/lit/ - Literature

The relationship between Force & Understanding, as I see it, can be closed by the use of propaganda. We see this if we define our terms as follows. Force is that entity which manifests itself as an object, physical, meta-physical, or social, and so we can analyze a force within all these contexts. My personal background lies in psychology, so I am more able to analyze this aspect within context of the social. Force is defined in all contexts as movement impacting another object. In the social context, we find understanding, for understanding cannot exist without a human entity; we don't find understanding within a mere physical or meta-physical object. Thus we must look to the social context in order to unite Force with Understanding. Propaganda does this because it ties in the movement of an object (in this case, a person, a crowd, or a nation), with actualization of a certain aspect of society. A being that is embroiled in society cannot grasp all of understanding, for he lacks worldsight; however, a being such as this can still digest aspects of society in the form of symbols or ideologies or whatever, depending on how developed they are. Thus we see that propaganda is that aspect, that tool, which unites Force and Understanding.

>>11978598
imagine being THIS spiritually stunted

Oh my God, the Phenomenology is right about everything, isn't it? It's right about becoming, it's right about sublation, it's right about metaphysics, it's right about the movement of truth. This slender little book of philosophy is right about so many things that it's driven people mad from trying to disagree with it (this is what happened to Nietzsche).

>>11937161
The State is the reality of the kingdom of heaven.

>perpetual freshman of philosophy here -- AMA

I like the Inwood translation best personally. Good commentary.

I bought the Miller as a paperback for when I was taking a class on the Phenomenology. Cheap, kinda dated tho. God=! Geist.

The class itself used Pinkard's translation which used to be available as a free pdf online. He uses sublation which pisses off the foreign language departments who prefer aufeben.

What a fucking wild class! We had a post-structuralist art ho who dropped out after namedropping Saussure and getting pwned as irrelevant by the highly analytic teacher. Most of the people in there were closet-Deleuzeans who later convinced me to go down that rabbit hole but I had an esoteric hermetic streak and one of my good Thomist friends was in the class (he now is some sort of crazy Catholic Hegelian Philosopher King). He's even read the Science of Logic now. What a golden soul.

As a lapsed Catholic esotericist, I took a different view. The analytic presentation was extremely compelling. I felt like a student at Plato's academy. We debated and drew diagrams and pored over minutiae. In some ways, Hegel was the first philosopher to crack my egg of schizophrenia. Or it was the LSD. Whatevs...

In our class, we started with the lectures on history and religion. We also skimmed a Kant Dictionary and a Hegel Dictionary. Knowedge of German Idealism was presumed from undergraduate Early Modern courses. If lacking such knowledge, Beiser's German Idealism is quite good.

As a convert to post-sturcturalism soon thereafter, one would not be amiss to check out Hegel and the Infinite or Mythology, Madness, and Laughter both starring Slavoj Zizek as well as other luminaries of Hegel studies.

For diehard Marxists, Hyppolite and Kojeve's interpretations were both highly influential.

I myself recommend Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition so you can sound like a crazy schizo nut like me!

This screwed me up bad. How do I go back to living in blissful ignorance?

>>11731270
>read a major work by Hegel or Kant cover to cover
I'm probably stupid, insane, and masochistic, but I'm trying to read PoS in it's entirety with little philosophical knowledge (basic surface reading of Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, and Leibniz). This motherfucker is really fucking hard to read. It's been 3 months since I started him and I've only worked up to his section on perception.

>>11695741
very good meme but what do you mean?

here's me

>>11665424
In the history of philosohy, people respond to one another though. Aristotle responds to Plato, Aquinas responds to Aristotle, Descartes responds to Aquinas, Hume responds to Descartes, Kant responds to Hume, Shelling responds to Kant, Hegel responds to all of them, (Deleuze responds to Hegel, Spinoza, Neitszche, Freud, ect.). You really do miss something if you don't at least survey the whole field.

Hegel is a dialectical sorcerer along with his apprentice Marx who has influenced the present more than anyone else.

"individualism" is wrong. You can't just go up into the hills for a few days and learn everything ever

>>11567288
Post the non-shit one.

>Dismisses prefaces as being for brainlets
>Writes a preface anyways
>Actually enjoy reading his preface

I don't get it. Should I feel bad? What's he doing here?

>>11525739
It's not simple in content. He is simultaneously critiquing a philosophical method while at the same time introducing the mechanics of his own system. He's not simply providing exposition, he is already using the system itself to work through the exposition (hence the use of his yet undefined terminology like Notion and Necessity). Yes, Hegel is hard to read. No point in getting upset about it. Either dive in for a year or two and really get inside the rabbit hole, or ignore it; no point trying to prove to yourself it's not all it's cracked up to be.
>>11525748
>t. didn't read the preface to PoR

>hegel

Post the proper one you pleb.

>>11357655
use the better pic

>>11321635
Brother

We're just socital outliers I don't know why you guys care so much. The Left care because they care about any minority group and like to string together a narrative but it's really not any of your businesses nor should you make it. Nobody gives a shit what I think of you guys and the vaginal Jews you worship in /lit/fu threads so how about we just chill and put our metaphorical dicks away and read books?

What are some great philosophical texts that doesn't require preliminary reading of other works (such as the greeks) to be fully understood?

>>11113170
use the better version

>>11039737

>>11012181
>this hegel guy
>posts someone who isn't hegel

>tfw understand more Hegel than Kant