can someone provide the premise of each chapter of the phenomenology of spirit so i can more easily discern what point hegel is trying to make? i dont really care about his fanaticism for technical terms
getting into hegel
can someone provide the premise of each chapter of the phenomenology of spirit so i can more easily discern what point hegel is trying to make? i dont really care about his fanaticism for technical terms
if you're this lazy, give up. philosophy isn't meant for those who aren't willing to work.
ALL IM ASKING FOR IS
>CHAPTER 1
HEGEL IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN X AND Y
>CHAPTER 2
HEGEL IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY X IS DIFFERENT FROM Y
IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK OR ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF ILLITERATE, PRETENTIOUS PSEUDS?
YOUR CALL, IQfy.
Let go of the caps lock, and climb the ladder anon.
i have work tomorrow, this is why you elitists ruin this shit for me
In all fairness I just read Hegel, I have not read the ladder book, but historically other anons have recommended it due to its detailed and step by step walk through and swore by it so I figured I would continue the recommendation in their honor. If having to work tomorrow is your excuse then you should just go ahead and forget Hegel, no need to besmirch his good name, and there is nothing elitist about it, if you want to read Hegel then read Hegel, otherwise stop complaining and making excuses. Start with Phenomenology of Spirit.
what do you do for work
Why does that matter?
thats what i thought
Your lack of ability to think is not relevant, and neither was your question.
get a job
Filtered by the audio book version too? I saw you did not make it through the introduction.
filtered by getting a job
just read the book
Ask this about basically any work by any other philosopher and you will get actual answers by people who want to help you understand the work.
Ask this about The Phenomenology and you get people shitting on you who can't illuminate a single idea or premise. The question you should be asking yourself is why this is?
No, the answer would be same for anyone else. If you can't think on your own and come to your own conclusion based on the philosophy you read, then you shouldn't bother with philosophy because philosophy is all about thinking on your own.
>The question you should be asking yourself is why this is?
Because Hegel is like Heidegger and half the benefit is struggling to understand it.
Just look up wikipedia then, sheesh.
Because every page is about a dozen dense arguments, compounded over several hundred. Plenty of people summarize it, e.g., the introduction is about the predominant visions of how we properly know something and whether those visions are adequate, but whereas no one bats an eye when scientists infer dark matter from long complexes of math and data crumching that no one else wants to look but will more or less accept, when you do that with Hegel you end up with a bunch of people presuming that arguing against the summary is the same as refuting the arguments, which are of course left out of a summary. No one wants to let themselves be baited into usually disingenuous bullshit back and forths on the chinaman message board.
>compounded over several hundred
*several hundred pages
I don't know but Hegel basically caused catgirls
can someone afterwards provide a summary of the premises provided for each chapter of the phenomenology of spirit so i can more easily discern what point hegel is trying to make? i dont really care about his fanaticism for technical terms or all the yapping like man if you can not get to the point in 3-8 words stop talking to me.
there' s a guy on youtube with i don't know 100, maybe 300 videos on every paragraph of that book by hegel
>getting into hegel
>phenomenology of spirit
You do NOT start with Phenomenology of Spirit.
"This work was wrongly taken in the 20th century, in France, to be Hegel’s whole system. In fact it is a propaedeutic. Taken as a whole unto itself, the result is a terrible relativism and abstract liberalism."
https://righthegelian.com/reading-list/
>includes israeli mysticism
>includes 18th century metaphysics textbooks
>completely skips over english empiricism
what a shit list.
>You do NOT start with Phenomenology of Spirit.
Do you not know what a propaedeutic is, as per the page you're quoting?
get a text that explain each paragraph.
Read Kojeve.
why aren't you looking up scholarly secondary sources instead of asking strangers on an anonymous forum known for pseudointellectualism?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#PheSpibib
can someone provide fanfiction of hegel fricking the absolute spirit out of every subsequent philosopher?
>Consciousness: Absolute[abstract]/Universal Mind/Nous/Spirit
>Self-Consciousness: Absolute Finite-Particularity, Persona(l) Mind/Nous/Spirit
>Reason: True self-possession in/of the modality of Mind as The Knower [self-determining/free apodictic subjectivity] which relates to the finite world from the POV of the infinity of one's own subjectivity quite literally 'like unto God' vis-a-vis creation
>Spirit: the co-extensive commeasurable unity of Universal and Particular in the form of Man who participates in self-determining free-by-virtue-of-Alethic Thought/Self-Possession/-Consciousness [e.g. Jesus Christ demonstrated The World as such is not alien/other/an alterity to God-in-the-Universal/Abstract in a Manichean/Gnostic sense, but the Field of Play for Absolute Freedom of the Will in which we are all afforded the opportunity to come to Him by our own accord]
>Religion: see Jesus example above; religion is secularized metaphysics UNTIL the Christian religion [the true religion, the Alethic religion] in which the absolute freedom of the will and value of the soul is affirmed and posited as being in consubstantial unity/communion with the Absolute, if it so chooses Grace]
>Absolute Knowing: the return from isomorphic alienation apprehending the problem from the point of view of not having known it consciously, and then perspectivally embodying such knowing, knowing oneself to be apoDEIxically and absolutely free as inalienably ordained by God-- thus in a position to act and be one's self fatefully and faithfully, in a manner betokened by 'skillful means' and 'right action' which can then help others along their own path and purpose to such knowledge (or at least practice thereof).
If you in anyway feel 'victim' of circumstance or beholden to contingency, chance, fate ect., then the above will not suffice and you'll want to walk the full path of theurgy - if not with Hegel, then some other way -
How come everyone reads this, a propaedeutic to his system, or at best, Science of Logic, which is part of his system, and not his actual system, in the Encyclopaedia?
If you actually read and thought about the chapters, you would realize all these chapters are blatantly simple to understand and they are merely written in flowery style of prose because old authors were built different.
It's gibberish and you're all liars. What's the formula for Hegel's dialectic if you understood it? Refer to the text.
What do you imagine the formula will mean for you if you don't know the arguments backing it? Are you implying that if you want to see the highest levels of math or logic, a formula put in front of you is satisfying enough, even if you're unlikely to understand it?
>it's just too high level even though everyone else gives an (incorrect) formula
You're bluffing. All Hegel fans are lying snakes.
I guess all physicists, mathematicians, and logicians of the highest caliber are bluffers too, since they don't waste their time trying to share simplified formulas for what they do at their level.
Oh so you're one of the tiny minority of Hegel readers who doesn't understand him in terms of a simplified formula for the dialectic given in secondary sources (which are actually written comprehensibly), but you can offer no reason why they all got it so wrong except that it's just so complex only you can grasp it, while also refusing to explain it with reference to the text you've apparently mastered. Right.
This is slirting around disingenuously. In the first place, secondary sources, *when they simplify*, regularly and openly admit of the almost total inadequacy of doing so, and when they make more comprehensible a difficult argument or passage, they'll spend several pages on the equivalent of one to two pages in Hegel. Secondly, OP isn't asking something like a post that clarifies the dialectic, which can be done, but summaries of substantial chapters, looking for the "premise" of each of them. This isn't any different than asking someone to summarize the Whitehead-Russell Principia Mathematica while balanced on one foot.
You're the disingenuous one. The vast majority of Hegel readers according to you then are misreading the *secondary literature*, let alone Hegel himself, and haven't explained why you're the only one who actually gets it. You also claim clarifying the dialectic can be done but offer nothing. Liar.
This kind of argument seems thoroughly dishonest. What Hegel is saying and what that would even imply about our existence in this world is utterly more vague and abstracted than what people involved in sciences in which actual deduction works and is independently demonstrable, even if complicated, says about things. Like, even if you don't get specifics, you can at least say that dark matter is "hypothetical stuff we can't see and don't know much about", that is proposed to explain how the equations we do use might remain true and still apply to things in space we observe.
There is just something patently absurd about seeing how people will try to justify their particular views about how society ought to be organized in terms of Hegel's theories, which seem ostensibly derived ground up from how humans might break down and reconcile various aspects of how they view the reality they find themselves in, but which no one can seem to productively summarize without radically interpreting them in a highly specific way that seems to entirely conflict with other people's interpretations.
It's like, scientific theories may not be inherently watertight, but it's not a simple matter of blindly trusting a bunch of dudes in coats who claim to know the absolute truth, or someone saying shit that implicitly extends or redefines the meanings of certain terms and trusting that the reader will pick up on this in ways that hopefully conform to whatever he "really meant" accurately enough.
The various sections of say, the Critique of Pure Reason can absolutely be reduced to more basic and explainable points and specific arguments that say things that are relevant to how someone might understand the reality of objects of perception, their relation to mathematical reason, the ways we might argue about the nature of the mortality or immortality of the soul or God and what we can say about those from our perspective as human beings capable of reason. This is of course no substitute for actually reading the work, but actually getting a meaningful idea of what is being said in it and why one might even want to read it is certainly not a task only fit for a Hercules of the mind, as it might seemingly be for Hegel's Phenomenology.
Thank you. Exactly.
Nice effortpost, but you wasted breath on what I thought was clearly and evidently a rhetorical argument pushing the troll's argument in an unacceptable but consistent direction.
My argument was flawless. No one on the planet, let alone IQfy, can give the actual run down on the Hegelian dialectic, because one doesn't exist. Hegel's "manoeuvres" between passages are all essentially random. That's why most people parrot FICHTE'S dialectical formula as though they got that through the power of their own understanding.
So how is hegel different from hume and kant who tried to say the same thing?
I'll be frank, what the frick are you even trying to say?
You are talking about hegel saying we don't know how the world works, something that his predecessors said in a more coherent and clear manner.
>t.
kirky btfood him, just read fear and loathing then live innawoods or whatever, much easier than reading hegel
You know what, enjoy your b8ing, keep huffing and puffing for more (You)s.
Lmao, you bowed out because you can't do it because, like all Hegel "interpreters", you're a fraudulent pseud.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hegel/comments/1cipaek/can_you_understand_and_explain_hegel_dialetics_in/
Kekekekekekek
so this portuguese guy is supposed to be me? tschuldigung, bin leider deutscher; nice try tho, reddit-king
If you're a deutschbag, why are you asking English speakers about a philosopher in your native language instead of on a German forum
>instead of on a German forum
no such thing, germany is an amerishit colony
Hegel's Ladder provides paragraph by paragraph summaries and commentary. You could grab that off Libgen. But the commentary itself is not super accessible and is in Hegelese, so you might want to just read the plain language paragraph translations.
Best high level intro would be Wallace's Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present. It's not really about mysticism, but it has a very accessible and non-deflationary. Wallace's Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God is awesome in terms of remaining somewhat accessible while really getting into the guts of the Logic. It wouldn't even be a terrible starting point, although it is a bit more difficult. D.C. Schindler's book on German idealism would be a good addition here, but only the end is on Hegel. If you start with Wallace and Schindler you avoid the deflated Marxist Hegel who is very little like Hegel.
In terms of very accessible stuff on Hegel, there is Pinkhard's Hegel's Naturalism. It's fairly straightforward at the expense of being deflationary (meaning you don't get the whole Hegel but the less metaphysical, atheistic Hegel who has been sanitized for modern sensibilities).
The opening chapters of Dorrien's Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit are maybe the best intro I've found. You could even skip the chapters not on Kant and Hegel. It's high level, but very good. But I wouldn't keep reading after the Hegel chapter since the focus switches to Hegel's influence on theology (unless you're into that). I would put this up front, then read Wallace's Philosophical Mysticism (even though it's more of Plato than Hegel, it gets at key ideas in Hegel).
You could also read Taylor's Hegel, which is pretty accessible although not one of my favorite takes and also not super accessible when it comes to the Logic.
Houlgate's commentary on the Logic is great and very accessible vis-á-vis the early chapters, before the commentary starts. Worth grabbing just for the early parts IMO.
I would avoid Kojeve to start out. He's interesting as an "influential version of Hegel," but not on Hegel himself. I own Kalkavage but haven't gotten too far yet. If the political philosophy interests you, Honneth's Freedom's Right would be good, even just the first part framing Hegel on social freedom. Wood has a lot of good stuff on the political stuff, Neuhausen too.
PhS is a beautiful work but keep in mind that the Logic is the beating heart of Hegel and PhS isn't the fully mature Hegel of SoL and PR.
Also, in terms of the texts themselves, PR is a much easier place to start. That or the lecture notes.
He doesn't want to learn Hegel, he just needed a summary for a job assignment. Great suggestions tho.
The point of the book is to work through it. He says this in the introduction. And the introduction is probably worth reading if you want something close to a summary.
Hegel is unapologetic in thinking that you actually have to put in the work, and in a way the entire book is kind of making that case. He basically says you need to start with Plato. He does give a reading list and summaries in his History of Philosophy, which might be a fair substitute, though I don't think he would agree fully.
A summary won't really convey much to you, even if it is accurate. Part of his project with the book is not just to convey propositions to you, and then convince you that they are correct. It's to actually have your mind step through them, as if you were doing the philosophy yourself. It's maybe a subtle difference but it is critically important.
Hegel was pretty legitimately at the apex of philosophy at his time. And if you want to see the view from the top of that mountain, you gotta climb, there's no shortcut.
Think of the title of the work, Phenomenology of Spirit, and take that title very literally.
First paragraph of the preface to the Phenomenology:
>In the preface to a philosophical work, it is customary for the author to give an explanation – namely, an explanation of his purpose in writing the book, his motivations behind it, and the relations it bears to other previous or contemporary treatments of the same topics – but for a philosophical work, this seems not only superfluous, but in light of the nature of the subject matter, even inappropriate and counterproductive.
>For whatever it might be suitable to say about philosophy in a preface – for instance, to give some historical instruction about the biases and the standpoint of the text, or some talk about the general content and the results together with a set of scattered assertions and assurances about the truth – **none of these can count as the way to present philosophical truth.**
>– Moreover, because philosophy essentially is in the element of universality, which encompasses the particular within itself, it might **seem** that even more so than in the other sciences, in philosophy what is indeed salient about its subject matter, even its perfect essence, would be expressed in the goal of the work and in its final results, and that the way the project is in fact carried out would be what is inessential.
>In contrast, if a person were to have only a general notion of, for example, anatomy, or, to put it roughly, if he were to have an acquaintance with the parts of the body taken in accordance with their lifeless existence, **nobody would thereby think that he has come into full possession of the salient subject matter of that science**, which is to say, its content.
>One would think that in addition he would have to go to the trouble to pay attention to the particularities of the science.
>– Furthermore, that kind of an aggregation of little bits and pieces of information has no real right to be called science, and a conversation about its purpose and other such generalities would be in no way distinct from the ordinary historical and uncomprehending way in which the content, or these nerves and muscles, and so forth, is itself discussed.
>In the case of philosophy, on the other hand, this would give rise to the following incongruity, namely, that if philosophy were indeed to make use of such a method, then it would have shown itself to be incapable of grasping the truth.