/lit/ - Literature

>>10964774
Try Half-Hour Hegel first, then if that fails go ahead and end it.

>>10964778
Thanks friend. Will do.
I've read writers influenced by Hegel and I understand them.. but this I so far can't

>>10964774
It helps to look up Hegel glossaries. Get a firm understanding on definitions for consciousness, self-consciousness, in-itself, for-itself, etc. Then, as you read it, draw little models. Likely they will be wrong, but a conceptual understanding is really all this book can give you anyways. For example, you can think of negation as the shape of a double-helix.

>>10964774
Read the introduction!

>>10964940
I read it!
It was very clear!
Great glossary by Pinkard!
I still didn't get what the words meant when they were stringed together, it's like there's some sort of honest to God IQ barrier when it comes to understanding Hegel : /

>>10964945
I haven't even read the glossary or introduction but I grasp what is being said.

I think you're just a brainlet anon

>>10965017
fycjk I don't ewven understand what is SENSUOUS-CERTAINTY sounds liek some porn flick

>>10965034
You seriously don't get it?
REALLY?

>>10965040
No

>>10964945
then look into some secondary literature or start with the science of logic, which is a little bit clearer

>>10965044
sen·su·ous
[ˈsen(t)SHo͞oəs]

ADJECTIVE
relating to or affecting the senses rather than the intellect.
"the work showed a deliberate disregard of the more sensuous and immediately appealing aspects of painting"


You should know the second word. Figure it out bucko

>>10965070
What is the difference of SENSUOUS-CERTAINTY and SENSE-CERTAINTY

What is "This"?

>first page
>clearly showing act 90

>>10965074
Anon I...

>>10965077
I didn't count the rest because it was Hegel spoonfeeding the book for retards and this is like the first part of the calculation before = sign.

>>10965079
I can't get pass it.
Is it the same
the certainty of the sensuous
the certainty of the senses
is the phenomena of smell same as the smell organ

i dont
its hard to be as stupid as me

>>10965074
>SENSE-CERTAINTY
where does he say this?

>>10965074
The two aren't that different since they're refering to your senses. The first is just a better term to use in the sentence.

"This" is reality or whatever you are percieving or thinking

>>10965090
he doesn't but I don't understand what he refers to, i'm dumb frogposter personified

corrupt yourself by learning through secondary sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW8b_cnhql0&list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2&index=2

Is it true American's aren't taught Hegel in school?

>>10965074
I think sensuous more refers to the sensation or perhaps the object that when combined with sense produces the sensation (like a gas in the case of olfaction). Whereas sense refers to the sensory 'organs' and their possible functions.

He’s saying that you cannot understand the phenomena of an object based on your base,
Immediate reaction as it requires no mediation.

>>10965149
Why didn't he just say that then?

>>10965112
I read him in High School, but as far as I understand it was only in our advanced courses.

Generally speaking, philosophy is out for many American High School students, and in some states some public schools don't have them at all. However you are obviously getting that education whether you want to or not in a private school, along with being fluent in Latin by the end of Middle School.

>>10965160
Christ I don't know. People nowadays value brevity a lot more but Hegel thought no one would take him seriously unless he wrote like he did.

>>10965149
Man you really put it out well wev.

>>10965112
lol I'm from Europe and in our philosophy classes we read self-help books for middle aged single mothers

>>10965091
This.

"This" is pure being

>>10965202
where are you from

>>10964945
Dude don't read the introduction. It's the least helpful, most confusing part of the entire book. It's meme'd in academia for being unnecessarily confusing and kind of pointless to try and teach to students.

>>10965112
>>10965202
I’m in Canada and minored in philosophy. I was never assigned any notable philosophical texts. All the required readings were excerpts from flimsy textbooks which were framed within the commentary of modern academic.

>>10965160
to introduce terms like "object", "knowing" etc. which become important later on

>>10965160
>>10965160
This is what everyone who reads Hegel ends up saying. The man is not known for clarity haha.

