Hegel thread. I know a few of you niggers are reading the Phenomenology, where are you in the book and what do you think?
literally got my copy todayi'll let you know once i bother reading it
>>24677393I got filtered by the entire section on religion and hence absolute knowing but I think I'm understanding it better now. Hegel is definitely not an atheist, people who think he is saying "God is just the same as man" are getting filtered badly.
>>24677393Funnily enough my class just started talking about Hegel in my Sociology theory class yesterday. Seems like a relatively chill guy compared to his forerunners .though lol . >>24677418From what I've got from what we've read . God is just pure consciousness and he's behind the inevitable change within society ?
>>24677393I can't take it seriously knowing how the plutocrats are using his philosophy on their regime, same happened to Plato's
>>24677473At least in the Phenomenology of Spirit, God is the essence, the in-itself of reality. As you move through the book you see consciousness dally with various defective forms of this essence - it's an unreachable beyond before which I must annihilate myself; or, it's a beyond to which I can give only token obedience; etc. On the other hand, there are defective forms of universality all of which end up suppressing/alienating individuality. Absolute spirit turns out to be the universal reconciliation of the opposition between universal duty and the particularity of action, in the form of judging/universal consciousness and singular, active consciousness - it's forgiveness, absolution, this is the true essence in which our relationships with others make sense. We have to know this essence as our truth and if it wasn't the knowing of a consciousness, it wouldn't be adequate to being the highest truth.But religion per se only ends in representational thought and has to be transcended by absolute knowing. But if absolute knowing is a sort of union with God in a matrix of forgiveness, then it is just the genuinely religious life, which Hegel calls absolute knowing instead. On the other hand, you could say that it's anti-religious because it attacks the separation of God and man.
What do I have to read before hegel
>>24677620The more the better but in principle you could read him blind. You could read his History of Philosophy first. I dunno I am early in reading him but I did not have trouble starting with the Phenomenology. Hegel did intend it to be the introduction to his system. I realize from a response last thread that I really need to get through his Logic to properly understand what he's doing.
STOP READING FUCKING HEGEL WHILE I'M STILL STUCK ON KANT REEEEEEE
Philosophy after 1500 ian't worth selling
>>24677651>Kantlol, lmao even. Hegel explodes him, there's nothing left of Kant but a smoking crater and charred bits of peruke."While idealism expresses the simple unity of self-consciousness as being all reality and immediately makes it the essence, without comprehending it as the absolutely negative essence - for only this absolutely negative essence has in its own self negation, i.e., determinateness, or the difference itself - it is along these lines that there is a second idealism even more incomprehensible than the first idealism [that posits a thing-in-itself]. This second idealism declares that there are differences in the category, or species of the category. This assurance itself, just like the assurance about any determinate number of species of the category, is a new assurance, which, however, contains in its own self the claim that we no longer need to accept it as an assurance. For while it is in the pure I, in the pure understanding itself, that difference itself gets underway, it is thereby posited that immediacy, issuing assurances, finding the given, is to be abandoned here, and comprehension is to begin. However, to take up again the plurality of categories in some way or other as something we simply come upon, for example in judgments, and then to continue to put up with them in that form, is in fact to be regarded as a disgrace to science. Where is the understanding supposed to be capable of demonstrating necessity if it is incapable of demonstrating the pure necessity it has within itself?" 235
>>24677675Unreadable.
>>24677798He's saying that the basic concept of idealism is that self-consciousness is all reality and there's nothing outside of it - Kant's thing-in-itself being a mistake in this regard, and Fichte's Anstoss too. But it's an even greater error not to realize that the mode of the I's acting in the world are part of the I itself. Kant makes the mistake of seeing the differences of our thinking about the world as existing 'on their own', arbitrarily deriving them from logical judgments. It's a failure to appreciate the self as pure negativity; here it's understood as a "thing" (the simple intellect) opposed to a bunch of other "things" (the 12 categories). If self-consciousness is all reality its mode of relating to the world should be unified and intelligible, not ad hoc and retarded.
>>24677591Yes but if you pay attention the entire point of the section on Religion is that man forms representations of the self-consciousness of spirit which are all inadequate. So Jesus for example is sublated. In absolute knowing, absolute spirit is self-conscious because are are conscious of the essence of ourselves - spirit is conscious of itself. So like all the other idealist theologies it's a sort of anthropocentric atheism. Hegel rejects the idea that God is actually something apart from ourselves.
>>24677915Also note that the three shapes of religion correspond to the forms of Consciousness. Absolute knowing is self-consciousness.
>>24677620try this
Observing Reason is a slog, like driving through Nebraska. Nothing else to add at this time.
>>24678223Based chart, the Theoretical Outline is indeed a must-read. Fichte wrote the Foundation on the fly so he had to compress his Deduction of Representation so much it’s almost incomprehensible. But that’s some major shit, and the Theoretical Outline treats it in depth. I do think you should read the Nova Methodo lectures first of all. Beiser only shits on them because they directly contradict his reading of Fichte lol
>>24678223>Maimon>no JacobiThis niggie can’t read German.
>>24678289Why do you keep shilling these lectures so hard? Does Breazeale’s estate deposit five cents in your account for every post?
>>24678388It’s just objectively better. In the original version, Fichte is trying to focus exclusively on perception and knowledge and exclude ethics. But his system is ethical idealism. Not only is the original version defective, it’s almost impossible to understand as written because he leaves out essential components. The relation of imagination to understanding is impossible to comprehend without ethics, but the Grundlagen only gives you an abstract, empty essence. It’s like he’s trying to be Reinhold but hasn’t come to grips with how different their systems really are. The lectures are an integrated system, the published version is a mere fragment. The lectures make intersubjectivity primary through the theory of the first moment of self-consciousness. And compare the abstraction of space/time/causality in the published books with their ethical concretion in the lectures.“If they’re so great why didn’t Fichte publish them?” Because he realized the weakness of his Kantian, transcendental stance in wake of Schelling. So for the rest of his life he’s making God the principle of consciousness and nature, fleeing the dualism he never had really intended. I spent months on the published Jena system, I didn’t really understand it until I read these lectures.
