/lit/ - Literature

Nah, it's just pre-kantbot20 ideals.

>>13060454
More like Protestantised platonism with a dash of hermeticism and eastern thought

I mean there are influences, given the timely and spatial proximity between the two. What does "Germanized" mean here, then.
I don't think you can't say Hegel copied from some French revolutionaries - so no.

>>13060468
>What does "Germanized" mean here, then.
interpreted and infused with a German spirit and outlook.

>>13060454
French Revolutionary ideology is entirely political and German Idealism is not political at all.

>>13060473
more the other way around. the french revolution happened a decade after kant published the first critique and the sturm und drang period had given way to the jena romantics.

the german idealists interpreted the french revolution through their systems, in various ways and as proof of various things they valued (freedom to shape the world e.g.). they later mostly famously turned conservative and half of them converted to catholicism.

Hegel bears influence from a wide variety of predecessors, going from pre-Socratic natural philosophers like Empedocles and Anaxagoras to mystics like Jakob Böhme. His Philosophy of Right owes much credit to liberal thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His metaphysics (logic) is both strongly Heraclitean and Spinozist. His view on human nature have many parallels to many schools of thought prior to him, but none quite coincide with him.

>>13060520
Ever read The Philosophy of Right (although that work is critical of the French Revolution)?

>>13060454
Home brew from German pietism, basically. From Luther to Spener, Francke, Zinzendorf, and Arnold. The ultimate impetus of both the French Revolution and Romanticism in general is what is known as Protestantism, anon.

>>13060454
There's more to German Idealism than anything having to do with political ideology, and the metaphysical development is ultimately very important. It began because the Germans had (before Kant, as with Leibniz and Wolff) some sort of longing for a deduction of all philosophy from a single first principle. But Kant didn't provide such a first principle, so Reinhold tried to do that for Kant. But people also had issues with Kant's thing in itself (Reinhold, Schulze). Those two things served as motivations for Fichte, who developed a dialectical subjective idealism as a result. Then Schelling, based on some things in Kant's Third Critique, came along saying we should take nature's self-propagating aspects as the "objective" analog of subjective consciousness and volition. For Kant, viewing nature as "alive" and teleological was merely imposed by us on phenomenal experience, but Schelling reified it. Hegel took it from there.

The metaphysics is super interesting and none of it has much to do with the French revolution, and everything to do with Kant.

>>13060778
How could subjectivism ever be argued away by a non-subjectivist stance?

If Heidegger was able to bring Hegel back to the Dasein (something objective I'd say), what's convincingly objective in Hegel in the first place for anyone?

>>13060881
The mind, over time conceived as spirit.
>dif anon

>>13060778
>(Reinhold, Schulze
Are either of these essential reading pre-Fichte?
I only know of Reinhold as the one to help popularize Kant.
>which works?

>>13060933
You don't have to read them unless you want to learn the history of German Idealism for its own sake. Reinhold is exposition on Kant, Schulze is criticism of Kant, but Fichte is a new system with interesting ideas.

>>13060933
You don't have to read them unless you want to learn the history of German Idealism for its own sake. Reinhold is exposition on Kant, Schulze is criticism of Kant, but Fichte is a new system with interesting ideas. I fucked up anon, I really meant Jacobi the second time I said Reinhold.

>>13060520
>German Idealism is not political at all
Hoo boy

>>13061181
Different anon, but in fairness a lot of German Idealism can be understood apart from politics. Obviously though not all.

I just found out that Fichte got famous after having read Kant with 30, writing a book anonymously and people took it for a work by Kant and when Kant said it wasn't he immediately became a star.

Well Stirner, Nietzsche and Marx are better than Hegel and Kant by far

>>13061520
In what way?

>>13061520
Butterfly I swear to god you have an obligation here:

Do you have feelings for me or not? :3

>>13061546
In that they were inspired by the crazy French and general revolutionary zeitgeist of the times
Which are starting to reawaken after a terrible slumber

>>13061493
Fichte was pretty based.

>>13061553
Stop derailing threads damnit

>>13061607
Stirner and Nietzsche are really bad actually.

>>13061666
Why don’t you like them, beastie trips?

