Phenomenology of Spirit

>Do not ever believe anyone who describes this book as 'impossible', 'impenetrable', 'obscurant', 'nonsensical', 'badly written' or other such dumb terms. It is true that this may be the most challenging read you ever tackle, even for a trained philosopher, however this does NOT mean that it makes no sense. This is simply the claim of people (Schopenhauer included) who have failed to understand it and refuse to accept their failure.

Read this in an Amazon review. Why do Hegelians always assume that people simply don't 'get' Hegelianism? Can they not imagine that you can get something, yet still dismiss it as nonsense/etc?

There is such a thing as intelligible nonsense. That's what Schopenhauer was getting at, for example.

Even if you disagree, you are still left with the question of why Hegel wrote his work with such a lack of clarity.

Other urls found in this thread:

adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm
arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Even if you disagree, you are still left with the question of why Hegel wrote his work with such a lack of clarity.

Something to do with a shitty contract which pushed him for time.

I think he finished it just as Napoleon came marching in.

GOD you are boring, you haven't even put in the slightest amount of effort trying to understand it.

There are obvious reasons why Schopenhauer wouldn't like Hegel. He's just so furious that he doesn't feel the need to explain them.

Where Schopenhauer's view of phenomena is strictly representational and divided subject-object, Hegel talks about the necessary interdependency of the subject and object, thus making Schopenhauer's claims about the noumenon, about the whole Will as it relates to our subject, pointless.

Hegel is also a total optimist. The idea of the development of Spirit and man's discovery of God within himself is completely counter to what is inside Schopenhauer's man: the Nothingness of the veil of the Maya. Where Hegel starts with multiple stages of reality that unfold into one another on a path towards Truth, Schopenhauer sees reality as constant and vain. Only the ascetic transcends for Schopenhauer, and when he transcends he actually becomes Nothing.

good post

>Why do Hegelians always assume that people simply don't 'get' Hegelianism?
they want to feel special like all the people who read Heidegger and talk nonsensical bullshit about the oh-so mysterious "being" that noone gets

just read what you quoted, its literally revealed word, of divine origin. ie not susceptible to judgement or criticism.

his followers are literally religious fools. nothing else is to be expected from the proto-SJW.

I think the issue with Hegel and the Phemonology is that it heavily depends on under what outlook you read it. Like a previous poster said, Hegel was a naive optimist, it was perhaps the last great idealist attempt of greating a all-encompassing system of knowledge. In that regard it's an anazing feat but if you read it with a modern mindset driven by physicalism and postmodernism which inherently rejects the like of Hegel's boundless idealism, of course it doesn't hold up.

>1807 + 209

>STILL can't into dialectics

This. Schop and his ilk are assblated by the dialectic, nothing more.

Someone explain the fucking dialectic to me.

>Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis

That's my understanding of it. What does it actually fucking mean though?

I don't know, but I do know that that 'schema' is not what dialectic is and Hegel certainly never used.

It's pretty simple so here's idiot version:

There is Thing A (thesis), B is its opposite (antithesis), these two things are in conflict so they duke it out shounen battle manga style and the result is a C (synthesis).

There is no synthesis!

That's the Kantian dialectic, which Hegel didn't like or use. Hegel's is:

Abstract -> Negative -> Concrete

Alright, give me an example of Hegelian dialectic being used then, if it even can be used.

That's Fichte's dialectic you dipshit, not Kant's.

>Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.[35] Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

>On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model as a backbone to accompany his points in many of his works.

Dialectic is the critique of formality. Formalism must alienate form from content. Mechanical materialism is codified spatial motion in space whereas historical motion is temporal motion in time i.e. evolutionary motion. If you can't think in terms of motion in the direction of time [which the Newtonian worldview doesn't allow] you're not going to get the dialectic...

adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/Dialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm

Why are philosophers so bad at philosophy?

>which the Newtonian worldview doesn't allow
No, it does.

Tell me why you think that anyway.

The basis of Newtonian cosmology presupposes the laws of nature are timeless and immutable and the history of the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical object. Time doesn't actually exist it's a mere illusion, Einstein said:
>...the peculiarities of mans experiences with respect to time, including his different attitude towards past, present, and future, can be described and (in principle) explained in psychology

read Lee Smolin's essay on Temporal naturalism:

arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539