
That's one take, but what would you call the other stuff descended from the Greeks and Scholastics if not a continuation of Western philosophy? How do you account for them?

Western philosophy after Descartes comes from Descartes, whose philosophy in turn is a rejection and negation of what came before him not a continuation or evolution of it.

So how did Nietzsche destroy Western philosophy if Descartes had already done it?

Descartes didn't destroy Western philosophy (the one that preceded him, that is) he merely rejected it, that is to say, ignored it or dismissed it. And when I say that Nietzsche represents its dissolution I am referring to the dissolution of post-Cartesian philosophy not pre-Cartesian, although Nietzsche did reject any form of metaphysics which is inextricably linked with pre-Cartesian philosophy. He didn't refute metaphysics as much as he said "nuh uh metaphysics doesn't real" and offered numerous psychologically reductionist reasons to explain it away (e.g. metaphysics is a cowardly escape from the real world, or in the case of Plato a snobbery that rejects the senses as being too plebeian).

>Western philosophy after Descartes comes from Descartes
Excuse me?

>Heidegger
ew gross

So overall how would you rate Nietzsche, and what is the lie of the land in terms of how you see the coherency and/or heritage of current philosophical styles?

Could you make a graph of continuation/evolution, rejection and dissolution of Wester philosophy?

Why are you actually listening to this one random user

>So overall how would you rate Nietzsche
From a literary standpoint? Very highly, although I have not read him in the original language which is something that should also be factored in when it comes to literary merit. From a philosophical standpoint? I don't agree with him but his hypotheses are interesting, and he stimulates a lot of thought.

From what little I know of contemporary philosophy it's either obtuse and needlessly technical, marxian and overly socio-political, mushy and sentimental, lazy and overly simplistic, or "scientistic" and reductionist like dennet et al

as you can see i do not have a high opinion of contemporary philosophy. analytic philosophy is in a whole other category though, and while it obviously serves a clear purpose pretty much justifies itself it hardly deserves the title "philosophy" since that means "love of wisdom", whereas analytic philosophy is obviously something quite different

so thats my pompous two cents

>i-if I write poetically enough and make unsubstantiated claims, I can escape the Cartesian paradigm!

Because

Most people either don't know enough to contribute or couch their opinions behind enough equivocation that the discussion doesn't really go anywhere.
He could elaborate a bit more on where he's actually coming from with this and explaining its coherency.

Writing off contemporary philosophy is a bad move. Analytic philosophy does cut off a lot of stuff, but that stuff is by definition generally as you described "mushy and sentimental" compared to what the analytics and "scientists" confine "philosophy" to.
Not to condemn you too heavily or too presumptuously, but I don't think you can write off modern philosophy while praising Nietzsche for what you condemn it for.
I disagree.

you have to realize im working with a lot of generalizations here. It's not as though you could lump all pre-cartesian philosophy into one category, and to think of philosophy as "evolving" is itself a characteristically modern thing to do. don't take everything too literally, there is obviously room for nuance and approximations. Im also not really sure what kind of graph you are asking for or expect. If you explain more clearly i may be able to try something rudimentary

I dont entirely disagree with you. this medium (anonymous image board) kind of forces you to generalize and simplify. there's plenty of "elbow room" in these discussions, and i dont hold dogmatically to a rigid point of view, im speaking very generally. although i do actually think most post-cartesian philosophers are a waste of time. I praise nietzsche for a lot of reasons that i've already stated: literary reasons, he stimulates thought, and for a certain quality that he called "intellectual conscience" that he certainly possessed and that i tremendously respect him for.

basically im shitposting, but im shitposting with my actual opinion

i didn't think I'd cry

>evolving
>modern
How so?

Also, most graduate students, even given the statement that undergraduates couldnt do it, would struggle immensely and would need secondary sources to even get close to a critical thought regarding the work. The level of intelligence these works require to read once and get, or read quickly and get, is exceedingly rare and overrated af desu

the darwinian theory of evolution has spilled over into a lot of unrelated fields leading to a belief in indefinite and continual evolution and progress politically, socially, and intellectually. In the ancient world a belief was considered to be either true and authentic or false. Neoplatonists, for example, would not have considered themselves to have evolved from Platonism but to be the most authentic interpretation of Plato's work. A philosophy was considered either true or false, reliable or unreliable, it was not seen as one stage on a continually evolving trajectory. That's a very modern way of seeing things.

Introduction, preface, or otherwise? I read the first page and I get the problem. He's using grandiose quasi-literary terms to articulate something very non-scientific. Definitely read something else first, literature would be a better prep for this than philosophy
In all seriousness, seems like a great book, how old are you? I wouldn't have made it through the book if I were two years younger

I usually read philosophy at that rate with a few breaks of checking my phone as an outburst of obsessive compulsive disorder. Language doesn't matter, I read books in both languages since they don't really get translated to my irrelevant mother tongue.

>make a bait thread
>well alive

>make a normal thread
>dies
I hate this board so fucking much.