>read an English translation
you haven't read a singular word Hegel has written in your life. You didn't "get" anything. You still need to start with him to begin with.
Congrats. Great book. Not as hard as made out to be and very rewarding. I've read Pinkard and Miller. Both are good translations. Just ordered a third copy. Lookin forward to my third journey through. Then afterward I will perhaps start the Science of Logic.
Ignore this gay unless you are planning on doing school for German philosophy. Latin and Greek are better for philosophy in general anyway too.
You are the uneducated philistine here, thinking German is not worth learning. If you don't know Latin, Attic Greek, German, French, and English at minimum, by 25, you have been wasting your time. The texts are completely different if you read a "translation". You will be estranged even more from the author's true meaning, as language is the medium by which the logos is communicated.
That's funny you mention that, because I actually *have* read some of him in German. Not that it matters. Take that smirk off your face, now.
Good. Learn German. Once you have, read the German version with the English version adjacent. Then you will be even closer to what Hegel z"l meant to convene.
NTA but Hegel’s philosophy is the hardest philosophical system which I have ever tried to comprehend in my life. Having to constantly frame his thought in relation to Kant and keep his sayings on their proper ontic level while reading is insanely hard. I genuinely don’t think there was a smarter human being that lived. (other than Jesus Christ) I have not seriously struggled with any other philosopher after reading Hegel
>Hegel’s philosophy is the hardest philosophical system which I have ever tried to comprehend in my life.
I don't doubt you, but a lot of people say Kant is difficult to understand and took years to read, while in reality he is kind of simple once you understand what he going for.
Maybe most people just arent meant to read philosophy ???
8 months ago
Anonymous
Name 1 (one) that is harder
8 months ago
Anonymous
>missed the point as expected from a dweller
Im saying philosophy isnt hard if you have the mental faculty required and have already grasped the divine
8 months ago
Anonymous
Ignore hylic posters
8 months ago
Anonymous
8 months ago
Anonymous
>le wake up sheeple guy
RAW for Orientalist Victorians
8 months ago
Anonymous
So did you not read him or not get him?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>everyone who disagrees is not a true reader of my favorite scotsman wanker
RAW is literally one of the biggest Gurdjeff promoters in modernity. As well as a promoter of Crowley and other such degeneracy. Just go to church, Be a good person. Practice self control. Read books about what interests you. Gurdjeff lived and died as did we all. Beign a cult leader is a bit of a fakir thing used by egotists to distract from emptiness. Don't envy sad people like that.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No one has ever bettered themselves from studying cult leaders like Gurdjieff because you will sponge more of how a cult leader behaves than whatever they peddle. That’s why only degenerate actors and singers unironically worship gurus and why degenerate gurus seek out actors and singers to worship them—they’re the same people
>I have not seriously struggled with any other philosopher after reading Hegel
This. Even if you don't like Hegel taking the time and effort to understand him(made easier if you looking into Fiche and Schelling beforehand) gives you the ability to read any philosopher regardless of time and era.
So i guess if i ask you what is the meaning that only few can reach you will amswer either:
a)You are to Low IQ to understand/You are not the choosen one
Or
b)I am not here to educate you do your homework
Make sure you also read, in order to get it in its full truth, the "three Theban plays" (Oedipus Rex, oder Oedipus Tyrannus, oder Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus; and especially Antigone).
You of course can dive in. But you still won't understand it. I don't believe even Hegel would've understood the monumental significance of what he wrote looking back it retrospectively. Every passage, every paragraph, every word must be tackled and fought to wrest the meaning from it. It's just simple brute force. No reading will prepare you.
How does he know all that if he does not know what reallity is?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Checked. He's just doin the best he can. Given the anecdote I think he meant something more along the lines of, "I don't understand reality, yet there it is."
No, just autism. If you aren't autistic, congrats; live your life. Hegel is only for the actually gifted, albeit the celibate.
Consciousness is psychosis
KEK
8 months ago
Anonymous
Ahh so its the "gifted" card today.
Alright anons, keep on gifting.
