How many of you have actually read Hegel

So I was talking to my Marxist friend who happens to reside in Cambodia about Hegel’s popularity. He claimed that Hegel is an obscure philosopher and he may likely be sole person in Cambodia who read Hegel.
Now, I haven’t read Hegel (ok, I read phenomenology of the spirit when I was 16 but I hardly understood anything), but I thought he is a quite well-know philosopher, far from being deemed obscure. Also, I regularly see Hegel threads both here and on IQfy.

Still, I am wondering what’s IQfy opinion on Hegel’s popularity? Have any of you actually read him and engaged with his ideas in a meaningful way? Any of you Hegelians in Cambodia by any chance?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    looks like lucy letby man

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would never waste precious moments of my life doing something so wasteful

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      subhuman moronic troons like you should be executed

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Noted

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you first

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          As long as I take you with me. See you in hell, butthead.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok beavis

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hegel pretty much exvlusively appeals to subhumans and troons. See Zizek

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Updated my journal

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Have any of you actually read him and engaged with his ideas in a meaningful way?
    YES

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Have any of you actually read him
    I have read Science of Logic.

    >engaged with his ideas in a meaningful way
    I legitimately don't know, probably not. I never felt like it was dumb or pseud or obscure and convoluted for no reason, but it didn't give me any clear-cut lessons or concepts either. It's quite likely that I was filtered.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have attempted to read Hegel but I have no problem with admitting that I find his writing impenetrable.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is this a meme? I read the intro to phenomenology of spirit and it seemed perfectly clear

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Try actually reading the book.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not the same guy, but I've read like the first 300 paragraphs, and I'd say that if you apply yourself, you can actually get something out of it. But you have to take it paragraph for paragraph, as well as letting go of the idea that you will come to an ultimate conclusion of what he is saying. Then you will at least get a general idea of what he is working towards.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick is the point of a 'general idea' here? Like, can you explain to me, for instance, exactly what the frick he means when he initially starts talking about Force (withdrawn or otherwise) in Force and Understanding? Like, to what degree does it coincide with the Newtonian idea of physical force, and to what degree does it extend or abstract from it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gets triggered by the idea of a general idea of a philosophical work
            >asks questions about particular philosophical concept as a response
            Did you come up with these questions on your own, or did you get them from some youtube philosopher who's debunked Hegel?

            >What the frick is the point of a 'general idea' here?
            The point is that whether or not you understand a particular point in the book, you will sooner or later recognize the patterns of his philosophical outlook in a general sense.

            >Like, can you explain to me, for instance, exactly what the frick he means when he initially starts talking about Force (withdrawn or otherwise) in Force and Understanding?
            It's quite the task you're setting up for me, as it's been a while since I read it. But If you gave me some time to revisit this part, maybe I could give you an answer. Maybe it would be the wrong answer, but I'll do it if you're serious about the question. In the meantime I'd ask you: what do you think?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've tried reading the bloody thing several times, and I never get past the master slave/bondsman dialectic because at that point, being completely honest with myself, the number of exceedingly ambiguous and confusing as all hell ideas all piling up in the way they do leaves me completely stunned; I cannot make out actual lines of reasoning or what I'm meaningfully supposed to understand, so the best I can honestly do is project modifications of pre-existing concepts onto the words Hegel uses, even if they don't match up to their 'everyday use', guessing as best I can what I think they're supposed to mean, and then hope that this is close enough to what he is really intending to say. Like, I can project vague ideas about the unity of ideas in spite of differences between them existing in various ways, and think about reconciling things into greater wholes which are 'less contingent' and hence 'more (absolutely) truthful', I get the 'gist' of that. But closely following the text and trying to made specific sense out of things becomes completely torturous by the point of Force and Understanding, I am just constantly doing double takes at everything wondering in what sense things are even meant, and I mistrust anyone who also read it and who didn't come up with similar questions.

