Is Hegel as essential for understanding of the further philosophy as Kant? From what I read so far...

The Phenomenology and his lecture courses and the Encyclopedia are readable, albeit hard (some of the lectures are much easier, however), while the Science of Logic is the daunting and seemingly unreadable one.

A big issue with reading Hegel: if you've read the basic works of the Western philosophic and literary tradition, then he's not especially incoherent or gibberishy, as most people make him out to be. But therein is the issue. Familiarity with the Western tradition kinda takes a while. And Hegel is selfconsciously trying to deal with everything that came before him, in order to have a more comprehensive philosophical account of the Whole (which is not mainly applied to Prussia, btw).

He is incredibly important for grasping a number of currents of philosophy, either because of reactions to him (Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell) or because of use of him (Marxism, existentialism, phenomenology).

Your best bet though is to read something like the Phenomenology with a good commentary. There's some resources in the lit archive if you look around for a MEGA link.

Thanks! What are the prerequisites, apart from the Plato, Aristotle and Kant?
>Russell
Judging by the History of Western Philosophy, he wasn't particularly fond of Hegel, and was a part of semi-self-contained British philosophical tradition, was he not?

Russell is widely regarded as one of the fathers of the contemporary analytic style of philosophy, which arose as a very conscious repudiation of British idealism, which was essentially Hegelian philosophy.

If you've read Russell's History of Philosophy, and found it useful, and are looking to get into Hegel, then perhaps a good starting place would be Hegel's three-volume Lectures on the History of Philosophy.

I've always quite enjoyed Hegel's style, and think the charges of obscurantism are misplaced. But if you find his Logic or Phenomenology impenetrable, then just go for any of his series of lectures - they weren't actually written by him, but were published posthumously by his disciples from notes. Philosophy of Religion and History of Philosophy are quite readable.

I found Russell's History of philosophy useful, but I feel that it would've been even more useful with more focus on ideas and less bantz, however amusing it was to read. Again, thanks for the suggestions. Hegel's lectures on History of Philosophy must be very interesting.

>Does he have any redeeming qualities?

No, don't bother. He was immensely influential for a period of time, but it was a retarded intellectual fad.

>Among Noah’s sons was one who covered the shame of his father, but the Hegelians are still tearing away the cloak which time and oblivion had sympathetically thrown over the shame of their Master.

Heinrich Schumacher

>When I was young, most teachers of philosophy in British and American universities were Hegelians, so that, until I read Hegel, I supposed there must be some truth to his system; I was cured, however, by discovering that everything he said on the philosophy of mathematics was plain nonsense. Hegel’s philosophy is so odd that one would not have expected him to be able to get sane men to accept it, but he did. He set it out with so much obscurity that people thought it must be profound. It can quite easily be expounded lucidly in words of one syllable, but then its absurdity becomes obvious.

>Hegel’s was an interesting thesis, giving unity and meaning to the revolutions of human affairs. Like other historical theories, it required, if it was to be made plausible, some distortion of facts and considerable ignorance. Hegel, like Mane and Spengler after him, possessed both these qualifications.

Bertrand Russell

>Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of an whole generation.

Schopenhauer

according to my wife's professors, german philosophy students actually develop their english because hegel is supposedly easier in translation.

i'm STEM myself, but i found hegel very clear, almost overly so. imo, the reason that people think its convoluted is because he's trying to develop an inconsistent and incomplete system without formal symbols, so he labors over words.

...

I've read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and Kant. Think I'll be good to jump in?

Wow this boy back himself into a corner with all sorts of misconceptions of things he hasn't an iota of experience in

>Schumacher
Irrelevant
>Russel
serious garbage
>Schopenhauer
kek

I wouldn't trust someone as buttdevastated as Schopenhauer on this issue.

I'm already familiar with western philosophy, and I just want to know: how bantz heavy is Russell's History of Philosophy? I'm tempted to pick it up just for the banter if it's heavy on it, philosophical shit-flinging is one of the most entertaining forms of literature

And, by the way, did anyone try to compile all the Schopenhauer's words on Hegel? Would be amusing to read

Wouldn't call it exactly heavy, but consistently more than I'd expect from the philosophical textbook. The earlier quote was from the Hegel chapter:
>Hegel’s was an interesting thesis, giving unity and meaning to the revolutions of human affairs. Like other historical theories, it required, if it was to be made plausible, some distortion of facts and considerable ignorance. Hegel, like Mane and Spengler after him, possessed both these qualifications.
Read it anyway, it's comparatively short and sweet.

>He is incredibly important for grasping a number of currents of philosophy, either because of reactions to him (Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell)

It's not very convincing when your examples of 'current' trends in philosophy name three philosophers from the 19th century and one who was active mostly in the first half of the next. If I wanted to study real contemporary philosophy on ethics, logic etc how necessary is it to read Hegel? Not just as in how important are his ideas to actual current trends but how necessary is it to read him as a primary source? I've noticed that (probably because it is a literature board) Veeky Forums has a more scholarly interest in philosophy rather than an actual philosophical one, so its members place far more importance on reading primary material than is actually useful.

...

>~800 pages pages
>short and sweet

>It's not very convincing when your examples of 'current' trends
That's not what I wrote. I said "currents", not referring to "current trends". Even then, phenomenology is still very active, and the work commenting upon or expanding off of the "continentals" and "post-moderns" still very much make use of and end up having to refer back to Hegel.

Those three, and also Spinoza and Leibniz are incredibly important to see what he's doing at least in a basic way philosophically. But also makes plenty of reference to the physics of his day, as well as Stoic thinkers, neoplatonists, Catholic theology, and Greek poets. That said, I think sticking with those five philosophers offers more than enough to work with. Consider Plato's Republic and Parmenides, Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics, Kant's first critique, Spinoza's ethics, and any essays by Leibniz you can get your hands on.