Breakdown of Bicameral Mind
Shape of Ancient Thought
Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man
Language and Myth
Primitive Man as Philosopher
Just remember you must go forward not backward to be a Hyperborean Conanian Absolute Knower Ubermensch
8 months ago
Anonymous
You want me to go forward by recomending me "Bicameral Mind" theory which is based on a hunch?
Alright im outa this thread.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You've just struck upon the Universal. Your language just gave you away.
"I'm out of this thread."
He says this in the present tense. Yet as he types the sentence, placing the last period in the sentence, he remains in the thread. He must still linger to post the post: still he is in the thread. So in a sense he lied: what he meant is not what he said. He said, "I'm out of this thread," yet he had to remain in it in order to say that he would be out. Language is the more truthful, a la, he *will* be out, though not quite, an it please thee.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Dear anon,
its called a figure of speech.
I thought "Hyperborean Conanian Absolute Knower Ubermensch" will get it.
My bad..
Yours trully,
Anon
8 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but that anon is also NTA (know cause am og hyperborean ubermensch) but I was also NTA in first place. Telephones with noise in information networks
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Telephones with noise in information networks
huh what u mean???
8 months ago
Anonymous
There is a short circuit between the very ancient tradition of angels in monotheistic or polytheistic traditions and the jobs now about messages, messenger and so on. I think that this connection, between ancient time and new time is very interesting to understand. In one hand the ancient forms and ancient traditions and in other hand the new and the real jobs about medias. Because our job – your job is to receive messages, to translate messages, and to send messages in some respect. Your work is about messages. You are a messenger. I am a messenger. Our job is about messages.
People conceptualise the present day as a time when there has been a rupture with the past. We must deliberately make a link between the two.
The problem is to think about the historic link between ancient time and the new world because this link is cut and many people think about our time without reference to traditions. But if you read the amount of books about angelology in the middle ages, if you translate certain words into modern language you see that all the problems were about translation, about messages. These are exactly our problems. When you put a short circuit, you obtain sparkles and these sparkles give light to the traditions and our jobs.
Part of the effect of using the trope of the angel to understand communication seems to me to invest our world, the modern world with a sense of the sacred. Would you agree with that? Maybe you would make a distinction between the sacred and the spiritual.
The reason why angels are invisible is because they are disappearing to let the message go through them.
If you read medieval angelology you find exactly the same demonstrations because all the problems for angelology – what is a message? who are the messengers? what is the messenger’s body? – like Saint Thomas Aquinas, the early church fathers, the Pseudo-Dionysius, and so on.
This is what I began to find when I looked at scholastic philosophy. Having thought it was full of ridiculous problems about angels on pinheads I found that serious problems were simply framed in this vocabulary.
But there is a duality to the mediating third position of angels and demons or daimons... We might distinguish the daimons that communicate info for the former and the daimons of noise for the latter.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Very nice
8 months ago
Anonymous
Context matters for understanding time as expressed by language. You may be schizophrenic. Failure to comprehend metaphorical, abstract language is characteristic of the disorder. It's called concrete thinking.
8 months ago
Anonymous
All language can only express the universal. "I'm out of this thread". Which I? Which thread? This statement can apply to any subject leaving any thread.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Don’t listen to that moron. Just read Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Spinoza, and Kant in that order to be able to understand Hegel. Granted, you won’t get all of the flavor of his thought with only that grounding but it’s the bare minimum to be able to distinguish what Hegel thinks from what this moron magic-poster above thinks Hegel is on about. Alternatively, you could read some secondary material on Hegel. (frowning on secondary material is the defining feature of midwit psueds) I would recommend Emancipation After Hegel by Todd McGowan for the most accessible introduction to dialectics. There’s also Zizek but he’s not really for beginners due to just how scattered his writing is and how he presumes you to have a collegiate level understanding of most of the major intellectual movements of the 20th century.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Waste of time to read any of those thinkers. If you are interested solely in, and are only passionate for, Hegel, then forcing yourself to read his influences and predecessors is tantamount to torture. What Hegel is, is all already there. That being said, a good commentary, such as Hegel's Ladder by H.S. Harris, should do the trick as a side-by-side text to be compared to.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>midwit >I recommend... >McGowan >Zizek
Top kek. Peak projection.
