HEGEL IS USELESS BULLSHIT

SOME traditions should be followed, others discarded, depending on their usefulness and morality. Tradition-with-a-capital-T has no inherent value whatsoever.

>TELL ME ONE USEFUL THING YOU LEARNED FROM READING HEGEL

Being quiet.

>girlfriend doesn't know who Hegel is
At least both you and her can be plebs together

that Skepticism, apprehended in itself as a relation to the world, is not a denial of being, but the truth of its being-in-motion, and that therefore the affect that attends it is not destructive combativeness against the finite, but indifference and calm in the face of infinity.

(like this guy: )

Usefulness is a shallow quality, Veeky Forumsanon. A paperclip isn't useful for everyone, but they are there to serve many purposes.

>SOME traditions should be followed, others discarded, depending on their usefulness and morality.
Five year-old's first shitpost, he can't even understand that morality and usefulness derive from tradition and thus morality can't defy either, his mind has gone full centrism.

>Kant: Can't know the thing in itself, here's the proof
>Hegel: HOL UP HOL UP SO WHAT U SAYIN IS WE CANT KNOW THINGS BUT THATS A THOUGHT SO U DO KNOW HAHAHA GOTEEEEEEEEM
I always wondered why this degeneration from man to chimp in German intellectual history was "allowed". It's scary.

Not to mention of course the subsequent intellectual miscarriage that was mustache man.

>local-newspaper-letters-to-the-editor-style scarequotes

Lmfao

Would Marxism even exist without Hegel though?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Hegelians

Can you state this in plain English or does it only work in bullshit Hegelian dialectic?

Not scarequotes bucko.

To address that quote, man also creates. Don't be such a pessimist.

To address Hegel, I agree. Sure, there is wisdom behind his words, in a subjective kind. Hegel has thought his way through mazes of self-referential logic and philosophy, but is that maze truly worth exploring?
Has he not failed to communicate his findings, when even experts of his teachings disagree on the most fundamental things. Hegel has had to twist every definition of common-place language to express the truths he found, until nothing truly delineating remained.

kant works up his whole system to make the noumenon the impossible jewel in philosophy's crown. hegel doesn't make anything remarkable of his critique of the noumenon because as undifferentiated being it is the barest abstraction possible. there's just nothing interesting in it.

ok i'll try: Skepticism, as a relation to the world, is not a denial of being, but the truth of its being-in-motion, so the affect of the Skeptical philosopher is not destructive combativeness toward the finite, but indifference and calm in the face of infinity.

yes and we all know how valuable Marxism has proven once it was implemented in the practical world.
Besides, Marx just dressed up egalitarian thought that's been around since Robespierre (and even Athens) in Hegel's fancy dialectics.

>once it was implemented in the practical world.

when was that?

>Marx just dressed up egalitarian thought... in Hegel's fancy dialectics

where did he do that?

That is what I'm saying. If you can't express your philosophy in terms a layman may understand than it is probably a lot of ivory tower bullshit.

The pseuds here are gonna dogpile me for saying that because they've spent years reading or pretending to read all these philosophers, but it is true. Plato was a great man but his philosophy is outdated and useless. The Republic has no bearing on modern governance.

so many people on this board have their heads up their asses its really funny

who are you quoting then? huh? huh?

>in the past
>in ancient greeze

LOL

Yes we have never seen marxist thought implemented anywhere :-)

...

so when was it?

See

>chavez
>socialism works :D

>hegel doesn't make anything remarkable of his critique of the noumenon because as undifferentiated being it is the barest abstraction possible
Going on to create yet another school metaphysics BUT WAIT this time it's totally different g-guys!!! Muh b-being!! W-why are you laughing??

All these posts and not one person has produced any examples of something practical they learned from studying Hegel. Wow cool guy hes really smart i should dedicate my time to learning about these childless pseuds like Rousseau instead of living life. Philosophy is fucking gay

Wow congratulations on realizing this. Your mind is impressive

His contribution is the dialectical model of history, which is a useful way of analyzing history, especially if your intention is to CHANGE history. And for many, the idea that history is a story that we participate in and change is a revelation in itself.

not quite hegel's goal. hegel doesnt see philosophy as an intellectual marketplace, but as dialectical progression whereby the truth claimed by past systems is set aside while their valuable notions and advances over previous systems are preserved. so Plato advances over the Pythagoreans by showing that it is not merely the quantitative which determines being, but that the quantitative is itself a determined aspect of the Form of the thing in question.

so also with the noumenon: it's excellent that we had kant to discover it, but because he limits knowledge the the "subjective" only, denying the coincidence of structures deduced for knowledge with the reality they allegedly describe, he makes all of reality noumenal. but reality is only real insofar as it is conterminous with ideality. hegel argues that the "bare reality" is just an impression of the understanding, which has to be dialectically overstepped, as kant incompletely does.

