[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 312x475, ED4A2CB1-592F-48FB-9762-6B2706D4A6F4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17870056 No.17870056 [Reply] [Original]

I don’t get it.

>> No.17870093

it's a thick description of a woman's orgasm

>> No.17870244

>>17870056
If you know you know

>> No.17870293

>>17870056
It's ok, it's hard.

>> No.17870298

>>17870056
What don't you get? Any particular concept, term or sentence? What is the page number and line that you don't understand?
What an abysmal thread.

>> No.17870325

>>17870056
Read Philosophy of History

>> No.17870328

>>17870056
you wont, because i'ts not philosophy

>> No.17870329

>Prussian monarchy is the height of civilizational achievement
>everything is always getting better though we can learn from the past
>whatever your society currently says is right is right
>truth develops through history by swinging from one extreme to the other before settling on a happy combination of the two which then becomes a new extreme to swing from

Hegel is easy.

>> No.17870348

>>17870056
1. Buy meme hegel book
2. Open book, fall asleep like a narcoleptic on a benzo
3. Put on bookshelf for women to see
4. Never find a woman who knows or cares who hegel is
5. Die alone
6. ???
7. Profit

>> No.17870350

>>17870298
The whole thing

>> No.17870351

>>17870348
based pussychaser

>> No.17870723

>>17870056
It's really nothing at the end of the day. Even if you got it, if you came to think back on it afterwards you just realize nothing in it matters or applies in any significant way to everyday living, or structuring systems, or anything really. What are you gonna do? Cry about it?
>Wah wah muh Hegelian Dialectic muh geist.
Good luck getting anybody to give a fuck when the UN starts enforcing non stop mandatory 24/7 suck and fuck homosex, loser.

>> No.17870732

>>17870348
Based

>> No.17870742

>>17870348
lol

>> No.17871078

>>17870298
Not him, but how about starting with in-itself, for-itself, in-and-for-itself?

>> No.17871095

>>17870328
What is it then?

>> No.17871103

>>17870723
> philosophy doesn't get me pussy
> therefore it is meaningless
Troglodyte take.

>> No.17871112
File: 533 KB, 600x450, b0a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17871112

>>17870351
>chasing a hedonistic lifestyle

>> No.17871148

>>17871078
In-itself: The apparition of being, its essence.
For-itself: The reflexive act of being.
In-and-for-itself: Mediation between both of them i.e. Aufheben/self-consciousness.

Not a Hegel expert by any chance, so anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.

>> No.17871164

>>17871095
Theology

>> No.17871174

>>17870056
Your best bet is to make a bait thread here, but what you have done isn't enough. Think about what would piss you off and do exactly that and maybe someone will tell you what Hegel actually meant.

>> No.17871186

>>17870056
Read In the spirit of Hegel, possibly the easiest introduction to him out there

>> No.17871378

>>17871148
What does then, for example, mean that the world, which was in-itself for consciousness, is perserved for self-consciousness? Or that this being-for-itself of the in-itself is spirit?

>> No.17871970

>>17871164
elaborate

>> No.17871982

>>17870329
nailed it anon

>> No.17872000

>>17870329
>>17871982
I'm not accepting this interpretation anon.

>> No.17872004

>>17870056
Just search the main ideas in wikipedia, and go back here, and make threads about him like everyone here does

>> No.17872051

>>17871186
How about Stephen Houlgate's?

>> No.17872081

>>17872000
He's actually not wrong. That's not the extent of Hegel, but Hegel did argue for instance that the Prussian monarchy was the ideal system of governance.

>> No.17872537

>>17871112
Hedonism just means reduction of pain which is 99% of what people strive for. The trick is to be smart about it and not fall for the instant gratification trap.

>> No.17873535

>>17870329
*Watches The School of Life once*

>> No.17873618

>>17871186
Very based. Read both Kojeve and Hyppolite before reading Solomon's In the Spirit of Hegel. By far the best intro into Hegel. First half is his life, his influences and what was going on in Europe at the time. Second half goes into the Phenomenology itself. He is much more interesting to read than the other two previously mentioned.