Waste of time to read any of those thinkers. If you are interested solely in, and are only passionate for, Hegel, then forcing yourself to read his influences and predecessors is tantamount to torture. What Hegel is, is all already there. That being said, a good commentary, such as Hegel's Ladder by H.S. Harris, should do the trick as a side-by-side text to be compared to.
No language is magical. israelites will claim Hebrew is language of Gods. Pooinloos do same with Sanskit. The Germanophilia of Kantians and Hegelians and Heideggerians is but another manifestation.
You should indeed learn ancient language and modern languages if seeking to be true intellectual tho.
what book/article? i have excerpts. also i don;t read German
the absolute is merely the absolute relation as absolute form, it is virtual relation. unless you're saying pierce gets rid of modality in which case i'll take seven
what book/article? i have excerpts. also i don;t read German
the absolute is merely the absolute relation as absolute form, it is virtual relation. unless you're saying pierce gets rid of modality in which case i'll take seven
I actually have a picture of it on my phone, brb
it's from the first (maybe second?) chapter of Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology: Analysis and Consciousness by Richard Atkins. really good source, unfortunately it's expensive and not on libgen.
Oh neat, didn't think to see someone from my branch on this board. Enlisted or officer?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Enlisted. I might go officer some time in the future if I want to make this my career, but I'm currently leaning to serving my contract and going back into academia.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Well if you ever run into a manlet infantry NCO with huge bags under his eyes on Fort Riley be sure to say hi, we could discuss Hegel or something for a couple minutes before I get a call and have to pick up a soldier from the drunk tank again.
This book opened my mind. I have started seeing the concept everywhere and behind every thing though seeing is the wrong word it's more like consciously experiencing the moments of activity. It's being alive and knowing it but not the way I used to know it.
Because adorno is in his proper place as an addendum to hegel. People think adorno is just a sad israelite because they don't do the prerequisite readings of Hegel and Kant and Adorno himself always points back to the germans as he well should.
Negative dialectics is a misunderstanding of Hegel. A worthless work much like Sartre's oeuvre. Frankfurt school was a mistake. But then again so was Marxism/Young (left) Hegelianism...
It’s not that he bridges the gap, he just says that there isn’t one. If you look at Kant’s philosophy from an effective view the noumena really doesn’t add anything at all. Again, in the effective view, we can now just take the noumena and discard it without losing anything from Kant at all. The way he actually proves that the noumena doesn’t exist is more complicated and involves working through the contradictions of Kant’s own philosophy. Essentially, since identity is composed by self-referential difference (absolute difference) we cannot speak of an apple without implicitly speaking of a not pear or a not cherry etc. The web of negations to an identity is what gives it its structure. When we speak of things-in-themselves we are injecting a false dichotomy where things can be in-themselves and for-us. The operation of contradiction works on the level of the for-us and presents a “proof” of the essence of the in-itself by working through consciousness. But, this distinction of in-itself and for-us takes place in consciousness and as such we can say that the thing itself is in-itself-for-us. Thus, the path we take to the Truth in-itself that we thought was exterior to the truth is actually itself predicated on a distinction which takes place in consciousness. We have to posit the thing-itself as the base of transcendental philosophy in order to prove that it exists. Here’s Hegel’s own words on it: >The content, however, of what presents itself to us does exist for it [for the consciousness]; we comprehend only the formal aspect of that content, or it’s pure origination. For it, what has thus arisen exists only as an object; for us, it appears at the same time as movement and a process of becoming.
>When we speak of things-in-themselves we are injecting a false dichotomy where things can be in-themselves and for-us.
I don't understand this, especially the sense of "for-us." Nothing in the world is for me as if it was wrapped up as a gift with a bow on top. It's just there, regardless if I'm there or not. Seems like a weird solipsism.
>I don't understand this, especially the sense of "for-us."
