Is this good?

correct

i decided to go to the library and read it for a few hours, didnt get through enough of it in the time to fully grasp his ideas or anything but i found it very enjoyable to read.

i found it easier to read than Sartre weirdly but maybe i just started at an easy part

yes pic related
>the call that ended philosophy

What part did you read?

Can I get a /quickrundown/ on the German idealists? Who are they?

quick rundown:

>Rothschilds & Schopenhauer bow to Hegel
>In contact with aliens
>Possess psychic like dialectics
>Control the Absolute with an iron but fair fist
>Own weltgeist globally
>Direct descendant of Socrates
>Will bankroll the first cities on Thule (Hegelgrad will be be the first city)
>Own 99% of dialectics research facilities on Earth
>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Hegel babies
>said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51
>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of an angel who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress
>You likely have the phenomenology of geist inside you right now
>in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to philosophy. Who do you think set up the meeting between the analytic & the continental high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years)
>learned fluent Kant in under a week
>Nation states entrust their reason with Hegel. There’s no reason in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Hegel
>Hegel is about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
>In reality, he is a timeless being existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don’t know his ultimate plans yet. We hope he is a benevolent being.

Schopenhauer hated Hegel, he called him a charlatan and claimed most of his philosophy was elaborate smoke and mirrors to disguise empty ideas.

>reading continental philosophy

a dark path

this is a joke righ?

Is geist mind or spirit?
mind makes it sound like the mind of the mind-body problem
spirit has religious connotations

can it be called: 'phenomenology of ghost'?

it's the montenegrins that put their penis in the ground though

'Phänomenologie des Geistes' (1) has been translated as both 'Phenomenology of Spirit' and 'Phenomenology of Mind'.

'Phenomenology of Ghost' sounds a bit too.... spooky, I guess.

(1) Mind the capital letter. It's german, so nouns ought to be capitalized.

the first bit on consciousness

Schopenhauer>>>>Poo poo pants Hegel

really made my neurons fire

I'll be honest, I thought I could start with Hegel by reading the phenomenology of spirit and I couldn't understand anything. So I decided to start with his easier works - I've finished his aesthetics and am working my way through the history of philosophy. I'll give the phenomenology another shot together with Kojeve's guide soon.

Forget Kojeve, he's a hack that oversimplifies and misreads everything. Read Jean Hyppolite.

Thanks for the recommendation. Why do you think Kojeve is a hack though?

I said it already.

I was hoping for an argument though.

It will be hard for you to see without reading the PoS, but, briefly, he makes Hegel seem too formulaic, 'X happens then Y which result in Z', without going through the intricacies of the argument, it makes the dialectic look artificial.

Fair enough, thanks

9/10, should've had Marx in there.

...

I want to into Hegel, and the right-Hegelians, how do I achieve this?

Start with the Greeks.

>Schopenhauer bow to Hegel
I'm sure he did that when Hegel was dying of the cholera he avoided.

Yes it is, but you should not attempt it until reading that which proceeded it. I know this is a meme (i.e. start with the Greeks), but it is true for this book. You need to have a solid understanding of pre-Hegelian metaphysics (Plato, Aristotel, Scotus, Abelard, Liebniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Fichte, Schelling and especially Kant!), and this is the same with any of Hegel's works.

what exactly are hume's and locke's metaphysics?

how the fuck is anyone supposed to accomplish this unless you're an academic?

read the summary parts of.philosobers.in plato Stanford thats what i.dolidlll

this name-dropping dickhead is mostly right. I'd say you don't need a solid understanding, but if you go into it raw it's either going to go over your head or chew you up and spit you out

>Plato, Aristotel, Scotus, Abelard, Liebniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Fichte, Schelling and especially Kant!
how about divide that list by 2 and maybe

NEET or night shift security guard.

Hegel is highly concentrated Brain AIDS, consume at your own risk

This is a sign that something is wrong.

People can explain cosmology or evolution or the germ theory of disease or general relativity in a couple of clear sentences.