>> No.17873717

>>17870056
nobody does

>> No.17873901

>>17870329
>>everything is always getting better though we can learn from the past
He thinks everything is continually getting better? need more context.

>> No.17873930

>>17871378
Take this with a grain of salt, but to my understanding, the ''in-itself for consciousness preserved for self-consciousness'' refers to the content which is meant to be transcended through dialectics.
>this being-for-itself of the in-itself is spirit
Spirit is the consciousness that recognizes its own reality and transcends itself, including all the moments contained in the process. So, being-for-itself of the in-itself would mean the being that is reflects on its own being, which is to be the life of the spirit.

>> No.17874315

>>17870056
why would you even read philosophy? it's boring as hell, won't give you much insight in real problems due to its abstract nature and the author probably doesn't know what he's talking about anyways. i've read hegel btw and many others like schopenhauer, kant etc

>> No.17874862

>>17871164
>>17871095
Not me but pretty based take. Hegel was more religious than philosophical. He's only nam dropped by pseuds imo. Any professor I've had that's name dropped him has been pretty pathetic in 1 on 1 conversation. Not worth your time.

>> No.17875770

>>17874315
But have you read Plato and Aristotle?

>> No.17876476

>>17870056
Does this wankery actually have any value to anyone?

>> No.17876866
File: 60 KB, 568x548, EwJJzTxUUAs9ngU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17876866

>>17871103
Pussy isn't even mentioned once in that post you insecure loser.

>> No.17876915

>>17871148
i regret to inform you that you are a dumb fucking nigger, "apparition" and "essence" are contradictions, you dumb fuck

>> No.17877223

>>17870329
embarrassing

>> No.17877249

All of you got filtered I made it all the way through and I dont even have a philosophy degree
The phenomenology is a rich text that finalizes the German idealist critique by clarifying the mediation between consciousness and reality. It also provided unique insights into politics and religion and concludes with the assertion that contradiction is the core of being.
Half hour hegel on youtube might be of interest; good contemporary scholars include Gregory novak, Catherine malabou, Todd mcgowan, and of course, our boy based slavoj

>> No.17877304

>>17876915
Have you even read the Phenomenology? For Hegel, a thing appears as it already is [Erscheinende Wissen], hence, knowledge already holds truth about the essence of the object. Nevertheless, this knowledge loses itself in its own immediacy and negativity arises, which leads to a mediation between both of them in order to make a return and become superseded [Aufheben]. Thus, truth and essence have been altered.

>> No.17877580

>>17870056
regret buying this, It's hard to read and everyday I look at it on my bookshelf I'm reminded of my failure.

>> No.17879088

>>17877304
based negativityposter
Analytics and liberals btfo

>> No.17879118

>>17877249
>finalizes the German idealist critique
No, it was finalized by Kant. All the other idealists are hacks who misunderstood him, including you.

>> No.17879135

>>17877304
>this knowledge loses itself in its own immediacy
Explain.

>> No.17879193

>>17870056
Why not?

>> No.17879199

>>17871148
Coud you explain what 'aufheben' means exactly?

>> No.17879207

Should have read Hegel's Kegels instead. It's much easier to grasp.

>> No.17879235

>>17870056
Just attain absolute knowledge in time bro, it’s not that hard

>> No.17879281

>>17879199
Dilate or sublate, I can't remember

>> No.17879287

>>17870056
Read it along with this:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

>> No.17879362

>>17870329
either a troll or has just read the most basic pop explanations. literally the first few paragraphs of the phenomenology tells you why none of this is the case

>> No.17879972

>>17874315
No you didn't.

>> No.17879980

>>17879118
Kant is much more a pseudo-idealist. The German idealism as we know it is much more akin to Fichte (onward).

>> No.17880239

>>17871164
Is it good theology?