Try to think of it as being-for-other rather than use the of "for us." I think that's where the solipsistic part of your argument is emerging from. Objects, things, and people implicitly exist as beings-in-themselves, and are also beings-for-themselves, but they also necessarily have being-for-another. Being-in-itself (Ansichsein) and being-for-itself (Fuersichsein) are the same as, and are logically necessitated by, being-for-another. The person's or object's being-in-and-for-itself would have no validity, no existence, without its recognition by another. The person or object must be for another what it is in itself.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I missed the crucial conclusion. The concept is simple: the object's essence, its identity of being in and for itself, is its absolute recognition by another. Its being-in-itself is its being-for-another.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Is being-for-other related to appearances and how being-in-itself "communicates" with itself?
Spirit is being-for-another. The German word for existence is Dasein, and existence posits that being is sufficiently for-itself. But it is not in-itself, because it is not reflected into anything. But since Being and Becoming exist, there is a for-itself that brings spirit to a certain point. So being is presented to us as a given thing, in the same way that concepts are given to us: being is reflected in our cognition and as a consequence of this, being-for-another (us) is essentially the subjective concept as such.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, but to be more precise, Spirit is what is itself in its being-for-another. The simplest form of Spirit is found in consciousness, as Hegel says at the beginning of the Philosophy of Spirit, in the Encyclopedia. Consciousness can possess external determinations, while still being itself, while what is not spiritual, natural entities, are incapable of mantaining their self-identity when external determinations are posited in them. So, consciousness can endure the determination "tree" (by thinking it, percieving, etc) while still remaining consciousness; on the other hand if you add, say, the determination of a different weight to an atom of gold, the atom will lose its properties and become something else.
Consciousness of course is the simplest determination of Spirit because its determination are external: consciousness can merely endure them. In Absolute Spirit those determinations are not external anymore, since they have been fully produced by Spirit (and since this production was necessary for Spirit to be itself).
8 months ago
Anonymous
>since they have been fully produced by Spirit
esentially doing the same thing as being, yes.
8 months ago
Anonymous
yes yes... indubitably so
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, but to be more precise, Spirit is what is itself in its being-for-another. The simplest form of Spirit is found in consciousness, as Hegel says at the beginning of the Philosophy of Spirit, in the Encyclopedia. Consciousness can possess external determinations, while still being itself, while what is not spiritual, natural entities, are incapable of mantaining their self-identity when external determinations are posited in them. So, consciousness can endure the determination "tree" (by thinking it, percieving, etc) while still remaining consciousness; on the other hand if you add, say, the determination of a different weight to an atom of gold, the atom will lose its properties and become something else.
Consciousness of course is the simplest determination of Spirit because its determination are external: consciousness can merely endure them. In Absolute Spirit those determinations are not external anymore, since they have been fully produced by Spirit (and since this production was necessary for Spirit to be itself).
yes yes... indubitably so
But Dasein is being towards death. Hegel's master-slave dialectic is reversed because it's corrupted by Christianity. Hegel was banging his maid when he wrote it.
i'm bumping because I want an answer to my question:
>When we speak of things-in-themselves we are injecting a false dichotomy where things can be in-themselves and for-us.
I don't understand this, especially the sense of "for-us." Nothing in the world is for me as if it was wrapped up as a gift with a bow on top. It's just there, regardless if I'm there or not. Seems like a weird solipsism.
Incarnation of God's Will Manifested in Relatable/Empircal Human Form >this way God can communicate with you morons in your simple languages/memes/shitposts...
>read an English translation
you haven't read a singular word Hegel has written in your life. You didn't "get" anything. You still need to start with him to begin with.
That's funny you mention that, because I actually *have* read some of him in German. Not that it matters. Take that smirk off your face, now.
Congrats. Great book. Not as hard as made out to be and very rewarding. I've read Pinkard and Miller. Both are good translations. Just ordered a third copy. Lookin forward to my third journey through. Then afterward I will perhaps start the Science of Logic.
Ignore this gay unless you are planning on doing school for German philosophy. Latin and Greek are better for philosophy in general anyway too.