Most white people think with hegelian logics

>marx had everything to do with leninism but nothing to do with social democracy :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

>hegel doesnt see philosophy as an intellectual marketplace
woah

>but as dialectical progression whereby the truth claimed by past systems is set aside while their valuable notions and advances over previous systems are preserved so Plato advances over the Pythagoreans by showing that it is not merely the quantitative which determines being, but that the quantitative is itself a determined aspect of the Form of the thing in question.
holy

>so also with the noumenon: it's excellent that we had kant to discover it, but because he limits knowledge the the "subjective" only, denying the coincidence of structures deduced for knowledge with the reality they allegedly describe, he makes all of reality noumenal. but reality is only real insofar as it is conterminous with ideality. hegel argues that the "bare reality" is just an impression of the understanding, which has to be dialectically overstepped, as kant incompletely does.
shit

I never thought of it this way

Lmao just how delusional do you have to be to deny that Lenin was strongly influenced by Marx. He spoke about Marx's work so many fucking times.
>no marxism works shut up those times we tried it weren't real tries

The lecture notes "Reason in History" go over all that relatively succinctly. It's actually pretty short and readable, check it out.

>Going on to create yet another school metaphysics

clearly

Well, while Lenin and Trotsky were both Marxists, their philosophies are quite different, and while leninism was certainly tried in the Soviet Union, Trotskyism never really was.

ive yet to see an explanation of how marxism was "implemented" unsuccessfully though?

>deny that Lenin was strongly influenced by Marx
who did that?

yeah fuck philosophy

damn dude, penetrating intellect you've there

marxists get out of my hegel thread, no one wants to argue the finer points of how your specific version of marxism hasn't been tried yet.

EVOLA SAID EVERYTHING HEGEL DID BUT BETTER

Hegel is a non-entity in serious modern philosophy. Not really worth discussing unless you're a Zizek fanboy or something.

Thanks my dude but I couldn't have done it without you. As they say "you are history".

>anglos

All I've garnered from reading this thread is that philosophy is an esoteric study that involves a lat of pseuds waxing on and on about the, and because of how they view these things which could be better explained by newer schools of thoughts such as or, they end up achieving nothing. It's a complete exercise in futility. You people will spend 20 years reading your Schopenhaeur and your Stirner and Foucoault and yaddda yadda yadda and yet you will still be unable to explain how works, you'll just be able to couch your unassuredness behind an impenetrable wall of obscure philosophical jargon. Cool man did it make people like you more? You work at a cement factory and brag about the books on your shelf like someone would do with their car.

>You people will spend 20 years reading
>implying

>hegel doesnt see philosophy as an intellectual marketplace, but as dialectical progression whereby the truth claimed by past systems is set aside while their valuable notions and advances over previous systems are preserved.
Is this really what he said? This comes across as totally arbitrary thing to say.

>Hegel is a non-entity in serious modern philosophy
This is fucking crazy town mate.

Stop trying to be snarky it's not working.

Still nothing valuable Hegel said being referenced in this thread, just a bunch of pseud

No on is trying to be "snarky". You're wrong and there's not a whole lot else to say.

go see a therapist.

pls no bully sensetive mustache man

STOP CATFIGHTING, YOU CANNOT SHOW THAT HEGEL SAID ANYTHING USEFUL

NAME ONE USEFUL THING PHILOSOPHY TAUGHT YOU

HERE IS SOMETHING SCIENCE TAUGHT ME: THE AVG IQ OF A NIGGER IS 85 LOL

Hegel was a fraud and his lectures were attended by civil servants, veterinarians and bank clerks.

>bullshit Hegelian dialectic
You have to go back

>There are no significant flaws inherent to capitalism, guys, trust me!

pinochet killed a bunch of communist agitators, for the average Chilean life under his regime was quite comfortable. go fuck yourself with your Hegel

you might as well say that there are flaws to humans. 'capitalism' is just what happens when people are free to do business as they please, own property, have money. it's not some sort of prescribed state of affairs. it's just normal behavior. so if 'capitalism' is flawed, you're basically just saying that humans are flawed.

>'capitalism' is just what happens when people are free to do business as they please
>it's just normal behavior
then why did it take so fucking long to materialize
>if 'capitalism' is flawed, you're basically just saying that humans are flawed
>hunter gatherers aren't humans, CAPITALISTS are humans

>TELL ME ONE USEFUL THING YOU LEARNED FROM READING HEGEL

The Prussian State is the best possible political system.