            Like, I don't blame you for not remembering every detail, but if you can't engage in such details and demonstrate your own ability to grapple with them, and can only fall back on much vaguer understandings that don't deal with them well, then I don't have much reason to believe that you have deeper insight into it as a work of philosophy than I do.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that you have deeper insight into it as a work of philosophy than I do.
            I never said I have deep insight. If you'd read my reply again, you'd see what I originally said actually affirms what you are saying. We're in the same boat, my friend - I haven't even finished the damn thing. Maybe I'll do it some day. But until then, since I'm no scholar myself, I'm perfectly content with a very general, basic even, understanding of Hegel's philosophy. Until I'm ready to actual apply myself, I'm content with bringing Hegel "down" to my understanding.

            Anyway, after having gleaned a bit over the part in question, I take "force" to mean something like a very basic principle, akin to Aristotle's unmoved mover, a kind of metaphysical will that moves every single thing through change from one state to the next.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Try Hegel's Ladder by HS Harris, he goes paragraph by paragraph and elucidates everything as fully as anyone in the Anglosphere has ever done.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >someone's trying to understand something
            >multi-reply nitpicking everything he's said with smarmy responses instead of helping out
            die

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let's get zagel in trouble:
            http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Marxist_Philosophy/Hegel_and_Feuerbach_files/Hegel-Phenomenology-of-Spirit.pdf

            Found at ¶136…, p81, pdf page 117.

            >they mutually inter-penetrate, but without coming into contact
            This is obviously how Touhous conduct lesbianism.

            >In oher words, the 'matters' [ie: the universal sensorium of consciousness, without yet being interrogated by a self-conscious consciousness, like waking up drunk] posited as independent directly pass over into their unity, and their unity directly un-folds its diversity, and this once again reduces itself to unity. But this movement is what is called Force.

            How in the frick did you misread this in a phenomenology research paper as Newtonian? Hegel provides a clear definition of "Force" as a word he's using to describe the mind's differentation and undifferentiation of the total sensorium and elements of the sensorium not understood as symbols, but as sense data.

            >it is clear that this movement [of force between the universal and particular of sensoria] is nothing else than the movement of perceiving

            Nah, I was wrong, force in Hegel is obviously totally Newtonian, about the Newtonian motion of lesbian touhous.

            Playing the "did you bother reading" game doesn't work mate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Hegel provides a clear definition of "Force" as a word he's using to describe the mind's differentation and undifferentiation

            Yes, that's exactly my point. Later in the chapter he DOES use Force in a clearly Newtonian sense, which is why it's so confusing that he defines Force in this particular way near the beginning of the chapter. This is what I wanted clarification of, since otherwise I'd assume you would be right and that he's deciding to define the concept in this particular way, but you've ignored all that and only examined the initial definition. Otherwise I WOULD happily accept that he means Force in this (apparently) non-Newtonian sense and read through with this understanding.

            Force is seemingly the process via which understanding abstracts from the sensible world of objects present to it and reconciles this as being the appearance OF the inner/supersensible world (which, like the Kantian thing-in-itself, we can only say that is is something like the substance from which appearances come forth). But then we have this:

            "Φ 152. The law is thereby present in a twofold form. In one case it is there as law in which the differences are expressed as independent moments; in the other it is in the form of a simple withdrawal into itself, which again can be called Force, but in the sense not of repressed force [spoken of above], but force in general, or the concept of force, an abstraction which absorbs the distinctions involved in what attracts and is attracted. In this sense, e.g., simple electricity is force; the expression of difference falls, however, within the law; this difference is positive and negative electricity. In the case of the motion of falling bodies force is the simple element, gravity, which has the law that the magnitudes of the different factors in the motion, the time spent, and the space traversed, are to one another in the relation of root and square. Electricity itself is not difference per se, is not in its essential nature a twofold entity consisting of positive and negative electricity; hence it is often said it has the law of being so and so in the way indicated, or again, that it has the property of expressing itself in this fashion. This property is doubtless the essential and peculiar property of this force, i.e. it belongs to it necessarily. But necessity is here an empty phrase; force must, just because it must, duplicate itself in this manner."