If it takes all this to explain Hegel what he claims to know is either a) far more profound than those things, or b) complete bullshit. I'll give it a go:

>i can move ideas forward in my head to more complex ideas and 'final' ideas simply by considering an alternative (not necessarily opposite) position to the idea and then synthesizing those two positions to reach a new idea, and then repeat that process until i can't anymore
>by the way this isn't just some bullshit i came up with i think it's an actual logic because once you have the two alternate premises their synthesis seems necessary and necessity of moving from one position to another is a hallmark of logics so mine must be one too
>thinking about irl things using the method is a science because it's based on logic as i said
>p.s. by doing this with terms like family and society i conclude scientifically that prussian autocracy is the supreme and final form of social organization

t. STEM autist.

>People can explain cosmology or evolution or the germ theory of disease or general relativity in a couple of clear sentences.
I actually don't think that this is true.

>you can explain germ theory and and cosmology in a couple of sentences (faithfully)
its not true, its a blatant lie

About 13.7 billion years ago the universe was a singularity of infinite density when quantum fluctuations caused it to enter a period of rapid inflation (called "the big bang") which then caused the laws of physics as we know them to operate. After only a fraction of a second of this inflation the universe had neared its current size and the inflation slowed dramatically (still continuing at a very slow rate even today), allowing stars and galaxies and planets and eventually life to form over billions of years.

The diversity of life on Earth is explained by survival of the fittest by means of natural selection, whereby the genes (the coding blocks of living things) of more successfully adapted organisms are propagated while the genes of less successfully adapted organisms fail to be propagated, leading to a constant state of change called evolution. By mapping this change and dividing similar organisms into species, through genetic and fossil evidence, we can see evolution working to change one species into another species.

Disease is caused by microorganisms ("germs") who reproduce and/or grow within a host. The effect of this reproduction are effects on the body that we cause "disease", and can sometimes be overcome with medicine, surgery, or via the body's natural defense mechanism (the immune system).

Something about the speed of light being constant and gravity and relativity.

Philosophy isn't merely a description of information such as this, the dialectic method developed by Socrates and Plato can't be subjected to such travesty.

Neither is science. It's called a summary.

Don't bother. Just listen to Alex Jones's channel about Hegel's evil dialectics that serves as a basis for NWO globalist thoughts.

NIGHT

SHIFT

wait hol up
did alex jones actually rant about hegel?

actually just googled it, i dont think alex jones actually wrote the article but he hosts it lol
infowars.com/the-hegelian-dialectic-and-its-use-in-controlling-modern-society/

Hegel's dialectic applied to historical idealism lead to Marx applying it to historical materialism which lead to the Frankfurt school applying it to culture, so it's factually correct to associate it with the left trying to change society away from its traditional form. What's crazy is thinking it's a conspiracy.

Is this for or against God? Does it reject materialism or embrace it fully at the exclusion if metaphysics? Want to know before I waste my time. Thanks.

Is your complaint really that he can't be summed up in a few lines? That's pretty ironic since the FIRST thing he does in the Phenomenology is complaining about people who try to summarize philosophy and Science.
marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm

Do keep in mind that Wissenschaft (the word Hegel uses) has a different meaning and connotation than the translation 'science'.
Just appreciate for a moment how ambitious Hegel is. He's trying to ground all of human science into one big Science. No wonder it can't be summerized in a few lines. Also, by summarzing it, it would stop being that Science, because this Science is all about getting a real understanding and not some vague intuition.

That's also why something like this fails. It only facilitates mere pretention of understanding.

I can't comment yet on his views on cultural & social development, but so far his epistemology has been quite thorought. I'm more sceptical about a Science (Wissenschaft) of cultural & social development too, but I'll found out what Hegel got cooking up.

If you want the more autistic version of Hegel's logic, here's someones attempt to formulize it into higher category theory & modal type theory.
It's by no means a finished project or textbook thought.
ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science of Logic#FormalizationText

I hope you'll give Hegel another chance. Do not mistake him for an anti-scientific thinker.

>buying into the quantum fluctuations meme
>implying that nothing can create anything
And you call theists crazy?

When we discover that some common impulse drives certain actors towards a certain goal, a conspiracy as you say, it is not necessary that the participants in this conspiracy know that they are part of a conspiracy or answer to some command structure which deliberately and actively conspires. For the forces that move us without our knowledge or consent need not have agency per say, it is sufficient that they cause peoples behavior to synchronize and spiral towards some con-sequence.