You are the uneducated philistine here, thinking German is not worth learning. If you don't know Latin, Attic Greek, German, French, and English at minimum, by 25, you have been wasting your time. The texts are completely different if you read a "translation". You will be estranged even more from the author's true meaning, as language is the medium by which the logos is communicated.
Good. Learn German. Once you have, read the German version with the English version adjacent. Then you will be even closer to what Hegel z"l meant to convene.
Source; dude trust me bro
>logos
>communicated
someone didn't start with the presocratics
NTA but Hegel’s philosophy is the hardest philosophical system which I have ever tried to comprehend in my life. Having to constantly frame his thought in relation to Kant and keep his sayings on their proper ontic level while reading is insanely hard. I genuinely don’t think there was a smarter human being that lived. (other than Jesus Christ) I have not seriously struggled with any other philosopher after reading Hegel
>Hegel’s philosophy is the hardest philosophical system which I have ever tried to comprehend in my life.
I don't doubt you, but a lot of people say Kant is difficult to understand and took years to read, while in reality he is kind of simple once you understand what he going for.
Maybe most people just arent meant to read philosophy ???
Name 1 (one) that is harder
>missed the point as expected from a dweller
Im saying philosophy isnt hard if you have the mental faculty required and have already grasped the divine
Ignore hylic posters
>le wake up sheeple guy
RAW for Orientalist Victorians
So did you not read him or not get him?
>everyone who disagrees is not a true reader of my favorite scotsman wanker
RAW is literally one of the biggest Gurdjeff promoters in modernity. As well as a promoter of Crowley and other such degeneracy. Just go to church, Be a good person. Practice self control. Read books about what interests you. Gurdjeff lived and died as did we all. Beign a cult leader is a bit of a fakir thing used by egotists to distract from emptiness. Don't envy sad people like that.
No one has ever bettered themselves from studying cult leaders like Gurdjieff because you will sponge more of how a cult leader behaves than whatever they peddle. That’s why only degenerate actors and singers unironically worship gurus and why degenerate gurus seek out actors and singers to worship them—they’re the same people
>I have not seriously struggled with any other philosopher after reading Hegel
This. Even if you don't like Hegel taking the time and effort to understand him(made easier if you looking into Fiche and Schelling beforehand) gives you the ability to read any philosopher regardless of time and era.
>Not as hard as made out to be and very rewarding
frick you
>reading Hegel
>eating a Hegel with lox and Cream Cheese
>no sublative schmear
ngmi
*crack* *sip* yeah I love my hegelian filtration unit 5000. Yeah I just put a zoomer in and get a zero ultra out.
I'll take an everything Hegel with cream cheese, sir.
So i guess if i ask you what is the meaning that only few can reach you will amswer either:
a)You are to Low IQ to understand/You are not the choosen one
Or
b)I am not here to educate you do your homework
Right?
Isnt this the book some Germans will read the English translation of just because its not as diffucult/archaic
Hegel's German is exact and simple. The way German was meant to be used.
3rd worldie detected! If you don't know those languages by 25 you are in fact, uneducated
Do people really do this? Just go on the internet and tell lies? Seems so sad... :'/
Can I get an everything Hegel with jelly and cream?
Why should I care if I’m educated or not?
yea I'd like a steak egg and cheese hegel with orange juice and a side of hash browns
Yeah, morning, so lemme get an oatmilk latte, *hot,* and a cream-cheese everything Hegel, thanks.
>oatmilk latte
just a step down from goymilk
yeah can I get a large fries with that and a mayo chicken on the side, thanks.
can you give me too?
Explain it
He can't be arsed.
Explain what? The Phenomenology? That's a phenomenal task.
I also get it but I can't express it into words. I'm struggling to find the right determinations to express the significance of the text.
Make sure you also read, in order to get it in its full truth, the "three Theban plays" (Oedipus Rex, oder Oedipus Tyrannus, oder Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus; and especially Antigone).
There's a lot of prep reading for Hegel which I haven't done, but can I still just dive in assuming I'm extremely intelligent?
Read the preface. If you can follow then good proceed just take it slow maybe take notes. Pinkard has good bio if anglo like me.