>>10965272
I mean the introduction (Translator's Note) by Terry Pinkard, not Hegel's own

You probably should have read the entire philosophical canon before Hegel, and if not, at least you should have read Kant, Aristotle, Schelling, Fichte

>>10964774
In the night all cows are black

>>10965296
Right, I mean Hegel's introduction. Don't bother with it until you've finished the book. It's impossibly challenging if you haven't read the book, and even then its rough. Hegel isn't someone that rewards you very much until you've put in a great deal of time. Most of his ideas were brushed aside only a decade after the Phenom was written, but the ones that survive today are pretty good. Maybe not worth reading all of his stuff to get them though

Any point reading Hegel if you think Kant's idealism is bs?

>The Preface explains just what this transformation of philosophy into science fundamentally involves. In the first place, it involves the repudiation of the romantic notion, associated with Hegel's friends from the Tübingen Stift, Hölderlin and Schelling, that absolute truth can be grasped only in intuition or immediate feeling. In his younger days, Hegel shared with Hölderlin and Schelling the aspiration to overcome the dichotomies of Kant's critical philosophy, in particular its denial that we can have knowledge of the absolute or thing in itself. In the Phenomenology, Hegel does not abandon this aspiration, but he rejects Hölderlin's and Schelling's conception of absolute knowledge in terms of immediate intuition or feeling. Such a conception, he argues, dissolves the rich differentiation and determination of empirical content into a "night in which all cows are black" (94).

>>10965358
So how does Hegel propose we can have absolute knowledge of noumena; or does he reject the noumena-phenomena distinction?

>>10965376
I'm too stupid to even think that far.

I'm stuck at how 'good enough' isn't enough

>>10965376
i'm pretty sure he rejects the noumena-phenomena distinction. He is what we would call an immanentist.

>>10965376
>absolute knowledge
i think he overcomes the dichotomies of kant by stating that we should´t stop by the contradiction but integrate it in our thinking. So speaking, we have to abolish the bad infinity or bad de/-progression by knowing that the changing is part of the endless and vice versa through oppossition.

>>10965403
>You are smart if you have contradictory beliefs
I guess this is where my brainletism stops me from grasping him

I'm not sophisticated and educated enough to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously :/

Is that what being smart is?

bump

>>10965428
>>You are smart if you have contradictory beliefs
Summary of my entire shitty life desu.
Though I don't think I'm smart. I wish I could be more narrow-minded, simplistic, and absolute in my mental-space. I envy fanatics and ideologues, as much as they're annoying retards.

>>10965874
You just aren't radicalized enough.

>>10964774
OP
if you haven't read in depth, with secondary sources

>The Greeks, esp Aristotle
>Spinoza
>Kant
>the necessary preqs for Kant
>Fichte/schiller
>Hegel's more accessible work

do not bother with Phen of Spirit

The Phenomenology of the Spirit is a bildungsroman, the coming of age story, of our protagonist, Geist, or Spirit or Mind, in which Hegel shows you his all-encompassing system of philosophy where epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, of history, theology etc. are all one and lead to our final goal: the science of the totality, or Absolute Knowledge. This tale is told from the first person.
As Spirit is maturing, old lessons are not entirely discarded because they are not up to date in regard of the science of the current year, rather they are incorporated in the system.
On the first page our little baby Spirit starts with an epistemological position called naive realism. Spirit opens his eyes and thinks he has knowledge of the object in front of him, of the world, a knowledge that is not mediated by anything. Spirit thinks himself a tabula rasa that does not have any innate ideas influencing what he knows about the object. Spirit does not question the reality and truth of what he sees, he is not skeptical, he is certain. What you see is what you get. Spirit thinks himself one object that sees another object, there is no complexity, nuance either in the constitution of the subject (Spirit) or the object, or the relationship between the two. Spirit doesn't think he needs a scientific method of any sort to know more about the object. Spirit knows. Spirit is certain. Spirit is right. Spirit is a simple object in the company of another object with no process and no substance in between.
Spirit doesn't think, Spirit feels.
Hegel here begins to launch his attack on naive realism, he hasn't really struck yet, if you think Spirit is doing it wrong, turn the page.