>> No.17880801

>>17879980
I agree when it comes to the pure meaning of "idealism", but Kant still dwarfs the latter idealists intellectually and in terms of pure rigor and clarity. People act as though Kant couldn't "solve" the thing-in-itself or the "noumenon" (of which Kant explicitly denoted two kinds: positive and negative), when this was exactly Kant's point throughout his entire critique; that not only can it not be solved, but we shouldn't attempt to because we are led into dialectical shadow-fights which are not in any sense objective or conducive to the creation of real, verifiable knowledge. The negative noumenon, the only type Kant considered as having philosophical relevance or even being close to "real", was simply an intellectual abstraction to allow for the expansion and unification of the concepts of the understanding. It is a necessary feature of the human intellect for the expansion of concrete knowledge, but possesses no substance or reality in itself (where Hegel claimed it had reality in sublation).

>> No.17882065

>>17880801
It is something necessary, a thing that allows representations (you'll have to forgive me if I call some things wrong, I didn't read him in English (except the Prolegomena) and the translations are very different (intuition is observation!!)), but he says that noumena is beyond the categories, while causally being the source of representations.
I didn't get to Hegel's solution to noumena, but I'll assume that you did. Can you explain (as unbiasedly as you can) what his arguments actually are?

>> No.17882991

>>17882065
Intuition is not observation. Didn't read Kant in english so don't know how these words are translated, but phenomena is sense object, noumena thought object. We can "target" our intuition to either. Noumena doesn't say anything about the thing in itself, just what things for us can be like.

>> No.17883005

>>17882991
I should say intuition is not just observation

>> No.17883214

>>17882991
>>17883005
I'm saying that what is in English translated as intuition, in Serbian it's something like observation. Obviously it's not the same, that's the problem. Although the Serbian translations of terms like those usually make more sense than English ones (reason and understanding, for example), but none of this is the point.
What I really want to hear is Kant's arguments against arguments to Kant. Positive noumena would need intellectual intuition which Kant claimed we don't have, but Fichte argued that we have a certain kind of it. You can't deny the lack of thing-in-itself after the first Critique, it is problematic. I'm still waiting to see how Hegel, according to some, solved the thing-in-itself.

>> No.17883260

>>17883214
Oh I misunderstood, guess I just don't see that as a problem. Denying the thing in itself would be denying that there's any sort of reality independent of us. Since there's a notion of "I", there has to be something that's "not I". Or to put it in other way, there's a difference between thought and observation, so there is something out there that we observe. What that something is, we don't know. We only know how that something appears to us. As I see it, this is the explanations that requires the least amount of assumptions, everyone else assumes the thing in itself as well, but on top of that they try to tell what that something is independent of us.

>> No.17883269

>>17870348
nice

>> No.17883381

>>17883260
That's pretty much the point of Fiche's transcendental idealism, is it not? That the Not-I is just the limiting of the I, a limitation created by I itself because it can't be infinite.
The synthetic unity of the manifold, for Kant, occurs at the level of the mind, bringing together empirical appearances under pure forms of space and time and concepts including the categories, and they're all brought together, according to Kant, by spontaneity, the "I think" is fixe to them. Transcendental apperception basically means that self-consciousness is necessary for object-consciousness. But Fichte (and others) realize that you don't need the thing-in-itself, so the objects are ideal. He's interested in representations that seem to force themselves to us as if by necessity, and those that come about through our freedom.
Obviously all of that would be considered bad idealism by Kant, but I want to hear how he would argue against it.

>> No.17883535

>>17883381
To be clear >>17880801 is not me.
I haven't read Fichte, so I don't really know or understand this criticism. If there is nothing independent of us, how would we learn new things or why would there be different types of experiences and thoughts? "The I" is just floating in nothingness coming up with ideas that has no reference anywhere? For Berkeley God and his perfect ideas replaced the thing in itself, but that isn't any better.