You of course can dive in. But you still won't understand it. I don't believe even Hegel would've understood the monumental significance of what he wrote looking back it retrospectively. Every passage, every paragraph, every word must be tackled and fought to wrest the meaning from it. It's just simple brute force. No reading will prepare you.
Sounds like you are describing psychosis.
No, just autism. If you aren't autistic, congrats; live your life. Hegel is only for the actually gifted, albeit the celibate.
Ahh so its the "gifted" card today.
Alright anons, keep on gifting.
Consciousness is psychosis
How does he know all that if he does not know what reallity is?
Checked. He's just doin the best he can. Given the anecdote I think he meant something more along the lines of, "I don't understand reality, yet there it is."
KEK
Breakdown of Bicameral Mind
Shape of Ancient Thought
Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man
Language and Myth
Primitive Man as Philosopher
Just remember you must go forward not backward to be a Hyperborean Conanian Absolute Knower Ubermensch
You want me to go forward by recomending me "Bicameral Mind" theory which is based on a hunch?
Alright im outa this thread.
You've just struck upon the Universal. Your language just gave you away.
"I'm out of this thread."
He says this in the present tense. Yet as he types the sentence, placing the last period in the sentence, he remains in the thread. He must still linger to post the post: still he is in the thread. So in a sense he lied: what he meant is not what he said. He said, "I'm out of this thread," yet he had to remain in it in order to say that he would be out. Language is the more truthful, a la, he *will* be out, though not quite, an it please thee.
Dear anon,
its called a figure of speech.
I thought "Hyperborean Conanian Absolute Knower Ubermensch" will get it.
My bad..
Yours trully,
Anon
NTA but that anon is also NTA (know cause am og hyperborean ubermensch) but I was also NTA in first place. Telephones with noise in information networks
>Telephones with noise in information networks
huh what u mean???
There is a short circuit between the very ancient tradition of angels in monotheistic or polytheistic traditions and the jobs now about messages, messenger and so on. I think that this connection, between ancient time and new time is very interesting to understand. In one hand the ancient forms and ancient traditions and in other hand the new and the real jobs about medias. Because our job – your job is to receive messages, to translate messages, and to send messages in some respect. Your work is about messages. You are a messenger. I am a messenger. Our job is about messages.
People conceptualise the present day as a time when there has been a rupture with the past. We must deliberately make a link between the two.
The problem is to think about the historic link between ancient time and the new world because this link is cut and many people think about our time without reference to traditions. But if you read the amount of books about angelology in the middle ages, if you translate certain words into modern language you see that all the problems were about translation, about messages. These are exactly our problems. When you put a short circuit, you obtain sparkles and these sparkles give light to the traditions and our jobs.
Part of the effect of using the trope of the angel to understand communication seems to me to invest our world, the modern world with a sense of the sacred. Would you agree with that? Maybe you would make a distinction between the sacred and the spiritual.
The reason why angels are invisible is because they are disappearing to let the message go through them.
If you read medieval angelology you find exactly the same demonstrations because all the problems for angelology – what is a message? who are the messengers? what is the messenger’s body? – like Saint Thomas Aquinas, the early church fathers, the Pseudo-Dionysius, and so on.
This is what I began to find when I looked at scholastic philosophy. Having thought it was full of ridiculous problems about angels on pinheads I found that serious problems were simply framed in this vocabulary.
But there is a duality to the mediating third position of angels and demons or daimons... We might distinguish the daimons that communicate info for the former and the daimons of noise for the latter.
Very nice
Context matters for understanding time as expressed by language. You may be schizophrenic. Failure to comprehend metaphorical, abstract language is characteristic of the disorder. It's called concrete thinking.
All language can only express the universal. "I'm out of this thread". Which I? Which thread? This statement can apply to any subject leaving any thread.