>That's pretty ironic since the FIRST thing he does in the Phenomenology is complaining about people who try to summarize philosophy and Science.
Yes, that's not at all suspicious.

>I hope you'll give Hegel another chance. Do not mistake him for an anti-scientific thinker.
My understanding is that he rejected classical logic based on rejecting its law of noncontradiction, which would situated him apart from science by definition. My understanding is that he substituted his own dialectical method in order to apparently resolve contradictions and come to his own conclusions, conclusions that wouldn't be accepted as scientific due to he using his own method. Like you said he wasn't interested in science he was more 'ambitious' than that.

>Yes, that's not at all suspicious.
Why this sarcasm?
As I've said, Science stops being Science when it's not fully grasped.
This idea that Science can't be dumbed down, is actually the closest I can get to a summary.

I think you're still fundamentally misunderstanding Hegel's project.
He's not rejecting classical logic at all. He just thinks it's way too limited.
In fact, he's not rejecting anything. The whole point of his project is that everything has to fit in the whole. All dead-ends and errors have to be included.
He's indeed more ambitious than just regular science. He wants Science. But he still needs science, in his Science.
Just as Kantian epistemology is a part of his system, so is science and pseudoscience.

For "the True is the whole."

Read the introduction & preface if you really want to know his aims.

That's an absolutely nonsensical view of Hegel.

you dips

He also perpetuates the myth that Hegel was an atheist

It's also the most common one you'll find on the Internet.

>Yes, that's not at all suspicious.
What Hegel is saying is that philosophy isn't easy, and can't just be ~done~ after skimming through a preface in five minutes, you dingus. It takes work and effort to truly develop a systematic philosophy.
>Like you said he wasn't interested in science he was more 'ambitious' than that.
"Science" as we know it today, as distinct from "natural philosophy" hadn't yet arisen, so that's arguing Hegel was against "science" would be an anachronism at best. Wissenshaft means any systematic body of knowledge, and what Hegel desired was a thorough philosophical system. Unless of course, you're opposed to thoroughness and the hard work required in proper philosophical investigation, I doubt you'd disagree.

When it comes to the Hegelian notion of contradiction, Hegel wasn't saying that one minus one does not equal zero (that said, Hegel was horrible at math). In the mind you can have 'contradictory' thoughts - ie thoughts that are not fully developed or are internally inconsistent, and through a "dialectical" process Hegel seeks to "unravel", resolve themselves into higher forms. Hegel, being an idealist, saw existence as an alienation of reality, wherein reality as purely ideal. Just as ideas that are not fully formed need to undergo a process of resolution, so to does existence. Basically, if existence didn't conform to the "reality" of their idealized selves, reality would have to change in accordance to the ideal. "Contradiction" as Hegel uses it is not a category of formal logic, but rather an intense opposition. The "dialectical" notion of "contradiction" comes moreso from Heraclitus's perception of the world containing inherent oppositions, rather than Aristotle's notion of contradiction.

Also Karl Popper was a charlatan who's accusations against Hegel are laughable, who's only remembered because of his popularity due to his politics. People using obtuse metaphysics to justify their stupid politics isn't limited to Hegel, but extends to any political philosopher whatsoever.

>Also Karl Popper was a charlatan who's accusations against Hegel are laughable, who's only remembered because of his popularity due to his politics. People using obtuse metaphysics to justify their stupid politics isn't limited to Hegel, but extends to any political philosopher whatsoever.
Not only that but the mechanisms designed to suppress the supposedly protofascist inclinations of German idealism in the post-WWII world order have completely broken down and their failure is the greatest possible indication that the people in Popper's camp were morons for treating Hegel the way they did.

>In order to avoid falling victim to the Hegelian Dialectic from now on you must remember the process involved. Anytime a major problem or issue arises in society think about who will gain or profit from it. Then remove yourself from the equation and take a step back to look at it from a third party perspective. See the so-called “problem”, look at who is reacting, why and in what way. Then look for who is offering up the solution.
When you do this from now on you’ll quickly see the real truth instead of the false truth they wanted you to see.

