/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14534415]

Have you read his work? Which book(s)? Thoughts? Hegel discussion thread.

[Anonymous No.14534434]

Deleuze retroactively refuted him, he is skippable

[Anonymous No.14534475]

>>14534415
Hegel was never good.

[Anonymous No.14534570]

How do you anglos even start to comprehend Hegel if you haven't read Fichte and Schelling?
His work is based upon their so much near entirely.

[Anonymous No.14534906]

>>14534570
I read him for fun. I couldn’t care less about understanding him.

[Anonymous No.14535089]

>>14534570
Very incorrect. Fichte was ultimately politically focused, his early period was romantic and in his declining years contributed greatly to nationalism and educational reform. Schelling although in lifelong dialogue with hegel remained a proteus and his various philosophical ventures failed. For example, schelling gave a series of lectures on the possibility of a positivist system, which was later in its development lampooned by many, including a young Kierkegaard who attended these lectures. The indivisible remainder by zizek is a great book for schelling in this case. I have read hegel letters on British parliament, 300 pages of phenomenology of spirit( still working on it) and parts of his Greater logic (not the one in encyclopedia of natural science)

[Anonymous No.14535434]

>>14535089
>For example, schelling gave a series of lectures on the possibility of a positivist system
What do you mean by "positivist" system, as in the logical positivists?

[Anonymous No.14535438]

>>14535089
you seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that both Schelling and Fichte had great transitions where their philosophy or their goal drastically changed.
Early Fichte and early Schelling seem essential to Hegel. Just read "The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy" and see how Hegel responds to them (and Reinhold) as of 1801.

[Anonymous No.14535446]

>>14534415
I'm not too familiar with in-depth philosophy, let alone Hegel's actual works. Could someone enlighten me on why this board despises and ridicules him so much? I was always under the assumption that he was a greatly respected figure in the history of philosophy. I know this is 4chan, but you do see sincere appreciation for other authors like Kant. Yet I only see scorn when Hegel gets mentioned here.

[Anonymous No.14535450]

>>14535089
Schelling was a Kabbalist

[Anonymous No.14535755]

>>14535446
This board is full of brainlets. Hegel's dense, dry, and certainly obtuse at times but so long as you do the preliminary reading and maybe a bit about the the man himself you should be able to grasp the meaning of his work.

[Anonymous No.14535771]

>>14535450

[Anonymous No.14536019]

>>14535771
Maybe

[Anonymous No.14536346]

>>14534415
retroactively refuted by schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.14536360]

[Anonymous No.14536904]

>>14535089
This is wrong. Fichte's 1798 Wissenschaftslehre is the backbone to the subsequent german idealism - indeed it can be said that Hegel's PoS is a return to Fichte out of Schelling's dogmatic identity philosophy

[Anonymous No.14536913]

>>14536904
1794***

[Anonymous No.14536944]

>>14536904
>Hegel's PoS
lol

[Anonymous No.14536966]

>>14534415
no, but I read the
Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit by Alexandre Kojève
and I feel like I understand Hegel well enough without actually reading Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14537142]

>>14536904
>Fichte out of Schelling's dogmatic identity philosophy
Why is do you call it dogmatic?
personal pessimism torwards their system of transcendental idealism is waranted but dogmatism is exactly what Fichte and Schelling where opposing as staunch anti-spinozists.


>Fichte's 1798 Wissenschaftslehre
For others: Just read the foreword of the PoS and tell me if you can understand what Hegel means by the gravitas of the "A=A", that the self places itself and the non self in contrast (negation; or however it is translated), the moments of the self, or why the negative is still a positive of the subject, or why should the substance be considered a subject instead? Those thoughts stem directly from Fichte's work who saw them as necessary deductions of Kant's philosophy.
You have to catch up Fichte and Schelling while reading Hegel (if even possible) if you want to pretend that you understood the necessary empistemological groundings of Hegel's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14537207]

>>14534570
There is no way around reading Kant, all three critiques, before even considering delving into German Idealism (of which the culmination was Hegel)

[Anonymous No.14537219]

>>14534906
This. Reading should be an entirely irrational and aesthetic experience. I just read Hegel for the cool philosophical terms.

[Anonymous No.14537364]

>>14537207
Of course.
And German Idealism is far more than just Fichte Schelling and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14537629]

>>14537364
Of course not, there is also Reinhold, Jacobi, Maimon and Schleiermacher (ah yes and Schiller, if you consider him a philosopher). But their importance is small compared to the other Three (in Schillers case I’m limiting myself to philosophy, his eminence in literature and aesthetics is obvious)

[Anonymous No.14538226]

>>14537207
>>14537364
whats the essential Kant, Fichte and Schelling one NEEDS to get to Hegel?

[Anonymous No.14538421]

>>14537207
I read the first chapter of "Critique of Pure Reason" and I already feel like I know where this book is going.

[Anonymous No.14538699]

>>14536966
>Kojève
the book im currently reading about geopolitics mentions him. why did you choose to read it? class assignment?

[Anonymous No.14538964]

>>14534434
>Deleuze
postmodern faggot. literally a walking zombie drained of humanity

[Anonymous No.14538979]

>>14535434
>What do you mean by "positivist" system
secular humanism, essentially. positivism is a religion, which is why Comte based his "religion of humanity" on it. New Atheists are logical positivists.

[Anonymous No.14538988]

>>14536966
>I feel like I understand Hegel well enough without actually reading Hegel.
you'll get conned a million times in life. You don't know shit about any philosopher if you didn't read the original works. You don't know hegel, you know some dudes opinion on Hegel.

[Anonymous No.14539114]

>>14538226
>whats the essential Kant, Fichte and Schelling one NEEDS to get to Hegel?
oh boy...

well read all of Kant, most of Fichte, enough of Schelling (before Hegel), a history of German Idealism and then Hegel. You can read Schopenhauer before all of them though.

Greeks and Neoplatonists would really help as well.

[Anonymous No.14539433]

>>14539114
>Greeks and Neoplatonists would really help as well.
So one can get by without early moderns? would think the rationalists and empirisists would be important to read. Greeks as always is where you should start (I am working through later roman stoics now, preparing for early christian), but id assume thier immediate predecessors would be important.

[Anonymous No.14539481]

>>14538699
>class assignment?
no, it was recommended by a /lit/ anon, also I'm a big fan of Bataille.

[Anonymous No.14539627]

Reading Hegel I felt like I was being rused. I even enlisted my German reading genius friend to read it alongside me and it was little help. I had no such issue with Heidegger.