Don’t listen to that moron. Just read Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Spinoza, and Kant in that order to be able to understand Hegel. Granted, you won’t get all of the flavor of his thought with only that grounding but it’s the bare minimum to be able to distinguish what Hegel thinks from what this moron magic-poster above thinks Hegel is on about. Alternatively, you could read some secondary material on Hegel. (frowning on secondary material is the defining feature of midwit psueds) I would recommend Emancipation After Hegel by Todd McGowan for the most accessible introduction to dialectics. There’s also Zizek but he’s not really for beginners due to just how scattered his writing is and how he presumes you to have a collegiate level understanding of most of the major intellectual movements of the 20th century.
Waste of time to read any of those thinkers. If you are interested solely in, and are only passionate for, Hegel, then forcing yourself to read his influences and predecessors is tantamount to torture. What Hegel is, is all already there. That being said, a good commentary, such as Hegel's Ladder by H.S. Harris, should do the trick as a side-by-side text to be compared to.
>midwit
>I recommend...
>McGowan
>Zizek
Top kek. Peak projection.
This a real hegel homie
>Hume, Spinoza
Useless.
No language is magical. israelites will claim Hebrew is language of Gods. Pooinloos do same with Sanskit. The Germanophilia of Kantians and Hegelians and Heideggerians is but another manifestation.
You should indeed learn ancient language and modern languages if seeking to be true intellectual tho.
t. muttboi butthurt that he's speaking a non-magical language
EXISTENCE IS QUALITY:
APPEARANCE IS QUANTITY
THE ABSOLUTE IS RELATION
ACTUALITY IS MODALITY
>4 categories
debunked by peirce, there's only 3.
what book/article? i have excerpts. also i don;t read German
the absolute is merely the absolute relation as absolute form, it is virtual relation. unless you're saying pierce gets rid of modality in which case i'll take seven
I actually have a picture of it on my phone, brb
it's from the first (maybe second?) chapter of Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology: Analysis and Consciousness by Richard Atkins. really good source, unfortunately it's expensive and not on libgen.
actually it's on Anna's archive... hallelujah 😀
Army, Air Force, or LARPer?
Army, wouldn't catch me dead in the chair force
Oh neat, didn't think to see someone from my branch on this board. Enlisted or officer?
Enlisted. I might go officer some time in the future if I want to make this my career, but I'm currently leaning to serving my contract and going back into academia.
Well if you ever run into a manlet infantry NCO with huge bags under his eyes on Fort Riley be sure to say hi, we could discuss Hegel or something for a couple minutes before I get a call and have to pick up a soldier from the drunk tank again.
Ive reread the preface and 2-3 chapters in like 3 times now. Too dumb for this shit but its interesting
ITT: people getting that they're not getting it.
so I start with the greeks and then where do I jump to?
This book opened my mind. I have started seeing the concept everywhere and behind every thing though seeing is the wrong word it's more like consciously experiencing the moments of activity. It's being alive and knowing it but not the way I used to know it.
Trans dialectics is hegelian dialectics.
why bother with Hegel when you can skip straight to Adorno
Redpill me on Adorno.
Because adorno is in his proper place as an addendum to hegel. People think adorno is just a sad israelite because they don't do the prerequisite readings of Hegel and Kant and Adorno himself always points back to the germans as he well should.
Negative dialectics is a misunderstanding of Hegel. A worthless work much like Sartre's oeuvre. Frankfurt school was a mistake. But then again so was Marxism/Young (left) Hegelianism...
If you skip to Adorno you'll just find him telling you to go back to Hegel
where the FRICK does he argue that every concept requires a form of cognition? that is merely the absolute concept
Give me a cream-cheese Hegel-bagel.
/you can't bridge the noumena phenomena schism sorry homosexual
Redf fox out
Didn't you apologize about Hegel the other day, motherfricker?
[Dedalus out.]