            This kind of thing is why Hegel refuses to be tamed for me. Here Hegel's Force clearly is expressed in a Newtonian manner, which is seemingly why he calls the phenomena 'Force', hence why my inquiry was honest and why "bad apologists" of Hegel infuriate me so much.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Here's Harris' commentary on that paragraph.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sauce? Who is she and what should I read from her?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nice female Hegel pic, I have read Hegel and enjoyed reading Hegel. I would venture he is likely more obscure than not in all honesty, partially because his system is so fricking vast and exhaustive and you probably will only be able to grasp at pieces of it without reading him in the entirety, which is a pretty big commitment. His works are also anything but bite sized. He is likely mostly known as the teacher of Marx, so the fact he is extensively talked about is likely more the result of having been Marx's teacher than anything else. Do not hold that against him, Hegel was a monarchist, and his system ended up churning out some solid contributions. Once you understand the Hegelian method you will have to remember to turn it off periodically, or I suppose you don't actually have to, do it long enough and the distinction loses meaning.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read some 500 pages of him for class.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel has a responsibility for these individuals' demise.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Western philosophy all goes back to Socrates in the end. I guess the Athenians were right and he really was a corruptive influence.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >back to Socrates
        who is parmenides?
        who is heraclitus?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Heygirl

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Shegel

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel is exactly like Nietzsche in that 90% of the people talking about him on the internet have not read him.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i havent because i feel like if i just read or listen to even his first works i wont get it sincr im not
    >familiar with how kant wrecked prior and contemp philosophy and politics or how others were sucking him off or seething at him
    >knowledgeable about the day to day of a middle/upper or even workering class person in europe at the time let alone a german
    So I feel most of it would go over my head since I don't have time to learn all that shit. Feel free to rec secondary lit on him for me tho

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How many of you have actually read Hegel
    I have and that is my sole source of bitterness and regret in this otherwise wonderful life of mine!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let go anon, become one with the Logic.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Logic
        What is that? I did not read that one. ;(

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He freed us of many burdens anon, and all he asked of us was that we do not self-refute. Continue your journey and finish Hegel.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hegel thinks, "beauty in nature is a manifestation of freedom"

    if you have a shred of honesty, you would immediately ask yourself WHAT THE FRICK does beauty have anything to do with the concept of freedom?

    no hegelian EVER answers this question because they know it's a moronic statement

    a beautiful rose has nothing to do with freedom

    don't read him, he is a fraud just like how schopie said

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God's freedom. You didn't even read your own thread.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would take a long time to explain but sublime beauty is the radical excess or other which Kantian epistemology cannot constrict. Unironically read Nick Land's "Art as Insurrection" for a proper explanation.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe try conducting your own analysis?

        "Sublime beauty is the feeling of his semen curdling down your inner thigh when you're marrying his brother, not because of transgression, but because of the impossibility of constraining the totality of the situation within language. Within this situated terrain of intersubjectivity, the impossible-to-speak, the truly unspeakable, always exceeds the merely improper-to-speak, and sublime beauty is the discarded jism, and his brother's son in your uterus."

        Give it a go c**t. Zizek shows how fricken easy it is. Just takes 10 years of work and then you can make dick jokes on Zizek's level.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if you have a shred of honesty, you would immediately ask yourself WHAT THE FRICK does beauty have anything to do with the concept of freedom?
      Do you know who Zyzz is? Have you ever seen him and be like "damn, I wish I was like him", but you can't really put your finger on how exactly?
      Well you see, Zyzz wasn't about the looks or muscles or tattoos, he was free, and that's what is beautiful in your eyes.

