/lit/ - Literature

>>12265822
AHHHH NEGATION HAS DETERMINATE CONTENT AAHHHHHH DETERMINATE THOUGHT IS DETERMINATE SIMPLICITY HHHNNGGG AAHHHHHHHH NOUS IS SUBSTANCE AHHHHHHHH OWL OF MINERVA FLIES AT DUSK

>>11603735
based AW

basic thot/art ho lit 101

>>11307373
that was a quick rundown of the first section of the first chapter of Phenomenology of Spirit, and not even the whole thing like the first 10-15 pages of the book

How does sense-certainty square things like optical illusions? It exist as an object for-another, but does it exist in-itself? We have certainty (immediate relation) towards a hallucination, which implies it must have an essence, (existence in-itself). Am I a brainlet?
>94 The object is therefore to be considered in terms of whether, within sense-certainty itself, it is in fact the kind of essence which sense-certainty passes it off as being. That is, it is to be considered as to whether this, its concept, which is to be the essence, corresponds to the way it is present within that certainty. To that end, we need not reflect on the object and mull over what it might be in truth; we merely need to consider it as sense-certainty has it on hand in sense-certainty itself.

>>11126725
Holy shit you are a pretentious faggot go back on your meds please. A.W. is an actual Hegel scholar, you know.
>>11121301

did you like it?

>>10944724
>There are two aspects in the case of that ratiocinative procedure which mark its contrast from conceptual thinking and call for further notice. Raisonnement, in the first place, adopts a negative attitude towards the content apprehended; knows how to refute it and reduce it to nothingness. To see what the content is not is merely a negative process; it is a dead halt, which does not of itself go beyond itself, and proceed to a new content; it has to get hold of something else from somewhere or other in order to have once more a content. It is reflection upon and into the empty ego, the vanity of its own knowledge. Conceit of this kind brings out not only that this content is vain and empty, but also that to see this is itself fatuity too: for it is negation with no perception of the positive element within it. In that this reflection does not even have its own negativity as its content, it is not inside actual fact at all, but for ever away outside it. On that account it imagines that by asserting mere emptiness it is going much farther than insight that embraces and reveals a wealth of content. On the other hand, in the case of conceptual thinking, as was above indicated, the negative aspect falls within the content itself, and is the positive substance of that content, as well as being its inherent character and moving principle as by being the entirety of what these are. Looked at as a result, it is determinate specific negation, the negative which is the outcome of this process, and consequently is a positive content as well.
based Hegel btfo mysticism in the Phenomenology son

They pray four times a day, they pray five
Who ways is strange when it's time to survive
Some will go of they own free will to die
Others take them with you when they blow sky high
What's the difference? All you get is lost children
While the bosses sit up behind the desks, it cost billions
To blast humans in half, into calves and arms
Only one side is allowed to have bombs
It's like making a soldier drop his weapon
Shooting him, and telling him to get to stepping
Obviously, they came to portion up his fortune
Sounds to me like that old robbery/extortion

Rap is not only poetry, it's /lit/ af. Problem is most people never get past the surface level shit. Even Nas is pretty pleb.

Hey /lit/, what's a good introduction to Phenomenology?

>>10257687
What, you wanted them to tuck you in at night and give you a kiss on the forehead? What kind of brainlet criticism is this.

>>10240125
>>10240210
What does Hegel mean by "science"?

Jane Austen and Ayn Rand are the only two female authors I've read.

Jane Austen tells gripping quests and conflicts of humAn emotions in somewhat boring plots (those plots are boring because everyday life in her time was just like that so can't be mad at her for telling the truth.) the way she draws you in to her stories by teaching you a truth about the human psyche is where her genius lies.

Rand was one of the first authors I was ever interested in so I'm a little bias because she holds a special place in my heart. I've moved beyond her philosophy but her philosophy is worth a look. It is the steelman of a pure rationally lived life. To me rationality is not all encompassing but she might convince you otherwise. As far as her literature goes; negative-characters can be one dimensional
Positive- she had a very unique view of love and beautifully expresses it.

have fun igor, sam, thomas, theo, dimitri, sophia, sophie, laura