/lit/ - Literature

No

>>21895644
OP here, whoops, posted the wrong image again!

What did he know?

Let's discuss Hegel

>>21458100
>The point of that Liber is to overload reason until it breaks down and you realize it can't answer these questions or lead to spiritual attainments.

>reason can't answer these questions or lead to spiritual attainment

Hegel:

>The first question is: What is the object of our science? The simplest and most intelligible answer to this question is that Truth is the object of Logic. Truth is a noble word, and the thing is nobler still. So long as man is sound at heart and in spirit, the search for truth must awake all the enthusiasm of his nature. But immediately there steps in the objection — are we able to know truth ? There seems to be a disproportion between finite beings like ourselves and the truth which is absolute, and doubts suggest themselves whether there is any bridge between the finite and the infinite. God is truth: how shall we know Him? Such an undertaking appears to stand in contradiction with the graces of lowliness and humility.

>The world of spiritual existences, God himself, exists in proper truth, only in thought and as thought. If this be so, therefore, thought, far from being a mere thought, is the highest and, in strict accuracy, the sole mode of apprehending the eternal and absolute.

Who should I read, if I find Hegel too easy? There must be someone with stronger indecipherable insight.

Why didn't he realize that humanity's destiny is to go extinct, whether by being replaced by AI or invaded by aliens? Was it anthropocentrism?

Who do I need to read before him?

If I read everyone besides hegel, (jung, kant, etc) will I miss anything

>>20243910
>>20243946
>>20244042
Literally a baby with a toy chest. Grow up. Truth is revealed.

>>20241934
>>Three may very well turn out to be four
Autists BTFO

>>19961295
You probably did not love them. I have always suffered from the dilemma of being too in love with a female, which makes me incapable of satisfying their urge to be treated as a sexual object, or not loving them enough - which allows me to treat them as a sexual object but not love them. Kind of reminds me of Hegel’s master/slave dialectic.

Can someone write in plain English some things they learned from Kant and Hegel that they didn't already know before? Surely all those hours spent reading you have something of use to say in a conversation

>>19920347
Synthesize the two

>try to refute Hegel
>he only gets stronger
How do we cut the heads off of this Hydra, bros?

>is blamed for the development of both fascism and communism
How much of a mad-lad do you have to be to accomplish this?

I'm not complaining. That's legit impressive.