      If you don't understand something like this even after this dumbed down explanation for meatheads then you're an idiot.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Do you know who Zyzz is? Have you ever seen him and be like "damn, I wish I was like him", but you can't really put your finger on how exactly?
        No lol?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Particularist schismatic socialist 'readings' have a chilling effect that compounds the Anal(ytic) canards - or worse, Analizing pragmatic bowdlerizations - which in light of the outcome of the last world war has cast a shadow on philosophy's development in an artificial benighting of appreciating German philosophy as a whole. There is vanishingly little for your Cambodian friend to gain from Hegel apart from reverse engineering what to degrade and debase of the necessary conditions for Objective Freedom, with less than half the System being subject to a Procrustean idolatry of the Absolute Finite and with it, the Negative Infinite. People that take a Zizek or Kojeve or Brandom as having anything substantive to concretely do with the man and his thought should be brained first in the gulags they intend to bring about. On the other hand he is absolutely the corrective required to reverse over a century of Neo-Kantian critical whoring out of philosophy to science and the ahistorical Last Man mob.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      awful, hideous post. really reeks of undergraduate who needs to get more A- grades and stern warnings about staying on topic.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I am 1/2 of the way through Encyclopedia Logic and 1/2 of the way through PoS. I have read a decent portion of the Philosophy of Right. I would say that, while I am starting to be able to grasp Hegel's system in a lot of its more subtle specificities, I still have trouble critiquing it/evaluating it in original ways. One thing I can definitively say is that Hegel explicates a version of free will compatibilism which I deeply believe, and that his critique of Kantian epistemology is something I take very seriously.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I did, the phenomenology completly changed my views on theology and spirituality, he managed to refute and at the same time fix and complete every religious system in the west and in the east

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Have any of you actually read him and engaged with his ideas in a meaningful way?
    When I was 10 my father forcibly inducted me into the study of Hegel's dialectic in the front seat of a late 1970s toyota corolla station wagon. We regularly talk about dialectical analysis, Hegelian and Marxist, and today we were discussing Judith Butler and the role of abjection in the production of gender as a relationship laying prior to the subject apparently in the body.

    Hegel is really useful for a small terrain of really awful things.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Extremely famous philosopher that almost nobody actually reads. Kind of like Kant and Marx.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What actually is phenomenology
    Is it the most important philosophy

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what makes hegel so hard to read

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hegel's lectures are pretty clean. His books however present the argument as it is in a dialectical form. From a phenomenological ontological perspective. Recapitulating the world from the dialectical analysis of the process of thought as the "laying behind" of the world is like using Excel as a programming language.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How can the lectures be clean but not the writing? They're both words

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          asking questions like this makes me think Hegel is not for you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not an argument

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >not an argument
            and what's your "argument" again? That words == words? you're a fricking joke, bro

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the lecture is easy then just write down the lecture and bam: same shit you want to teach, in written form, and easy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We don't waste time making arguments with one for whom an insult suffices to dismiss.

            Very few people on IQfy have the IQ to read Hegel so it’s not the best place to ask this question. But he lost me at the concept of Negation. I can’t get over the view that it appears to be simply a philosophical version of Bible codes. Ie, the negation of a window isn’t a broken window; a broken window is still a window, the “negation” is therefore whatever the frick you decide it is — simply just vulgar sophistry in my view. Did I fundamentally misunderstand it?

            The anon replying to you got off on the wrong foot, and sounds like a Marxist. In your example the negativity pertains not to the being of the window but to the positive existence (the entire rationally articulated array of existent facts, the totality of what appears to be the case) of the present moment; action negates the latter by making the essence of that existence (your will in this case) appear.
            If you wanted to negate the being of the window you wouldn't throw a rock through it. You would just think about its properties, align them under the categories, and logically subtract them from your concept of it until nothing remains but pure being, and what you'd be left with is determinately nothing at all.
            Someone might want to say that breaking the window is an abstract negation in that it only goes so far as to negate its quality of solidness.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >We don't waste time making arguments with one for whom an insult suffices to dismiss.
            how convenient

