FUCK Hegel

[Anonymous No.14452833]

Hegel is turning me into an analytic philosopher. I wanted spirit's odyssey, instead I got a stupefying tower of unthought. Is this a fucking joke? If it's meant to be some kind of koan I can literally just meditate. This is much worse than postmodernism which occasionally presents an argument to follow, whereas this is utter drivel from cover to cover. Russell was right about him.

[Anonymous No.14452871]

>>14452833
you literally just dont get it

[Anonymous No.14452886]

>>14452833
He's too deep for you.

[Anonymous No.14452891]

>>14452871
PLEASE explain it to me. I can follow Heidegger and Kant and so on no problem. I'm reading secondary sources too. I get the gist of it, the individual lines are unintelligible though.

[Anonymous No.14452896]

>>14452891
Negating negates negations.

[Anonymous No.14452898]

More like gaygel lmao

[Anonymous No.14452916]

>>14452891
i cant i dont get it either. i think it is a product of a lost zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.14452929]

>FUCK Hegel

Do it

[Anonymous No.14452944]

>>14452896
Yeah like I said I can follow what others say about him, I was even reading a whole book on his treatment of contradiction, which is fascinating. His actual text is beyond difficult to me though.

[Anonymous No.14452963]

What part were you having trouble with? I feel like you need to know some more context than is just written down in his books to understand him but it really does make sense if you put in the effort

[Anonymous No.14452973]

Well, that's the fucking point. And that's why almost every other relevant modern or some postmodern philosophers destroyed his absurd rambling.

[Anonymous No.14452991]

>>14452963
Almost all of the phenomenology so far. I'm up to 155 and am about to start again to give it a proper go. I actually read Science of Logic a while back and I could have sworn it made more sense than this, but I didn't retain anything except some broad strokes. I found Being and Time a breeze in comparison.

[Anonymous No.14453006]

[Anonymous No.14453019]

>>14452833
Russell was right about nothing. That part of your post absolutely has to be b8

[Anonymous No.14453026]

>>14452833
Step 1: Know Kant really well.
Step 2: Know the transition from Kant to German Idealism decently well.
Step 3: Know Fichte and Schelling decently well.
Step 4: Read the Science of Logic instead of the Phenomenology of Spirit.
Tip: When you read some of these people, make sure not to bother trying to understand everything at once. Just suspend your disbelief/confusion and continue reading, and focus on the broader picture, the general structure of what's going on. When you're done, you'll know the basics you need to know.

[Anonymous No.14453037]

>>14452833
>tfw Russell was an unironic Hegelian before he turned analytic

[Anonymous No.14453039]

His Lectures on the History of Philosophy are indispensable. Read them, at least the introductory portions.

[Anonymous No.14453044]

>>14453026
Step 1: Read the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
Step 2: Skip this shit
FTFY, pham.

[Anonymous No.14453046]

>>14452833
just give up OP. you do not have the psionic gift. sorry. other, better, people will take up the task.

[Anonymous No.14453048]

>In philosophy truth is had when the conception corresponds to reality. A body is the reality, and soul is the conception. Soul and body should be adequate to each other. A dead man is still an existence, but no longer a true existence; it is a reality void of conception. For that reason the dead body decays. So with the true will; that which it wills, namely, its content, is identical with it, and so freedom wills freedom.
well boys, is he right?

[Anonymous No.14453057]

>>14453044
Step 1: Read Philosophical Investigations
Step 2: Skip that shit.

[Anonymous No.14453075]

>>14452891
>the individual lines are unintelligible though
yeah I dont't think theres a way around this, you pretty much need to follow the dialectic through all the steps and keep track of where you are and where you've been because Hegel repeats a lot of terms and phrases, like the sentences get so fucking contextual sometimes I've never encountered anything like it.

[Anonymous No.14453108]

>>14452944
I just really think he relies too heavily on concepts like "intuition" "self evident" "reveals itself" and so on, I don't believe anyone can pinpoint exactly what he is saying, but you can get the broader aspect of each page AND don't be wrong about it for sure.

[Anonymous No.14453658]

>>14453044
>>14453057
>Shitgenstein
Skip.

[Anonymous No.14453757]

hegel's fuckin stupid lol

[Anonymous No.14453763]

>>14452891
Gregory Sadler does line by line breaks downs on youtube

[Anonymous No.14454932]

>>14452833
>>14452891
>>14452896
>>14452944
Why not try Wagner instead?

>If we involuntarily conceive of the Divine as a sphere where Suffering is impossible, that conception ever rests on the desire of something for which we can find no positive, but merely a negative expression. So long as we have to fulfil the work of the Will, that Will which is ourselves, there in truth is nothing for us but the spirit of Negation, the spirit of our own will that, blind and hungering, can only plainly see itself in its un-will toward whatsoever crosses it as obstacle or disappointment. Yet that which crosses it, is but itself again; so that its rage expresses nothing save its self-negation: and this self-knowledge can be gained at last by Pity born of suffering—which, cancelling the Will, [245] expresses the negation of a negative; and that, by every rule of logic, amounts to Affirmation.

Forgive the clumsy translation, it's the only one in English and was done in the 1890's.

[Anonymous No.14454957]

For anyone who has read him, Is he any easier to read in German?
I don't think I'm completely lost, but I feel like I'm missing a lot in the English version.

[Anonymous No.14455022]

>I wanted spirit's odyssey, instead I got a stupefying tower of unthought
okay this is fucking epic

[Anonymous No.14455098]

>>14455022
This is not your gay Ulysses thread.

[Anonymous No.14455150]

So this is what being under a necrotizing spell feels like?

[Anonymous No.14455201]

>>14453048
>A dead man is still an existence, but no longer a true existence; it is a reality void of conception
This implies that things can escape conception, which is simply hilarious. Nevermind his elation at the "true will", meant to contrast with the "dead" mans will. This reeks of lack of education. People take Hegel seriously even though he still believes in the metaphysical Judeo-Christian distinction of life and "absolute death". Meanwhile the Greeks of antiquity would have folded laughing at such a hilarious remark. In fucking 600 BC Heraclitus already said:
>souls smell in hades.
In 400 BC, Empedocles was laughing at people who believed in ends and beginnings of things. The great Hegel...

[Anonymous No.14455207]

>>14455150
No, this is what being an ameritard feels like.

[Anonymous No.14455806]

>>14455207
eerf tner

[Anonymous No.14455820]

>>14455201

Heraclitus was proactively refuted by Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.14455823]

>>14455201
>There is no proposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my Logic.
-Hegel

[Anonymous No.14455867]

>>14455820
Parmenides was retroactively refuted by Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.14457101]

>>14453108
That's why you retards have to read Kant before tackling Hegel. An intuition is unified sense data, it has nothing to do with the other terms you've mentioned.