>what logic is cannot be stated beforehand, rather does this knowledge of what it is first emerge as the final outcome and consummation of the whole exposition.
The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk. You won't get Hegel and will never get Hegel unless you actually do the work of reading the whole system and acheiving an intellectual intuition of the idea of the system as a whole and the role all the parts and moments play in the system and their true meaning in the context of that intuition of the whole. In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
>In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.
I both agree and disagree: I agree with the letter, but disagree with your spirit.
Take the Phenomenology. It is true that you won't understand the full project until you've gone through the entirety of it, but on the other hand each section is infinitely enlightening on its own. Even if you get stuck at Perception you have already elevated yourself over the standpoint of Sense-Certainity. This elevation didn't require faith, since the premise of those 8 pages is not found on the 8th page.
A similar thing happens in the Logic. You can assume each section as a potential beginning of pure thought (Hegel encourages you to do so, since he posits a parallelism between the Science of Logic and the history of philosophy — for example when you read the section on Being and Nothing you're reading about the standpoint of Parmenides, and its sublation, and when you get to Becoming you're reading about the principle of Heraclitus, and so on).
So here too you won't understand the entire system of logic until you get to the end of it, but the individual stations in this path do not require a leap of faith, and are insightful on their own.
The leap of faith is that all these incredible insights will add up to a complete system (which is to say, that this path does not include an infinite amount of stations), but this should not be seen as mere initiation, since even if this project fails the path traced by Hegel will elevate the reader to heights that he could have never imagined.
Sounds like giving yourself schizophrenia
>Sneed and Chuck are both sides of the same coin. To be Sneed IS to be Chuck and vice versa. It is only when it has been parceled by the pure negativity of the subject that the feed can become frick. To suck is not to act in opposition to seeding, it is to see seeding as sucking for-itself.
>Sneed, pure Sneed, without any further determination--
Is German a prerequisite for reading Hegel? What are the prerequisites?
No.
Understanding of Kant's arguments in the Critiques, knowledge of Platonic and pre-Socratic philosophy (esp. Parmenides, Heraclitus), autism.
Thanks buddeh!
So this guy wasn't smart enough to do basic philosophy and define terms or present his ideas rationally, and you have to guess your way through what he means while committing yourself religiously to reading his writings (and likely only his for a long, long time) until you're so brainwashed that you can't emotionally handle someone thinking any of Hegel's ideas were dumb based on your description of them?
No thanks, I'll read people who know how to use basic communication skills.
>here's why Hegel is shit
>no I've never read him lol who would do that
Lol. Lmao, even.
Exactly, the idea of reading Hegel when not a single person you or I have ever met has ever agreed on what he says and the entire OP reads like sunk cost: the novel, and when none of his ideas as presented to you by supposedly learned professors of Hegelian philosophy have ever sounded to you like anything other than mystical bullshit, there is no reason to take Hegel seriously enough to read him, and there is every reason to laugh at him and his sycophantic ideologues whenever you see them.
Hegelians are philosophical clowns.
Stay filtered, I guess.
Actually fricking filtered. You hate to see it.
The Hegelian can say nothing other than "filtered". Notice the inability of any of them to succinctly describe even the most simple of his ideas. It's because they don't understand them.
Your attitude towards Hegel is shit, that's why we're calling you out.
If you want a thinker whose ideas everyone agrees about you don't actually want to engage with philosophy, you want to be told what to think. There's no mass consensus about Plato's philosophy, or Parmenides (as proved by the dozens of threads concerning his ideas posted this summer), or someone as modern as Heidegger, so why is your standard of what a good philosopher is someone who lots of people agree about?
If you think all Hegel ever wrote is "mystical bullshit" you likely never even tried reading any of his work and are merely parroting memes about him being le spooky german occult wizard or some shit, or if you did you didn't have the necessary background knowledge to make sense of what you read and gave up instead of filling in the gaps in your knowledge.
The Phenomenology literally holds your hand through the stages of dialectic until you get to the worldview at the beginning of Hegel's system, and his writing style is easily understandable, even lucid, if you've read any work of philosophy before. Hell, the preface to the work tells you exactly what he's about to do and how, just in case you're not sure if reading it will be worth your time and you want a quick rundown before diving in.
Just because random people on IQfy or (may Allah forgive me for uttering this word) discord acted like morons doesn't mean the man himself is what he's made out to be or what you imagine him to be. If you read and understand the Preface and still decide he's not your cup of tea, then fine, but if your understanding of Hegel is solely based on secondary sources and you reject him without every even trying to understand what he's getting at you're doing yourself a severe disservice.
The hated of Hegel can just repeat that no one understands Hegel and no one agrees on what Hegel said, while having never read Hegel and while being surrounded by people who have read and understood him.
A modicum of disagreement in interpretations will always be present. Hell, you can find it in Humean scholarship, even though Hume is a very accessible writer. But to pretend that there is no agreement whatsoever simply means that you don't know what you're talking about (and that you're probably just parrotiny what Schopenhauer wrote while seething 200 years ago). But if you disagree with what I have said, please mention an author whose interpreters all agree on the meaning of his work.
Hater*
Why is it that you always have to read Hegel's works directly (in German for extra points) to "understand" him whereas secondary sources on Kant or Schopenhauer are enough to get a basic idea of their philosohy?
Because it is not true that secondary sources of, say, Kant can get you a basic idea of his philosophy. What you get is at best some conclusion which cannot be properly understood without seriously engaging with the text. Saying, for example, that for Kant the limit of theoretical knowledge is the sensible intuition might prima facie look understandable, but in fact this would be a completely unjustified assertion, unless you go AT LEAST through the transcendental aesthetics, the metaphysical and transcendental deduction of the categories, the doctrine of schematism, the refutatiof of idealism, the note on the separation of phenomena and noumena, and then the section on amphibolies. If you accept mere assertions of this sort, then you might as well accept the ones on Hegel's conclusions too: you're not going to understand them anyway.
And if you want to go through secondary literature to understand those individual sections you're fricked too, since there is extreme disagreement on how they're meant to be interpreted.
Notice that what I have said applies to apparently simpler writers too. The scholarship on Hume or Frege (who are usually deemed accessible, clear writers) is a battlefield too, to the point where it would be better to read the primary sources first, and only then check how much you agree with the interpretations you can find in the secondary sources.
Your post is groundbreaking. We should stop teaching philosophy at universities and just start handing out primary sources, since that's the only way to get a basic grasp of a particular thinker's philosophy.
This is pretty much what every scholar I know of already does tbh. They focus on primary sources first, then delve into secondary literature. The only exceptions are introductions and commentaries, which are usually read ALONGSIDE primary sources (in the case you get stuck somewhere).
In history of philosophy classes students (usually in the first 2 years of uni) will read textbooks containing summaries of dozens of philosophers, but these are usually pretty bad and should work only as an invitation to actually read said philosophers (otherwise your grasp of their actual thought will remain the one of a clueless dilettante).
>define terms or present his ideas rationally
These are straw men. Hegel actually defined terms quite often by making very simple and literal equations of terms. It’s just upsetting to some people who expect them to be presented in a highly geometric format, and also because without understanding dialectic, the contradictory attribution of a term to wildly different predicates seems unreasonable.
Hegel is the OG sissy hypno.
Not gonna lie, sounds a lot like scientology.