/lit/ - Literature

>>22099163
>you can't see with your brain like you can with sense organs.
kek

>The universal does not exist externally to the outward eye as a universal. The kind as kind cannot be perceived: the laws of the celestial motions are not written on the sky. The universal is neither seen nor heard, its existence is only for the mind. Religion leads us to a universal, which embraces all else within itself, to an Absolute by which all else is brought into being: and this Absolute is an object not of the senses but of the mind and of thought.
-Encyclopedia Logic section 21

>>22076457
>You guys should stop expecting them to act like men.
well stop when they get out of government and universities

>When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions.

>>22040479
>women are to men what evil is to good

Hegel:
> The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants.

Who is right here?

>>22026733
By the end of the 18th century traditional Enlightenment rationalism had been discredited by a series of interlocking intellectual crises (scepticism, nihilism, Romanticism, the French Revolution and its disappointment), and the inadequacies of Kant's system were plain to everyone. Hegel was attempting to rescue the Enlightenment project with a system where Reason could justify philosophy, morality, religion and itself against radical criticism, without lapsing into the precritical dogma of a Leibniz, or the capitulation to irrationalism of a Schelling.

I want to see a Hackett German Idealism Library! Whose with me?

>>20022097
>science
•laughs in Hegel•

Never read any Hegel but I want to change that. I'm mostly interested in his views on religion. What book should I start with?

Do you believe humanity will ever reach the state of absolute spirit? .

If Hegel had been born in the 20th century, how would the modern understanding of dynamical systems and chaotic processes and/or cybernetics and distributed intelligent systems have influenced his philosophy?

Reminder panpsychist absolute idealism is the final redpill.

>Immediate experience
Naive sincerity
>Abstract
Initial irony
>Negative
Self-conscious cynical irony
>Concrete
Post-ironic self-consciousness reflecting on its own development, systematic sincerity which has sublated irony.

The collective self-consciousness reflecting on itself

If God is pure, infinite, unbound actuality, then the very concept of a God that is distinct from the world and his creation breaks down - how can God be unlimited and yet be something radically not-me or not-something? This introduces a limit in God's being, an epistemological break between subject and object which Christian philosophy tried to breach ever since. Traditionally this was done by introducing Christ's love as the bridge between Man and the radical distinctness of God's Being, a reconciliation taking place as the act of freely-given love. While this development was the necessary outcome of both Judaism Greek philosophy, in which this alienation is complete (Aristotle's prime mover which contemplates itself as the object wholly apart from created reality), it introduces contradictions which are impossible to heal, and indeed break down in the historical disillusion of scholasticism best seen in Spinoza.

Aquinas got the furthest among the Christian philosophers in recognising the Absolute as the act of Being rather than a Thing, but obviously his catholic comittment led him to preserve the distinction of radical separability. And thus modern philosophy contemplates only the subjective, relegating the God-concept to an empty formalism, but discovers in this contemplation the Absolute as its own object - an object which is indeed the process of subjectivity objectifying itself and becoming conscious of itself in the act of Reason.

To comprehend the rational unity of self-consciousness, and apply this comprehension to concrete social reality, in order to help us create the best form of community to actualize human freedom.

Where does this meme that you must start with the Phenomenology of Spirit to read Hegel, come from? The Shorter Logic is about a hundred times easier to read and actually comprehensible. It seems clear to me that Hegel improved his presentation later in life, and even though he may have initially intended for the Phenomenology to be an "introduction", he seems to have thought less and less of it with time. Which isn't surprising, given that the later works express its ideas much better.
I'm going to propose a radical idea here, and say that you should read the Phenomenology as the last work. The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline, and even Science of Logic, are better reads to get what he's on about.

>>10836419
Butthurt Anglos are popping out of the woodworks
Ignore them, their whole movement is based on a severe inferiority complex after being confronted with the individual genius of Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger

What does /lit/ think of Hegol's criticism of the Enlightenment? Hogel thought that the Enlightenment lead to the French revolution because reason rampantly destroyed the content of society. Pure insight can only ever grasp the concept of an object, and when taking religion as it's object, commits the same error that it accuses religion of: having faith. Reason cannot verify that reason is internally consistent, and as a result, the pure insight of the Enlightenment operates by faith at it's core.
Does Hegel's criticism really explain the impetus for the French revolution, and isn't reason always internally consistent?

>>10705907
>Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.

Here we leave Plato, and we do so with regret. But seeing that we pass to his disciple, Aristotle, we fear that it behoves us to enter even more into detail, since he was one of the richest and deepest of all the scientific geniuses that have as yet appeared – a man whose like no later age has ever yet produced. Because we still possess so large a number of his works, the extent of the material at hand is proportionately greater; unfortunately, however, I cannot give to Aristotle the amount of attention that he deserves. For we shall have to confine ourselves to a general view of his philosophy, and simply remark on one particular phase of it, viz. in how far Aristotle in his philosophy carried out what in the Platonic principle had been begun, both in reference to the profundity of the ideas there contained, and to their expansion; no one is more comprehensive and speculative than be, although his methods are not systematic.

The biggest contribution of Hegel & Marx to western philosophy is the concept of "praxis", which they expanded from its ancient connotations to something that fundamentally alters the limits and methodologies of philosophy as a discipline. Yet, I very rarely see this concept adressed, particularly in non-continental circles.
To my knowledge, Marx was the first to clearly articulate the view that many so-called philosophical problems are not in reality questions of theory, which are to be solved with intellectual contemplation. He held that philosophy was inseparable from social practice - that the very context in which we pose these questions depends on the way humans relate to nature and themselves in their historically specific form of social existence. Hegel's concept of dialectics, often derided as obscurantist or incoherent, was to be most properly applied to social dynamics as a whole - the historical process of human ideas that become a concrete, material force as they affect social conditions.
An important antecedent to this can be seen in Aristotle, who seems to have believed that ethical concerns cannot be separated from political ones. Namely, he held that proper rearing of children that would enable them to become virtuous people depended, first of all, on a proper organisation of society. Many later philosophers would attempt to create a neutral, universally applicable ethical system that individuals could in principle follow, but if we take this argument seriously, those attempts are seriously limited.
Does /lit/ think that philosophy can still be practiced in a more-or-less traditional way, by precise formulation of concepts and logical reasoning? Or would you agree that contextual, social practice and historicity present serious challenges for a supposedly "neutral", scientific approach to philosophical issues?

What his problem? Autism?

Why is everything that is released under "philosophy" just a pretensions schizophrenic word salad?

Take for example the Hegelian dialectic. How is dissecting an idea by countering it with possible problems and reaching some sort of conclusion something that didn't exist before Hegel? That's just basic logical thinking, everyone already does that and/or will discover it organically. this clown contrived fuck all. Stop praising old white male incomprehensible mental masturbators!

Start with me, end with me, be and not be: come to yourself.

Redpill me on Hegel.

I'm reading his phenomenology of spirit. Why is it writting like some enigmatic puzzle?