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For me

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >How can the lectures be clean but not the writing?
          How can a man write bad poetry but good speeches?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"prose vs lectures?"
            >poetry vs lecture 🙂
            moron

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, genre, wow. I'm so sorry for you.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It sounds like you had an interesting conversation with your friend! Hegel's influence in Western philosophy is substantial, and he is considered one of the most significant figures in German idealism. While it might be true that he is less widely read or discussed in certain regions, such as Cambodia, his impact on Western philosophical thought and literature is undeniable.

    Hegel's ideas have shaped various fields, including philosophy, political theory, history, and even theology. His works, such as "Phenomenology of Spirit" and "Science of Logic," are foundational texts that continue to be studied and debated. That said, Hegel's dense and complex writing style can make him challenging to understand, which might contribute to perceptions of obscurity.

    Regarding his popularity on forums like IQfy and IQfy, it's clear that there is ongoing interest and discussion about Hegel's work. These platforms often attract readers and thinkers who are more inclined to engage with complex philosophical texts, so it's not surprising to see Hegel threads regularly.

    As for the IQfy community, what are your thoughts on Hegel's popularity? Have any of you delved deeply into his works and found particular aspects that resonated with you? And is there anyone here from Cambodia who can speak to Hegel's presence in that context? It would be interesting to hear more about how Hegel is perceived and studied in different parts of the world.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thiswas written by chatgpt

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You what they say; if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shy do you have a marxist friend?

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think his critique if Ludwig von Haller was really impotent. Just another guy who cannot acceot that the key to duty and ethical behavior is subordination to a higher authotity

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I watched a youtube video about the diolectic
    The guy was telling me about how difficult he was to read cuz he world just go on and on iwth words
    So when I read him for a paragraph i totaly understood what he wa saying and will continue to site that to everyone i speak to about hegal
    Super hard to read but he's really down tbh, he understands wat it's liek
    Master Slave it up SENPAI!!!
    no cap feel the alienation

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He claimed that Hegel is an obscure philosopher

    Hegel is arguably in the top 5 of most influential of philosophers of the past two centuries alongside Marx and Nietzche

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you are going by what random illiterate street goers in Cambodia think I would imagine he is pretty obscure.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Hegel is arguably in the top 5 of most influential of philosophers
      Let me stop you there.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He claimed that Hegel is an obscure philosopher and he may likely be sole person in Cambodia who read Hegel.
    So that's where Schopenhauer has been hiding out. He's a third world sex tourist now?

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I tried to read Philosophy of Right, but gave up after like twenty pages. It's incoherent drivel
    The average page sounds something like this
    >the unfolding of right occurs precisely on the axis of the self realizing drive which realizes itself in the producing instantiation of right. The subject split into the world historical subject realizing his consciousness also subjectivizes himself in the process of the objective unfolding of world history.
    etc etc
    Really, just throw in some shit about unfolding and self realization and consciousness with a bunch of other random words and you have Hegel