>>10964774
Does this page in the OP image mean/is getting at: That consciousness can only be aware of exactly what it is aware of at any given time ignoring all else? It only ever is and knows at any given time exactly what it is and knows?

>>10966123
Dude that's just natural restriction of space-time / 4d world

>>10965874
Are you me?
>can see both sides of an argument and agree with aspects of each
>dude why are you always on the fence why can’t you just pick a side and quit being so indecisive?

>>10966280
>>can see both sides of an argument and agree with aspects of each
Then you don't know enough of them. Basically a symptom of not having contemplated hard enough

>>10966299
Hegel disagrees with you

>>10966377
I already said I'm not smart. >>10965428

>>10966280
just become a trivialist

>>10964774
"Sensous-Certainty" is just the word Hegel uses to describe the mode of consciousness. Think of it like a starting place, where you assume very little about how consciousness works. All that this mode of consciousness does is say "this is." It does not apprehend anything about the thing it's conscious of, it just knows that thing exists.

At first, sensuous-certainty appears to be the best kind of consciousness, because you can constantly find new things to know through it. On the other hand, because you only know that those things exist you only get an abstract understanding of everything; you don't understand qualities about those things. Furthermore, "I", when looked through this mode of consciousness, am simply an object that exists. I am a this, and any objects I consider are a this, and there's no way to distinguish between them because we've assumed that all we know is "things exist".

>>10966807
Cool, thanks.

>>10966814
you're welcome

>>10964774
Yeah OP I'm reading The Philosophy of History rn (Dover Books Edition) and it's very slow going. I feel like he repeats himself a lot
fuck me up semapi apparently this is the easiest of Hegel's texts too

>>10965106
Based Sadler

>>10965112
We aren't even taught philosophy in high school

>>10966807
So sensuous-certainty merely establishes existence of the thing and no distinguishing or differentiation of its nature?

>>10966908
*and is therefore an impoverished form of knowledge

>>10966888
Not buying that

>>10964774
>However, this certainty in fact yields the most abstract and the very poorest truth.

Your Hegel, meine Damen und Herren...

Would call a "poor truth" a speeding car bearing down on your jaywalking ass.

It's the only truth that matters. Verily it is God's own Truth.

>>10966972
I understood fuck all from this post

>>10966977
>the concrete content of sensuous-certainty...

>>10966908
>>10966917
Yes, this is correct. This is what is meant by conceptualizing, not apprehending.

Heh Heh Heh Hegel

>>10964778
Even half hour Hegel doesn’t go into enough detail if you ask me

>>10965082
But you are a retard

>>10965355
Have you actually read either Prolegomena or CoPR?

>>10964774
Perhaps you should read the next page? Where he explains it in depth via the examples of the Day and the Night etc.

>>10964774
Philosophy isn't something you understand, it's something you get used to

>>10964774
I think you should just give up if you have really already tried that many times, its not actually possible for everyone to understand Hegel. Maybe if you just keep reading more philosophy you will have better luck in a few years.

>>10967096
Oh man I can do that?
Like I'm not kidding?
I can do this?

>>10967109
Yeah, you should read something in its entirety first. Seeing if as a whole may bring about an understanding.

>>10967127
*it

>>10964774
read kant first

>>10965277
>>10965202
that sounds awful

>>10967190
I read Kant and while I don't agree with him, I understood his three books that I read (two critiques+prolegomena), I didn't read rest of his books though, but I know them from SEP

>>10965074
Read Kant first, JESUS FUCK

>>10967198
if you understood the two critiques (pure and practical reason) and foundations of the science of knowledge by Fichte you should be ready to understand Hegel.

>>10967271
I just don't get it.
It's like there's a magic barrier when I read Hegel.
It's probably IQ barrier.

>>10966944
lmao philosophy in grade school is not a thing in North America; not public school at least

Imagine being on a page for 43 days.

>>10967313
to be frank it's been 3 years, before this I read the previous translation first page for 2 years..

