What the fuck is this about?

speak english

There are a lot of interpretations of the Phenomenology and of Hegel's system in general, and none of them is hegemonic. Some very influential ones, historically in terms of influencing intellectuals and major currents of thought, have been Kojeve, Jean-Hippolyte, obviously Marx. Some more modern specialists are Houlgate, Pippin, Brandom.

Personally I like Pippin's reading the most, but even with his commentary as help, it's incredibly difficult to get into. And even once you pick a plausible interpretation of Hegel's overall system, it's still a bumpy ride, because it doesn't mean that the overall system isn't full of weird idiosyncrasies and even outright "??? what the fuck?" moments.

Don't listen to anyone who pronounces on what Hegel's about with confidence. They haven't read Hegel, and definitely haven't read any leading interpretations to have an informed opinion.

Basically the systematic statement of the mind’s experience embraces merely its ways of appearing, it may well seem that the advance from that to the science of ultimate truth in the form of truth is merely negative; and we might readily be content to dispense with the negative process as something altogether false, and might ask to be taken straight to the truth at once: why meddle with what is false at all? The point formerly raised, that we should have begun with science at once, may be answered here by considering the character of negativity in general regarded as something false.

What is so hard about that?

Basically how can a universal "Zeitgeist" is developed by an amalgamation of individual conciousness. That's better?

This too user's have very have good advice aswell.

>mfw a man ordered an egg sandwich with pepper and no salt when I was at work today even though nobody even suggested putting salt on his sandwich

Reread and then write a response that doesn't include an untranslated German technical term as its subject.

Each sentence I read of this, I feel my brain growing in size.

>That's better?
yes, actually. thank you

>Smol Brain: The Phenomenology of SPirit, first published in 1807, is a work seen by Hegel as a necessary forepiece to his philosophical system...advanced through confusions and misunderstandings to the properly philosophical point of view.
>Swol Brain: It must then study Spirit returning to itself in time, i.e. in the long procession of historical cultures and individuals.
Your brain starts growing and ends growing with sentences written by Findlay, not by Hegel, if this is true of this edition. You faggot.

Same question as OP. I'm so not prepared to read something like this, so I'm just wondering - what's the endgame here? What is one to learn about upon finishing this book? Like, I read The Communist Manifesto to know the basis of communism, or for historical interest - what am I to gain from this behemoth of philosophy?

>basically how can a universal "Zeitgeist" is developed by an amalgamation of individual conciousness.

As opposed to?

The absolute.

bourgeois supporting grand-narrative telos ideology

Where does hegel stand on the feels vs reals charts?

Reals>Feels , but the reals come onthologically from fells.

Hegel is notoriously hard to read and terrible.

The reality is that he tapped into the zeitgeist of the German people at the time combined with the rise of philosophers as a source of entertainment

There is no absolute difference between both, reals + feels = spirit.

t. retard who never read Hegel and only repeats witticisms he heard about him

Descartes would disagree with you.

I'm just explaining Hegel.

Hegel... easy with the spirits

one of the single greatest books ever written & functionally equivalent to eating a box of mentats

nobody knows. even the philosophers who claimed to have studied it don't know, they just pretend to. hegel himself didn't understand it, either. it's unreadable garbage.

How much do you get paid to shill on Veeky Forums? Are you a Pajeet?

I don't understand him. I actually, simply, flat out, don't understand him at all. My English is pretty good or so I thought before reading Phenomenology of Spirit, Philosophy of Right, Science of Logic, History of Philosophy.

I simply do not understand what the string of words in Hegel's texts means. It's a peculiar kind of feel. Like I can tell this is English word, and the word after is English word, but what do they mean, I do not understand.

It's largely a Dialectical Critique, and reworking of Kant's philosophy of mind, which attempts to use Hegel's Dialectical reasoning to improve on Kant's description of the relationship between A Posteriori knowledge (Knowledge we gain through our experience of Phenomena), and A Priori Knowledge, (Knowledge we gain through thought alone), Kant argued that Sensations require the logical faculties inert in the mind to give them shape, and sense, and that our logical faculties don't develop, and are unlikely to develop in the first place, without constant exposure to raw data from the senses. Thus, neither purely a priori knowledge, and purely a posteriori knowledge are impossible, and all true knowledge is a synthesis of the two.

Hegel agreed, but sine he disagreed with the three laws of Classical Logic, he developed his own system of reasoning to improve upon it. So, he reworked Kant's ideas appropriately.

In short you can't really read this book without Reading both Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and Science of Logic first, and both of those require a fuckton of prior reading in and of itself.

Come on. Obviously part of it is how the modern(and ancient) conciousness arises from the concept itself.

Oh I've read how the consciousness rises from the concept but that's all I get from it.

Funny thing is. Marx, Whitehead, Husserl I understand.

but when I read Hegel's book I just simply stop understanding any English written in those pages.

Maybe you aren't putting God into all this. Even if Hegel tries to do things without any theology, he legit believes in God and has read all the big mystics of the Christian tradition. I personally read Hegel before knowing that Marx and progressives were influenced by him, so I just went with him as I would with a mystic. I read him in a way better translatable language though.

>I read him in a way better translatable language though.

that's interesting, what language was it?

Bulgarian. Certain works like Being and Notion/Thing are way closer to the original german, that they would be in English.

Descartes should've stuck to analytic geometry, then we wouldn't have to argue about retarded shit like the mind-body problem or overcome the subject-object distinction.

>what am I to gain from this behemoth of philosophy?
The knowledge necessary to produce the philosopher's stone and complete the alchemical Great Work.

I read him in an English translation and I'm confused as to how people even manage to think they've interpreted him correctly when they write God out of his system. I have yet to see a good argument that demonstrates Hegel was a crypto-atheist.

youtube.com/watch?v=S1kvm9GCEqs

same

Especially absurd given his final statement in Philosophy of History.

absolute bollocks more like

For clarification I just checked to make sure that what you say makes sense and you're right, there's no way a translation error could fail to get across the point of the last paragraph of my Oxford Classics edition of the compiled lecture notes of his students.