Its like he skims a Wikipedia article and takes a stab in the dark at what it means thinking he understands it. Hegel never even used Thesis-Antithesis

The best part is that, if Jones read Hegel, he'd realize that they both base their worldviews around the idea that human nature, in its essence, is freedom.

>if existence didn't conform to the "reality" of their idealized selves, reality would have to change in accordance to the ideal.

That's a incomplete statement, because the other way around also happens. Hegel isn't a pure idealist like that.

Just read a few intro texts that cover the basics, ideally one organized thematically, then one organized chronologically. Then do selections from the most important thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant (I'm sorry, you can't cut it down further than that). You don't need to read the entire canon of each of them, just selections from from their most important texts.

...

Maybe reading? Fucking lazy ass.

You're not. user is memeing you. Most of the people who recommend massive lists haven't read a tenth of the shit.

>unless you're an academic?
In all fairness, only academics should be studying Hegel, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect an academic to have studied at least the majority of the thinkers on that list. Getting a B.A. in philosophy is easier than you think.

>Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant
i think that's doable i can be enjoying hegel next year

>Getting a B.A. in philosophy is easier than you think.
i should switch my major then
im pretty sure Phenomenology of Spirit is in the 3rd year philosophy class

Arguably the worst book ever written

Shit like this is why I stopped coming here

What's wrong with the post? Are you one of these that get triggered by people indicating texts hosted on "marxists.org" because... well, it has Marx in the name?

>le frang fartskool maymay

What are some good intro texts that cover the "basics?"

please respond.

Instead of reading secondary texts on those philosophers, you could read Hegel's own history of philosophy.

Hegel did not know how to write, nor did he care about writing. At least that is the impression I have from the translation I read. Which was the worst read of last year for me. Like it's a fucking book that doesn't want to be read and actively tries to fuck with the reader.

Arguably the biggest pleb filter ever written.

this guy gets it

read a good biography of Hegel

>People can explain cosmology or evolution or the germ theory of disease or general relativity in a couple of clear sentences.
But that's fucking wrong, you dipshit.

nice effort but those aren't explanations in that they don't provide us with the means to apply the theories or methods in question or even necessarily understand any particular application of them.

im not sure of what pleb filter means still
does it mean that anyone who likes it is a pleb or that anyone who doesn't like it is a pleb?

its not a "likes hegel" vs "doesn't like hegel" thing

>dialectical method
Stopped reading there. There is no such thing as the dialectical method, according to Hegel dialectics is the nature of things. Fuck off, pseud

will this thoroughly prep me for big man Hegel?

LOL! What is wrong with you, you cosmic pseud!

You don't need any of your fucking "selections", stuff it!

Some of the works of Plato and Aristotle will be handy to read, but aren't necessary to read Phenomenology. Leibniz, Descartes, aren't needed. Spinoza's Ethics is a nice short read and OP could have a look into that, but not necessary. Locke is wholly superfluous for Hegel, Hegel also literally says that Hume is overrated and wouldn't be remembered if Kant didn't make him famous. Kant is the only one you could do with a good grasp of, and even then isn't entirely necessary.

You History of Philosophy 101 pseuds are such liars. You just don't understand Hegel yourself and assume you have to understand the entire history of philosophy to get it. The philosophical canon is basically shit anyways, there's so much more to it historically than the dumb timeline/pantheon of names you just dropped like your ego integrity depended on it.

It'll prep you for an even bigger bull.

Kojeve is a hack.

You're right, he does think that. Thanks for the correction, I should've been more carefull with my choice of words there. I should've said something like 'way of analysing the dialectic'. Would you agree with that formulation?

I never claimed to he a Hegel scholar. I already said "I started reading it recently". I'm just trying to make the most helpful post I can. Can't we just try to learn from each other?

what did he mean by this?

I'm reading this right now, I don't feel like it's the best explanation of Hegel but I do feel like I can better see where Zizek is coming from when he talks about Lacan now.

>About 13.7 billion years ago

13.8

>the universe was a singularity of infinite density

No

>when quantum fluctuations caused it to enter a period of rapid inflation

No

>which then caused the laws of physics as we know them to operate

lol

>After only a fraction of a second of this inflation the universe had neared its current size

wrong

Why do you speak of things that you have nothing more than a superficial and mostly wrongheaded familiarity with?