It’s not that he bridges the gap, he just says that there isn’t one. If you look at Kant’s philosophy from an effective view the noumena really doesn’t add anything at all. Again, in the effective view, we can now just take the noumena and discard it without losing anything from Kant at all. The way he actually proves that the noumena doesn’t exist is more complicated and involves working through the contradictions of Kant’s own philosophy. Essentially, since identity is composed by self-referential difference (absolute difference) we cannot speak of an apple without implicitly speaking of a not pear or a not cherry etc. The web of negations to an identity is what gives it its structure. When we speak of things-in-themselves we are injecting a false dichotomy where things can be in-themselves and for-us. The operation of contradiction works on the level of the for-us and presents a “proof” of the essence of the in-itself by working through consciousness. But, this distinction of in-itself and for-us takes place in consciousness and as such we can say that the thing itself is in-itself-for-us. Thus, the path we take to the Truth in-itself that we thought was exterior to the truth is actually itself predicated on a distinction which takes place in consciousness. We have to posit the thing-itself as the base of transcendental philosophy in order to prove that it exists. Here’s Hegel’s own words on it:
>The content, however, of what presents itself to us does exist for it [for the consciousness]; we comprehend only the formal aspect of that content, or it’s pure origination. For it, what has thus arisen exists only as an object; for us, it appears at the same time as movement and a process of becoming.
>When we speak of things-in-themselves we are injecting a false dichotomy where things can be in-themselves and for-us.
I don't understand this, especially the sense of "for-us." Nothing in the world is for me as if it was wrapped up as a gift with a bow on top. It's just there, regardless if I'm there or not. Seems like a weird solipsism.
>I don't understand this, especially the sense of "for-us."
Try to think of it as being-for-other rather than use the of "for us." I think that's where the solipsistic part of your argument is emerging from. Objects, things, and people implicitly exist as beings-in-themselves, and are also beings-for-themselves, but they also necessarily have being-for-another. Being-in-itself (Ansichsein) and being-for-itself (Fuersichsein) are the same as, and are logically necessitated by, being-for-another. The person's or object's being-in-and-for-itself would have no validity, no existence, without its recognition by another. The person or object must be for another what it is in itself.
I missed the crucial conclusion. The concept is simple: the object's essence, its identity of being in and for itself, is its absolute recognition by another. Its being-in-itself is its being-for-another.
Is being-for-other related to appearances and how being-in-itself "communicates" with itself?
Spirit is being-for-another. The German word for existence is Dasein, and existence posits that being is sufficiently for-itself. But it is not in-itself, because it is not reflected into anything. But since Being and Becoming exist, there is a for-itself that brings spirit to a certain point. So being is presented to us as a given thing, in the same way that concepts are given to us: being is reflected in our cognition and as a consequence of this, being-for-another (us) is essentially the subjective concept as such.
Yes, but to be more precise, Spirit is what is itself in its being-for-another. The simplest form of Spirit is found in consciousness, as Hegel says at the beginning of the Philosophy of Spirit, in the Encyclopedia. Consciousness can possess external determinations, while still being itself, while what is not spiritual, natural entities, are incapable of mantaining their self-identity when external determinations are posited in them. So, consciousness can endure the determination "tree" (by thinking it, percieving, etc) while still remaining consciousness; on the other hand if you add, say, the determination of a different weight to an atom of gold, the atom will lose its properties and become something else.
Consciousness of course is the simplest determination of Spirit because its determination are external: consciousness can merely endure them. In Absolute Spirit those determinations are not external anymore, since they have been fully produced by Spirit (and since this production was necessary for Spirit to be itself).
>since they have been fully produced by Spirit
esentially doing the same thing as being, yes.
yes yes... indubitably so
But Dasein is being towards death. Hegel's master-slave dialectic is reversed because it's corrupted by Christianity. Hegel was banging his maid when he wrote it.
Same, all it took for me is to read the preface and I GOT Hegel. Don't even need to read the rest
You got Hegel's poz? Good.
bump
OP here, thanks for the bump. The Phenomenology is life affirming in so many wonderful and wondrous ways.
i'm bumping because I want an answer to my question:
>The Phenomenology is life affirming in so many wonderful and wondrous ways.
Name 5 (Five).
why would you ruin this for me?
Because, dialectically, ruin gives way to rebirth, the entity of which is stronger than ever.
Incarnation of God's Will Manifested in Relatable/Empircal Human Form
>this way God can communicate with you morons in your simple languages/memes/shitposts...
Remember, Earth is God's Real Heaven/Hell...