>>10967277
If you read CoPR you can read PoS. It just takes a great amount of application. Don't fall for the IQ meme. Never assume you know what a term means until he defines it to. Pretend you are a kid learning to read again and use sentence/paragraph context to try and understand what the word means. Glossaries help but they can't bring you to understanding. You need to tarry with the work, make it to the end, then ask yourself wtf you just read. I already read the smaller logic, now I'm reading PoS, and it's still difficult and careful work.

>>10967322
Imagine being on a page for 3 years

>>10967062
It's very superficial. Don't get me wrong, I love the work he's doing, but I wouldn't say I "get" the Phenomenology because I "get" HHH.

So how far have any of you gone through Half Hour Hegel?

Can you explain me why is Hegel hard?

>>10967491
Made it to section 60 before I left it behind. See:
>>10967346

>>10967549
Anything that you found better (doesn't have to be videos)?

>>10967634
Hegel by Charles Taylor

>>10967062
He explains what Hegel says, what more do you want?
>>10967346
It's not superficial. I don't think he gets everything, but he breaks everything down pretty well. If you want to see a superficial analysis check out Findlay's.
>>10967491
I watched up until the end of the section on self-consciousness. After you've watched that much you figure out how to do what Sadler's doing in your head.

>>10967529
There's a couple of reasons. First of all, Hegel makes a lot of claims about his philosophy that I don't think hold up. He claims that shapes of consciousness follow necessarily from one another, and he claims that his dialectic is self-moving.

What actually happens is that Hegel defines something, and then introduces a concept which makes that definition cease to work. For instance, in sense-certainty Hegel defines sense-certainty as immediate knowledge, but then allows the sense-certain consciousness to distinguish between subject and object. Then, he allows sense-certainty to distinguish between locations in time and space. Using these, he claims that sense-certainty refutes itself, and that the only way to save it is to allow sense-certainty's objects to be universals, which leads into his next section, Perception.

This is an extremely confusing process to follow, because we are immediately lost in Hegel's ever-changing definitions; the instability of his concepts is antithetical to logical thinking. Furthermore, his actual language and phrasing is dense and confusing. You'll note that my explanation here, >>10966807 while not complete, is a much simpler rendering of what Hegel takes a page to say.

These two things combined make him extremely difficult to understand.

>>10965112
The extent of philosophy I learned in high school was a paragraph long gloss on the difference between Lockes and Hobbes (both reduced to cartoon caricatures)

>>10968075
Basically he's a philosopher of an event?

>>10967081
Only in secondary and excerpts. I meant more specifically if Hegel was a Kantian whose metaphysics were based on unknowable noumena, which I wouldn't want to invest time reading in. Appears Hegel isn't and he does not posit a significant noumenon-phenomenon distinction.

>>10968090
I'm not really sure what you mean by the phrase "philosopher of an event."

>>10967101
>t. didn't pay attention in soul-school during pre-existence in the Platonic realm.
Philosophy is about unlocking knowledge you already possess through intuition.

>>10965077
this is the most beautiful girl in the world :>

>>10968103
He doesn't define a philosophy, he unfolds philosophical flow.

Can any of you answer me a question, asking out of curiosity.


Where do all of you hear about Hegel, like, where did you first hear of him? What got you interested in him?

There seem to be a lot of people posting about Hegel around today. It can't be just because classical german philosophy has been enjoying a renaissance in anglophone philosophy.
Thank you.

>>10968140
High school

>>10968140
Marx

>>10968124
Socratic method?

>>10968151
Dialectics?

>>10968140
anon's diary desu

>>10968140
/lit/ memes
19th century history
Kantbot

>>10968156
>kantbot
fuck off

>>10968151
no
>>10968153
Is some sense.
If you call what I'm talking about "dialectics" then Descartes is also a "dialectician".

>>10968153
Not strictly, dialectics proper is quite formal and this is more basic than that. Anon is overthinking Hegel's writing technique. To put forward an idea, then follow through it's consequences, and adjust or build on the original idea from those consequences. It's an ordinary process of argumentation or theory building.