>Judging by the History of Western Philosophy, he wasn't particularly fond of Hegel, and was a part of semi-self-contained British philosophical tradition, was he not?
Sure, he was a reaction to Hegel, coming from the Hegelian influenced British Idealist tradition.

Possibly. His Phenomenology would be worth looking at slowly. Definitely his lectures on the history of philosophy.

Now, as for the rest of the comment at:

>If I wanted to study real contemporary philosophy on ethics, logic etc how necessary is it to read Hegel? Not just as in how important are his ideas to actual current trends but how necessary is it to read him as a primary source? I've noticed that (probably because it is a literature board) Veeky Forums has a more scholarly interest in philosophy rather than an actual philosophical one, so its members place far more importance on reading primary material than is actually useful.
Depends on what you're looking at that might constitute "real contemporary philosophy on ethics, logic etc"; if you're looking at big names in analytic philosophy, you won't find much, though that's neither a reason for or against the reading of Hegel (and again, given that analytic philosophy has its roots in a reaction *against* him with little subsequent desire to see whether Russell's characterizations and critiques were right, there's been little acknowledgement of him except as a footnote). If you're looking more broadly in analytic work, he has in fact been taken up again, though for so many different reasons and offering such differing readings from each other that it's not easy to summarize why (just google "analytic readings of hegel" to see some of what's up).

Now, with respect to "continental" philosophic work, he's never really been put down, and he's treated quite a bit precisely on ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc.

Logic is a bit trickier to touch, because Hegel has a very particular understanding of logic that includes the modal logic of Aristotle that logicians are familiar with (even if not necessarily working with anymore), but that's both the most philosophically interesting part of his work, and also quite simply the hardest to understand, since a good deal depends on understanding what he means by "the System" and "the Whole". Oddly enough, Heidegger, the old deutschbag, in his lecture course on the first few chapters of the Phenomenology is probably clearer than most scholars on how the Phenomenology relates to the Logic and how they both relate to the later Encyclopedia summaries. (The later parts of that course get confusing, but the first 70 pages or so are shockingly clear and helpful).

Seriously, go look up the aforementioned MEGA link in the archive, since there's lots of helpful resources for making sense of what's up with him.

>Hegel

You picked the wrong heir-to-Kant.

Russell''s history is a weird bitchy (but amusing) mishmash of misunderstandings, confused ideas how to direct the book, polemics, and cribbing from scholars.

The Hegel chapter is entertaining if you've never made it past a few pages in him, but otherwise is infuriating for how stupid it is. I have plenty of suspicions and concerns about Hegel's philosophy, but Russell's critique is just stoopid.

>comparatively
Anyway it reads very easily, unlike Hegel.

If no one understood Hegel, as he himself said, what's the fucking point?

>Is Hegel as essential for understanding of the further philosophy as Kant?

No.

No one in his lifetime.

How can you determine if someone understood him after he's dead, then?

By reading my clear and convincing arguments.

The sniffling Slovenian merely plays with Hegel.

He is the court jester of Hegelianism.

A lot of truth is said in jest.

Doubt it, you can't polish a turd. Schopenhauer was the true heir to Kant, and Nietzsche/etc were his rightful descendants.

So much of what is wrong with politics/philosophy today, is grounded in the fact that Hegelianism prevailed.

Holy mcfucking godshit, can we stop the schopenposting already!?
You do not sound cool with your "Muh world is completely meaningless"; SloppySchoppy philosophy is literally 16 y/o emo tier.

Do us a favour and kill yourself.

You're right. The state and Napoleon are the only things that matter after all.

>you can't polish a turd
You are empirically wrong.

Congratulations, you have shiny shit.

Yes I do!

Really?
This. I find Hegel's work so hard to read

>empiricist simpletons shitting up my board

>"Muh world is completely meaningless"
So I see you took his advice and reviewed his book without reading it.

>meaningless
Why do anal-autistics propagate this meme

They're worthless and they won't to believe that everyone else is too.

>Truly to escape Hegel involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us.

>hegel dictionary

such as?

There are at least two. One by Michael Inwood (very technical), and another by Glenn Magee (accessible, but meant as an introduction).

thank you, i'll look into them.

>We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us.

This is some scary shit.

Hegel is not a cheap whore, there is no 'trick' in this.

Not a cheap one, sure.

Dialectics aint free and so on

>Disagreeing with someone means you actually agree with the philosophy, in actuality

English is easy for Germans and vice versa

t. Austrian

whatever

This thread is what you get when your mind becomes too inundated with Veeky Forums memes

On a related note, just how much math do I need to be acquainted with before I can read Hegel?

None, as long as you don't want to delve in his Greater Logic.

What if I do want to delve into his Logic?

So was the deal about this guy? What was his endgame? I want to get the memes, you know, if sometime I get to meet Zizek

>father of Materialism
>does he have any redeeming qualities?

Yes, that

>endgame
Isn't the point that there isn't one?

Hegel is basically saying that history will end when people stop having conflicts with each other because he sees history as a record of conflict

Kant basically says that in morality there is good and bad, no gray area.

Helpful links:
youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

youtube.com/watch?v=H5JGE3lhuNo

Schopenhauer is stupid important here tho. Nearly every critic of Hegel has a lineage through Schopenhauer, such as Nietzsche and Wittgenstein (who both end up influencing one way or another nearly all major schools of thought).

The other two daddies of btfoing Hegel are Stirner and Kierkegaard. Stirner also brings up Marx who is another major reason to read Hegel but on the pro Hegel end.

Then you will need a bit of differential and integral calculus.

This

>[x] is basically saying

Pay attention to those words people, this is what you say when you are trying to push your own views as if it was somebody else's and appeal to their authority.