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You need to be familiar with the Science of Logic before reading the Philosophy of Right, otherwise you won't understand the terms and concepts applied within it.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Very few people on IQfy have the IQ to read Hegel so it’s not the best place to ask this question. But he lost me at the concept of Negation. I can’t get over the view that it appears to be simply a philosophical version of Bible codes. Ie, the negation of a window isn’t a broken window; a broken window is still a window, the “negation” is therefore whatever the frick you decide it is — simply just vulgar sophistry in my view. Did I fundamentally misunderstand it?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It derives from the Spinozist axiom that every determination (of something) is a negation (of everything else). In other words, to know the essence of something requires the knowledge of a totality, which is exactly the point of contention for the post-modernists since they hold the view that totalities can never be closed.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your use of glass to make an example could be pointed to as blatant sophistry, but I will leave that aside since it does not necessarily strike me as being done intentionally. If we examine the nature of glass itself then you have to take into account evolving notions of the understanding of physical glass. Newer ideas postulate glass to be a clean system that breaks abruptly from one nucleated event or perhaps put in simple terms when the weak link in the chain breaks. Older theories tended to focus on phase transition. Due to the limits of our beloved anonymous Cambodian hobbyist forum we are unable to provide sufficient demonstration to fully flesh out the actual contradictions between the 2, but we could also postulate a new synthetic version wherein properties of the distributed precursor damage, and the emergence of abrupt fracture at low disorder or at long length scales are to be forwarded as a sort of unifying notion, one in which extraneous aspects of the previous are discarded or rendered no longer contradictory and now we have an actual new idea which provides an adequate explanation of the phenomenon of glass breaking which also takes into account some of the observed physical effects of broken glass issues. Which is to say that yes when glass breaks there is not a chemical reaction taking place to make different materials, but to use glass in the sense you are using it is not adequate since broken glass is not inherently universally recyclable, some are not usable due to differences in the chemical composition, some cannot be recycled with other glasses due to difference in melting point which would lead to a 'new' window being inherently weaker than one not made of recycled glass, and in a number of cases these glasses usually find their way into fiberglass and asphalt. The actual definitions of the word window also tend to indicate that your metaphor could be viewed as sophistry, I was able to extrapolate you meant glass but in essence a broken window is no longer a window, either the permitted opening broke and it is no longer a spannable surface for light entry by building code or the spannable surface broke and it is no longer a window by definition, these are defined instances, so you are in effect trying to make them into whatever you want them to be for the purposes of deceptive argument, which is a definition of sophistry. This is a Hegel thread so we can take some of the actual contradictions with us in order to keep progressing and in this case we have made an example of how evolving notions of understanding in the breaking of glass have led to the unification of previous prima fascie contradictory ones in order to explain the event itself. If you were actually interested in this there is actual extensive research on the topic. I suppose if you gathered the broken glass and melted it down and then turned it into another window then you would also overcome the 'contradiction' so to speak.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A window which has been “sufficiently disrupted” hasn’t negated the thing being a window, rather YOU just defined what sufficiently disrupted is. For example, an illegal window is still a window, but you may decide for the sake of sophistry that a window which doesn’t meet code will soon be removed by building authorities so therefore in essence it’s a window which will not exist in the future. If the window’s latch is bolted down so that it can no longer open, is it still a window? What if it was just rusted shut? Or taped shut? Has the window been sufficiently disrupted and so negated? If a bodybuilder can rip the window open by yanking the bolts out of the wood frame, is it still not a window? If a taped-shut window can be opened by removing the tape at will was it in fact always a window? If if there’s a pinhole underneath the window pane allow air to pass through — has the window not a window because of the pinhole? What if it’s missing a shard of glass? 10% of the glass? 20%? Etc. At some point it will obviously no longer meet the definition of “window” , but what that point of “sufficiently disrupted” is entirely made up by YOU. The one who decides what the negation of a thing isn’t the universe, isn’t a singular authority-something, isn’t an essential concept, it’s YOU. That’s why it looks like simple sophistry to me.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >An opening constructed in a wall, door, or roof that functions to admit light or air to an enclosure and is often framed and spanned with glass mounted to permit opening and closing.
          >A framework enclosing a pane of glass for such an opening; a sash.
          >A pane of glass or similar material enclosed in such a framework.