>> No.17883906

>>17883535
It's a pain in the ass to start explaining him.
He says the I posits itself, that even the mind depends on consciousness (of itself) to exist. Fichte talks as if there exists an 'absolute I' which might be something like the unifying mind we're all part of, but he also talks as if he were speaking more particularly about the developing of a specific individual. He also says that we have some kind of intellectual intuitions in the sense of self-consciousness, because there can be no self exiting independently of consciousness of it. That is, our consciousness of the self is at the same time the self. The self is nothing other than a process of self-consciousness.
The I attempts to determine itself, but there has to be something other than the I because determining is at the same time limiting or negating. He starts Wissenschaftslehre with the I and with its determining he ends up with the Not-I. These would cancel themselves out so now to reconcile the I must posit some original categories- namely, limitation, in which the unity of the I and Not-I results in the concept of degrees- to cancel the reality thereof not altogether but in part. Through this final step things are posited as divisible. Now that we have some basic categories, Fichte goes on to derive the rest of the Kantian categories from these relationships in like manner.
But here you can sense his own 'thing-in-itself' in the I's apparent need for limitation. His Anstoß is described as a "feeling" that the I has which it feels is alien to it, which causes its original drive to determine itself. In the Wissenschaftslehre it's left to be something like the call from God, but later he revises this to be something imposed by other rational beings, thus "transcendentally" proving the existence of other rational beings outside yourself.

>> No.17884511
File: 51 KB, 542x441, 1ad86-adorno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17884511

>>17870056
Dialectical Nonsense

>> No.17884605

>>17883906
>>17883535
>>17883381
Thanks for your posts German idealist readers.
I'm. Reading philosophy also, and wanna read Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel myself. What are the requirements to do so before? Plato, Aristotle and what else? Also what helped you grasp their ideas or what helped you read them?

>> No.17884675

>>17879135
Think about change, a thing goes from one state to another one. For example, when you leave an ice cube out in the sun, it goes from solid to liquid (not-solid) i.e. a movement between positive to negative. Immediacy would be to only recognize the positive (solid) or the negative (not-solid), whereas mediation would be recognizing both of them and unifying them, which in this case would give birth to the concept of ''fusion''.
>>17879199
On my language (Spanish), it is usually translated into ''overcome'' or ''to cancel'', whereas on English it is translated into ''to supersede''. On hegelian terms, that would mean the dialectical movement consciousness makes towards the Absolute i.e. reconciliation between positivity and negativity.

>> No.17885380

>>17884605
Not the people you responded to, but before reading Kant you should read Leibniz (Monadology) / Baumgarten (Metaphysics) and Hume (Enquiry/ first book of the Treatise) at the very least. You might benefit to throw Aristotle's Metaphysics in there as well, but honestly Aristotle can be much harder than people give him credit for. I'd also read a secondary source, like Guyer's Kant, to help you figure out the structure of the Critique.

>> No.17885392

>>17880801
>Kant still dwarfs the latter idealists intellectually and in terms of pure rigor and clarity.
stopped reading right there

>> No.17885400

>>17870329
Everything you said is wrong, congratulations

>> No.17886133

>>17870093
fpbp

>> No.17887407

>>17884605
As I already mentioned, I only understood Kant when I started with Fichte, and I only understood Fichte when I started with Hegel, so I'd say that the most important thing is putting them in context (of German idealism, more so than reading everything that came before). But the usual reading list will still greatly help so I'd still recommend reading (not the entire opus, but just the most popular and influential books by) Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Hume.
After that you should give yourself some time for Kant. Read his Prolegomena and three Critiques. Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre should be enough, but you can read Vocation of Man as well. I only read Schelling's early works, so I won't comment on him, nor Hegel who is currently fucking me.

>> No.17888256

Was Hegel a wizard in disguise?

>> No.17888393

>>17870723
>It's really nothing at the end of the day. Even if you got it, if you came to think back on it afterwards you just realize nothing in it matters or applies in any significant way to everyday living, or structuring systems, or anything really.
That's basically all of philosophy though.

>> No.17888947

>>17887407
>>17885380
Thanks anons, I am going to read those guys, but maybe not all of their works as I am mostly interested in getting to Kant and the boys after. Plato and Aristotle in depth and then the other guys to a competent level.

>> No.17889943

>>17874315
t. brainlet

>> No.17889967

>>17870348
this desu

>> No.17889983

>>17870723
unequivocally based

>> No.17889996

>>17877249
>slavoj
yeah fuck off

>> No.17890300

Surprised this thread is still up.
Disappointed that almost nobody is actually discussing the book.