>>13061740
Not him but Marx was just a journalist. Nietzsche and Stirner have made me think a lot, but are basically wrong about everything. It took me many years to realise Kant was the peak of human reason reflecting on itself.

>>13061770
Marx was best as an economist, but Stirner, along with Epicurus, was the rightist of all philosophers.

What is Kant even?

>>13061783
So you are in your 30s or not bitch?! Fuck! :3

>>13061520
They absolutely rely on Kant and Hegel by far. Is this thread too to become idiotic? Take your cat and mouse shit somewhere else.

>>13061740
Egoism is wrong. Serious post incoming.

Look, I can see the appeal people find in egoism (past just edge factor). I just don't think it's an accurate representation of the data which even egoists must admit they have to scour through (in order to conclude "therefore, egoism").

There's a genuine difference between judging that one categorically ought to do X (which is represented in language as "wanting" to do X), and being subject to a desire to do X (which is also represented as "wanting" to do X. The main difference is that you have to represent yourself in the content of your judgment in the first case, and not at all in the second.

>>13061666
Fucking based, got the approval of the dark lord himself, baby edgelords btfo

>>13061783
Yeah I think Epicurus was good for lifting me out of depression. But he is still wrong. Pleasure is the measure of aesthetic excellence. The only acceptable ethics is when desire is elevated to the same level as what makes beauty pleasurable. There is what is good, but then there is the Highest Good.

>>13061740
Egoism is wrong.

Look, I can see the appeal people find in egoism (past just edge factor). I just don't think it's an accurate representation of the data which even egoists must admit they have to scour through (in order to conclude "therefore, egoism").

There's a genuine difference between judging that one categorically ought to do X (which is represented in language as "wanting" to do X), and being subject to a desire to do X (which is also represented as "wanting" to do X. The main difference is that you have to represent yourself in the content of your judgment in the first case, and not at all in the second.

>>13061909
Egotism is “wrong” or rather bad. Properly understood and practiced by all, *egoism* would set the world free of slaves and masters. You defend this sick degenerating game.

>>13061955
No it won't. It's Stirner and Nietzsche who are sick and degenerating, and you can see this by the influence they have. They're not our ticket to success.

At the very least grant me this. Your distinction between properly understood/practiced egoism and "egotism" shows you distinguish a proverbial baby and a proverbial bathwater. I'm sure you don't like it when people throw said baby out with said bathwater.

Well that's what they, and you, end up doing, when you talk about the "sick degenerating game" we need to get rid of, but toss out things like the data I just appealed to.

>>13060454
Where did you read such a claim?

>>13060454
no

>>13062003
By doing the exact opposite cities, empires, civilizations crumble and fall from this degeneracy you see as virtue. Now here at our near extinction is our last chance to start fresh thinking.

>bathwater
Ah yes. Be like water, my friend

>>13062032
I didn't even mention virtue. You know Stirner says property is nothing but my exerting of power over it, right? You don't think all the conquest, pillaging, raping which brought cities, empires, civilizations down might have issued from that little idea?

At least Stirner had sense enough in him to rise above the more vulgar egoists, and say, true dominion includes keeping your emotions under control. I'll grant you that, because I don't see sense in painting others with a broad brush. Still not a fan of the egoism.

>>13062057
>You don't think all the conquest, pillaging, raping which brought cities, empires, civilizations down might have issued from that little idea?
No, I don’t. This world issued from those who submit to those things.
Stirner simply approaches from the back of what Proudhon came by the front to.

>>13062088
I think you would make progress in bringing about your ideal end of history if you recognized egoism did cause these bad things.

>>13062127
We are realizing this very thin with the iron fists of the old regime, so I beg to differ.

>>13062154
Even speaking just instrumentally, I guarantee that Stirner and Nietzsche are going to raise generations of bad people no matter what.

If your society of the future is one where someone can think "I can kill for no reason and get away with it" on the basis of them reading Stirner and Nietzsche relatively plainly, regardless of them being wrong, then there's a problem.

Nah, it's supposed to be a universal philosophy that would have come about no matter if Germany existed. You could call it the product of its times