>>10968124
Your wording makes me somewhat hesitant to agree with you. He doesn't "unfold" something like it's already there, just waiting for us to get inside it. And his philosophy doesn't "flow," it's propelled by Hegel himself, not by some inherent truth. For this reason I fail to distinguish Hegel's method from Kant's or Spinoza's, it's just less orderly.

>>10968161
Eat shit

>>10968140
>>10968147
I started reading Hegel because I noticed that both Fascists (literal fascists like Giovanni Gentile) and Communists (Marx) claim Hegel as a predecessor. He's far more popular on the Left though.

>>10964774
subhuman

>>10968140

>>10968117
ive matched with 4-5 different women on tindr who look exactly like that only bigger tits and asses. you’re all retarded incels

>>10965082
The preface is the most studied section of the whole book you pseude

>>10968181
hilarious trash culture revel in spittle speak chirp thought trash culture trash culture omnideath of the spirit trash spirit trashboi sadboi tindr tranny trash culture death of the race the light leaves the eyes trash culture spittle speak chirp thought meme me out of this place

>>10968196
Gentile's philosophy had very little to do with actual, real, fascism
He's a good hegelian idealist though

>>10964774

>>10968282
01110111 01101111 01110010 01100100 00100000 01110011 01100001 01101100 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100110 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100

>>10966299
Nah. It's the opposite. It's easy to take some section or surface of an 'argument' or idea and be done with it. Being 'on the fence' is a symptom of looking deeply and wholly, without selectiveness.

The kind of abstract knowledge about which we may be absolutely certain must come to us as an isolated pure perception with as little as possible of interpretation or conception, which add knowledge and uncertainty. This sort of knowledge is therefore of the least use, for it reduces one's conscious es to perceiver of a sole object and the object to "something existent.in my perception."

>>10968196
>He's far more popular on the Left though.
probably due to marx's work

>>10966944
I live in the Central Coast of California and I was never taught philosophy in high school. We never even read The Illiad or The Odyssey. I don't know if it is like this everywhere but the public education I received was horrid and I thought I hated school until I went to Uni

>>10968075
>sense-certainty
It's sensuos-certainty not sense-certainty

>>10968409
im dying

>>10968409
kek

>>10968196
Because the Left are stuck in an antediluvian era of antediluvian ideas and antediluvian thinkers.

>>10969780
The left is decidedly modern. Do you not know what antediluvian means? If anyone's sticking to antediluvian ideas it's the right (though I say that without judgment).

>>10969847
>The left is decidedly modern
The left is decidedly primitive, succumbing to lowest principles of lowest orders.

>>10969847
>pre-Darwinian
>biological denialists
>tabula rasa
>labor theory of value
>theories of alienation derived from labor theory of value
>dialectical materialist conception of history
Stuck in the early 19th century

>>10969780
>posts antediluvian thinker
I suggest you read modern genetics and biology

>>10964945
For what it's worth, Schopenhauer thought that everything Hegel wrote was worthless balderdash. If you can't understand him then it's okay. Some people even doubt that he himself understood what he wrote.

>>10969940
Here's a good start.

>>10969978
>Schopenhauer thought that everything Hegel wrote was worthless balderdash.

This is true, and Schopenhauer trashing his contemporaries is one of the hidden pleasures of his books. His essay on the basis of morality was disqualified from a contest because he couldn't help himself. Pretty funny!

>>10964774
Basically it means when you're considering the object, you have to consider without intuiting anything about it.

>>10969983
Here's a good start.

>>10970181
The object exists regardless of your consciousness' ability to comprehend it, and your understanding of the object is hampered by your inability to distance your consciousness from the object.

>>10970181
>>10970207
>>10964774
I like that in all these replies, not one of you brainlets could answer his question, and instead just wrote psued nonsense

>>10968180
>it's propelled by Hegel himself, not by some inherent truth
It's propelled by a relationship of the subject with the notion of truth (or God, .. etc.). I don't know what is the "inherent truth" in philosophy apart from the subject's nullity, if the "inherent truth" is there, then I believe it's not philosophy but something different.