*was, user. We can't go back.

lol dude marx was a moron and purposely used false info in das kapital, go fuck yourself you pseud

>this guy you didn't even mention lied about stuff
solid rebuttal

>girlfriend
wtf u doing here normie

Hegel is fucking stupid.

right here OP

so Hegel helps people understand that history is a story and we participate in it? wow neat im sure glad i spent years reading the greeks like you guys recommend. you're so smart! you must be highly regarded in literary circles

thanks man means a lot

I hate every single one of you stupid, stupid cunts.

rude

>capitalism is when people are free to own property

It's difficult to conceive of a statement more ignorant of the foundations of capitalism and the state.

See how "free" you are to own "property" when the Canadian government finds oil under "your" land, or when the US government decides you have an "oligopoly" or "monopoly."

wtf u doing here robot

>so many people on this board have their heads up their asses its really funny
Yep, and you don't. Great job.

Alright if you just want to assume that you know better than all of history's writers then be my guest. And sometimes, yes we need reminding of even simple truths like that we are a part of history so that we can change it. You are clearly unhappy with your part in history as you seem to be so angry about the fact that some dude called Hegel wrote some stuff you don't understand and you can't do that. So you take to Veeky Forums to rant about it? Just calm down and leave it be senpai.

History is a series of deeds, not a history of discourses.

Neck yourself

Not even true. Brandom and Mcdowell are the definition of anglo and are neo-hegelians

it's totally arbitrary because im stating it in a form ammenable to the understanding. but hegel works it out dialectically in his History of Philosophy.

I'm not mad I have just been lurking Veeky Forums for a week and have become frustrated by the way they venerate these thinkers without being able to describe why it is they venerate them or what specifically they have learned from their works

>own property, have money

as long as those who do these jealously and violently guard it, then only they are "free," and that only in the most abstract sense. they are still conditioned by the servitude of those whose freedom they deny

>makes things up
>about theory not mentioned
>>accuses other of being pseud

almost like something a pseud would do

Well whom do you venerate and why?

>Name one thing you found valuable from Hegel, but not unless it is something I personally do not find valuable

marx cited stats from before he was born in das kapital that had been rectified by labor laws and tried to pass them off as current since they furthered his point it was bullshit and yoy know it youy fucking bastard

I DONT KNOW, IM NOT VERY BIG ON PHILOSOPHY AND NOW THAT IM TRYING TO GET INTO IT I GET THE SENSE THAT WHILE THERE ARE MANY KERNELS OF TRUTH, A LOT OF IT IS IVORY TOWER NONSENSE THAT IS WRAPPED IN A SHROUD OF INTELLECTUAL VOCABULARY AND OUTDATED CONCEPTS

but user, he has a whole chapter devoted to the labor struggle of the 19th century, and repeatedly notes that he is describing inward tendencies of the capitalist mode of production which persist so long as commodity production prevails, and so to raise the fact that he is using stats from a particular time period in order to abstract tendencies from that time period is to just excuse yourself from reading marx on the basis of what you learned on wikipedia about him.

user, on an image board you can either boil down what you learned from months or years of study to a few sentences, doing your best to make it comprehensible to people not specialized in the discourses your study has made you specialized in, or you can recommend reading the philosopher at issue. but it's clear that you dont really want to learn, because in the first case, you make the most uncharitable, reductive interpretation of what's being said and then reply that what is being described is already known to you, and in the latter case you'll say, "but why cant you say whats valuable about it?"

if you would allow that maybe your common sense notions of value will have to be quite radically altered, or at least perceived as susceptible to such alteration, in order to really get something out of philosophy, then maybe one of us more patient than i could reach you. but so long as you continue bandying out an arbitrary notion of the "utility" of philosophical ideas, there's no helping you.

Again, man, just calm it. The point of philosophy is to deal with complex and profound ideas, questions and problems that face us as a species. Do you talk about complex and profound subjects with simple, basic language that a five year old could understand? No, because these subjects require language with a higher degree of complexity and profundity to address them. Maybe Hegel isn't for you, but there are hundreds of philosophers who, if you can see through the intellectual language, can seriously change your life. Just read everything you can and know that trying to understand it all is like trying to drink a water fall: you will get the water you need to quench your thirst, but most of it will pass you by (not that it really matters).

What will I learn if I pick up that phenomenology book by Hegel?

Marx was such an incompetent human that he got boils on his dick and ass from never bathing. this is a hegel thread, go fuck off