          These are the standard definitions of a window. If you feel that you have some argument of merit you can start there, since you are now concerned with what constitutes a window and what doesn't then perhaps you need to figure this out first then come back so you are actually capable of articulating yourself. If you are just concerned with some sort of functional definition then you should perhaps specify this, but since you are now conforming to my previously offered definitions then the only answer I can provide to you is to check the codes in your locality. I only offered the existing agreed upon definitions, I was not the origination of them, so by your own standards you were the sophist in this particular instance, now that you are inquiring it seems you wish to rid yourself of these sophist tendencies which is to be commended, I suppose we could engage in dialectic about what constitutes a window if you like but this particular subject is sort of moot by the notion it will not possess relevance upon completion, you are welcome to punch a hole in a wall and call it a functional window if you like, or you can learn the codes for your locality and say you possess an agreed upon definition, in either case you aren't actually posing a dialectical point worth considering and really just demonstrating you likely did not have a point to begin with.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the negation of a window...
      ???

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Windows aren't theses though.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's not obscure, but, even so, he's not widely read. Most people do not read philosophy. I haven't read Hegel, but that's just because I haven't gotten to that point in philosophy yet. Sometimes, I am tempted to skip ahead to him, but I'll be patient.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i am quite proud of the amount of hegel i have read, none.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, but I had a manic episode where I crashed my car and repeatedly oscillated between laughing and crying over the span of a couple days.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im a marxist and I have just read three of his works.

    Hegel is loved and hated because he did the impossible. People want a solution to philosophy but are somehow mad when they finally get it.....

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >People want a solution to philosophy but are somehow mad when they finally get it....
      Dialectical tho

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Femhegel looks like she has girl autism. She probably has a crackship blog and a dedicated succulent terrarium

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read a few chapters and took a semester class while studying sociology

    It was a good class

  36. 2 weeks ago
    s10241875

    >Still, I am wondering what’s IQfy opinion on Hegel’s popularity?
    A mediocre German burgher from the 19th century. Well died playing with German words making any simple phrase a quasi-philosophical mumbo-jumbo abracadabra. All of Hegel’s “ideas” can be stated in a couple of paragraphs; they were known to the Greeks; the rest is verbal juggling and ass-licking for the Prussian monarchy. In his “lectures on the history of philosophy” he expresses himself quite clearly and it is immediately clear that he is just a German shopkeeper. By the way, he said that Reason wisely destroyed hundreds of Greek philosophical works (Greek Stoics), otherwise students would have had to study them all. A disgusting barbarian.
    >Have any of you actually read him.
    Yes.
    >and engaged with his ideas in a meaningful way?
    No. And it is not surprising that Marxists and all sorts of “statists” are his spiritual children.
    >Any of you Hegelians in Cambodia by any chance?
    Probably only there he is needed. Let the Khmers take him.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you go ahead and summarize his ideas, then. Since they're so simple and you read all of his work and everything, it should be easy for you.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't tease the cripple who failed to read Hume and Kant to understand Hegel's intervention.

      • 2 weeks ago
        s10241875

        >Why don't you go ahead and summarize his ideas, then. Since they're so simple and you read all of his work and everything, it should be easy for you.
        I'm too lazy to write in the foreign language of the Angles and Saxons.

        “Real” is “reasonable” and vice versa. (therefore the existing order of things is ideal and justified). Every thing produces from itself its opposite. Quantitative changes produce qualitative ones.Any development proceeds according to the principle of return through negation: a thing produces something opposite to itself, the latter also produces an opposite thing, thus a return to the original thing occurs, but taking into account development, this gives such an ideal spiral.
        And, most importantly, the pinnacle of the development of the universe is the Prussian monarchy.
        In a purified (from idealism) form, this is the essence of Marxism - dialectical materialism. Actually, Marxism is a purified Hegel plus French socialism plus English political economics.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Say it in your language to demonstrate you aren't lazy and moronic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            s10241875

            I have already written everything you need.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like you are content being lazy and moronic. You seem to be able to speak but have no ability to think, that is seemingly worse than the guy earlier who couldn't speak but may have had a thought. Sounds like you have to use English because your native language is spoken by a bunch of b***hes like you and no one who is anyone worthwhile outside your shithole needs to learn it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bro your Science of Logic reps?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >s10241875
          You posted your undergraduate student number.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *