Imagine placing "Phenomenology" under "of Hegel's" and creating three moronic rows of the same length when you could just put "Phenomenology" on the same row as "of Hegel's".
>inb4 autism
No, books must have nice covers, otherwise I'm not gonna read.
>Furthermore, Hegel is NOT a critical thinker: his basic stance is that of reconciliation – not reconciliation as a long-term goal but reconciliation as a fact which confronts us with the unexpected bitter truth of the actualized Ideal. If there is a Hegelian motto, it is something like: find a truth in how things turn wrong! The message of Hegel is not “the spirit of trust” (the title of Robert Brandom’s latest book on Hegel’s Phenomenology) but rather the spirit of distrust – his premise is that every large human project turns wrong and only in this way attests to its truth. The French Revolution wanted universal freedom and climaxed in terror, Communism wanted global emancipation and gave birth to Stalinist terror… Hegel’s lesson is thus a new version of Big Brother’s famous slogan from George Orwell’s 1984 ”freedom is slavery”: when we try to enforce freedom directly, the result is slavery. So whatever Hegel is, he is decidedly not a thinker of a perfect ideal that we approach infinitely.
or you know, you can just ignore what either midwit had to say, and just read Hegel.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Obviously that would be preferable, but it doesn't change the fact that the Anglo's contribution to Hegelian scholarship is worthless
11 months ago
Anonymous
Who is John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart? How can forget a man whose power levels were so great his parents had to name him twice?
>Take an eighteenth century English whig. Let him be a mystic. Endow him with the logical subtlety of the great schoolmen and their belief in the powers of human reason, with the business capacity of a successful lawyer, and with the lucidity of the best type of French mathematician. Inspire him (Heaven knows how) in his early youth with a passion for Hegel. Then subject him to the teaching of Sidgwick and the continual influence of Moore and Russell. Set him to expound Hegel. What will be the result? Hegel himself could not have answered this question a priori, but the course of world history has solved it ambulando by producing McTaggart.
-CD Broad
11 months ago
Anonymous
McTaggart wasn't really a Hegelian though. He was an idealist and this idealism traced, via earlier British Idealists, back to Hegel's influence. But he (and they) were pretty different from Hegel. They were even pretty different from each other. Bradley is basically an Eleatic, while McTaggart is basically a Personalist (like Bowne and Howison in America).
I've never read it, but iirc Brandom doesn't claim to be a Hegelian (nor he claims that his reading of Hegel is anything close to being accurate), he just use him as a source of inspiration
I'm so tired of people misunderstanding Hegel's idealism as subjective idealism, and the Brandom/Pippin way of reading his Logic as categories of merely thought alone and not also the form of reality itself is just part of that old tradition of misreading him. Sad.
>Brandom/Pippin way of reading his Logic as categories of merely thought alone and not also the form of reality itself
seriously? how tf can a professional misread hegel so badly?
>What we are dealing with in logic is not a thinking about something which exists independently as a base for our thinking and apart from it, nor forms which are supposed to provide mere signs or distinguishing marks of truth; on the contrary, the necessary forms and self-determinations of thought ARE the content and the ultimate truth itself.
Why is it so hard to believe that the greatest modern philosopher actually believed what he explicitly said over and over again that he believed- in fact asserted he knew absolutely?
I don't know but anyone who knows just enough about Holderlin and Schelling and Hegel should know that Holderlin introduces the Absolute as the pre-division nondualist Being that in judgment splits into subject and object in identity, and that Schelling sees the development of the Absolute as proceeding from both the subject's perspective (conscious) and the object's perspective (teleological). Hegel is simply continuing the tradition, hence why he saw his philosophy of spirit and philosophy of nature as simply two subordinate ways of tracking the Absolute's development from those two perspectives, while the Logic tracks the development of the Absolute from the top perspective common to both.
Anglo-Hegelians are a fricking embarrassment and living proof that you can be as stupid as them and still be the hottest thing in the academy, meaning being in the academy is meaningless
Lmao. Pop-Hegel now? Really? Why not self-help Hegel too.
What makes you say brandom is pop? No one had ever even heard of him until this one guy started making IQfy threads about him
Shut up, bobby “brandom”
> +1k pages of someone talking about reading Hegel
Kek
that's one gay ass cover if I've ever seen one, Jesus lord
Imagine placing "Phenomenology" under "of Hegel's" and creating three moronic rows of the same length when you could just put "Phenomenology" on the same row as "of Hegel's".
>inb4 autism
No, books must have nice covers, otherwise I'm not gonna read.
>Furthermore, Hegel is NOT a critical thinker: his basic stance is that of reconciliation – not reconciliation as a long-term goal but reconciliation as a fact which confronts us with the unexpected bitter truth of the actualized Ideal. If there is a Hegelian motto, it is something like: find a truth in how things turn wrong! The message of Hegel is not “the spirit of trust” (the title of Robert Brandom’s latest book on Hegel’s Phenomenology) but rather the spirit of distrust – his premise is that every large human project turns wrong and only in this way attests to its truth. The French Revolution wanted universal freedom and climaxed in terror, Communism wanted global emancipation and gave birth to Stalinist terror… Hegel’s lesson is thus a new version of Big Brother’s famous slogan from George Orwell’s 1984 ”freedom is slavery”: when we try to enforce freedom directly, the result is slavery. So whatever Hegel is, he is decidedly not a thinker of a perfect ideal that we approach infinitely.
he isnt into logic and therefore i will take Brandom more seriously than him
He's not an Anglo, so his reading of Hegel is automatically superior to that of Brandom
or you know, you can just ignore what either midwit had to say, and just read Hegel.
Obviously that would be preferable, but it doesn't change the fact that the Anglo's contribution to Hegelian scholarship is worthless
Who is John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart? How can forget a man whose power levels were so great his parents had to name him twice?
>Take an eighteenth century English whig. Let him be a mystic. Endow him with the logical subtlety of the great schoolmen and their belief in the powers of human reason, with the business capacity of a successful lawyer, and with the lucidity of the best type of French mathematician. Inspire him (Heaven knows how) in his early youth with a passion for Hegel. Then subject him to the teaching of Sidgwick and the continual influence of Moore and Russell. Set him to expound Hegel. What will be the result? Hegel himself could not have answered this question a priori, but the course of world history has solved it ambulando by producing McTaggart.
-CD Broad
McTaggart wasn't really a Hegelian though. He was an idealist and this idealism traced, via earlier British Idealists, back to Hegel's influence. But he (and they) were pretty different from Hegel. They were even pretty different from each other. Bradley is basically an Eleatic, while McTaggart is basically a Personalist (like Bowne and Howison in America).
Actually baste Jijek
I've never read it, but iirc Brandom doesn't claim to be a Hegelian (nor he claims that his reading of Hegel is anything close to being accurate), he just use him as a source of inspiration
I'm so tired of people misunderstanding Hegel's idealism as subjective idealism, and the Brandom/Pippin way of reading his Logic as categories of merely thought alone and not also the form of reality itself is just part of that old tradition of misreading him. Sad.
>Brandom/Pippin way of reading his Logic as categories of merely thought alone and not also the form of reality itself
seriously? how tf can a professional misread hegel so badly?
>What we are dealing with in logic is not a thinking about something which exists independently as a base for our thinking and apart from it, nor forms which are supposed to provide mere signs or distinguishing marks of truth; on the contrary, the necessary forms and self-determinations of thought ARE the content and the ultimate truth itself.
Why is it so hard to believe that the greatest modern philosopher actually believed what he explicitly said over and over again that he believed- in fact asserted he knew absolutely?
I don't know but anyone who knows just enough about Holderlin and Schelling and Hegel should know that Holderlin introduces the Absolute as the pre-division nondualist Being that in judgment splits into subject and object in identity, and that Schelling sees the development of the Absolute as proceeding from both the subject's perspective (conscious) and the object's perspective (teleological). Hegel is simply continuing the tradition, hence why he saw his philosophy of spirit and philosophy of nature as simply two subordinate ways of tracking the Absolute's development from those two perspectives, while the Logic tracks the development of the Absolute from the top perspective common to both.
Anglo-Hegelians are a fricking embarrassment and living proof that you can be as stupid as them and still be the hottest thing in the academy, meaning being in the academy is meaningless