>>24678456He also realized how fucking retarded the general reading public actually was after the atheism controversy. He decided live lectures where he could interact with the audience were the only way to impart philosophy. Unfortunately this means all we have of Fichte are what he would see as the dead letter of the written word. But the spirit gives life… Nature is nothing but imagination.
The tragedy is Fichte rushed through a bullshit version of his system in 1794 because he needed the money. Then he got so buttblasted by the hostile response to this gimp of a published metaphysics that he never publicly completed it. So he’s a footnote when he ought to be a main character. Hegel’s system is formal and reaches an artificial conclusion. The amnesty of absolute spirit would be subject to its own dissolution, and Fichte grasps the eternal motion and instability of consciousness in his I=I. Hegel wants to sublate this movement in a final reconciliation, but it’s impossible.
>>24677620start with spinoza, then follow the chart already posted here (monadology -> baumgarten's metaphysics -> kant). only after finishing the kant on the chart you should read some jacobi (hegel was inspired by him) then move on to the rest of the works listed there.all of the summaries of hegel's work in this thread are wrong, just screenshot my post and stop browsing from here. unfortunately for some reason every pseud who hears about german idealism once in their lives immediately attaches themselves to some random philosopher categorized under it and rushes into these threads to shill their oshi (who has apparently already solved all of philosophy) while simultaneously actively misconstruing their own arguments in order to make their "opponents" seem like unga bunga cavemen and themselves like the only sane person in existence. i am no exception. leave now.hegel x schelling ftw btw <3
>>24678541There is no bait in the realm of pure imagination.
>>24678541Spinoza was a nig honestly. “Everything is one… because it just IS, ok?” Spinoza’s logicism and rationalism inspired the worst in Hegel and Schelling. Fichte was immune. He had passed through a Spinozist phase as a youth… he put it behind him like a man immediately upon reading the Critique of Pure Reason.
>>24678598Are you retarded? Even if you don't 100% agree with Spinoza (which I don't even do) reading him is still necessary for understanding Kant and others' critiques of him and precisely why his philosophy was freedom-restricting and ultimately needed to be superseded. Also>unironically believes Spinoza thought le everything is godEthics is pretty much the only thing you need to read of his and it's barely over a hundred pages. Then you can call Spinoza a jewish faggot (which he was) with confidence. But even though it would be incredibly easy to find out what Spinoza actually thought you decided to pollute this board with your troglodyte nonsense about how Fichte (who you also don't understand) totally destroys the dictionary.com definition of "pantheism" you just googled. I hope you get sodomized by a hairy fat old man like the twink in my yaois.
>>24678811>like the twink in my yaois.Opinion disregarded faggot.
Bump
This board needs the idealists
>>24678811>random, bawling assertionsI have read the Ethics. You seem to assume I think Spinoza was an eleatic monist. But my shitpost was specifically calling out his ontological argument.
>>24681028Don't worry, he didn't actually read your post, which was why he had a stroke midway and started bitching about pantheism when you never mentioned it.
I’m surprised more of the fedora crowd aren’t into idealism.“Within conscience, spirit subjugates itself just as it has subjected its objective world per se; it also subjugates its representational thought and its determinate concepts, and it is now self-consciousness existing at one with itself. Within the latter, spirit for itself, represented as object, signifies the universal spirit which contains all essence and all actuality within itself; however, it is not in the form of free-standing actuality or in the form of self-sufficient phenomenal nature. Spirit has, to be sure, a shape, or the form of being, as it is an object of consciousness. However, because in religion this consciousness is posited as having the essential determination of self-consciousness, the shape it takes is completely transparent to itself, and the actuality that it contains is enclosed in it, or is sublated in it, exactly in the manner in which we say “all actuality”. It is universal actuality, the actuality that has been thought.”lol if you said what he’s saying there in plain German you’d be run out of town on a rail. All of modern “spirituality”, liberal Christianity, secular humanism, yoga mats, was foreseen and fostered by le German wizardmen.
Even the ol’ “Jesus was a great moral teacher but then Paul ruined everything!” goes back to Fichte.
>>24677658Are you saying Marsilio Ficino was the last good philosopher?
>>24677651Which works of Kant have you read so far?
>>24678223This should come between Baumgarten and Kant
>>24677473>Funnily enough my class just started talking about Hegel in my Sociology theory class yesterdayBe concise. You could've just said "My Sociology theory class started talking about Hegel yesterday."
>>24677620https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1716171773589549527
>>24681130It’s amusing how Hegel tries to transcend the enlightenment and criticizes its atheism and deism but ends up in such a similar place. Just Kant or Fichte with an accent on forgiveness.Politically I’d say PoS is not liberal or communist, it’s if anything anarchist. Hegel shows how any “democratic” mass movement collapses into tyranny and what moves us forward is man apart from the state in free and private intercourse. He even theorizes about how we’d move past the state - modern, enlightenment societies turn out to be so repressive, and also so empty, that man spontaneously finds himself. An absolutely negative state turns out to be really nothing. And lots of idealists were anarchists, just look at The Oldest Program, or Fichte himself was an anarchist/communist. Some people read absolute knowing as describing some souped-up liberal state but I don’t see that at all. Absolute knowing is the Amnesty of conscience + the sublating of religion.
>>24678223We need a chart for Schelling's work.
Kant pierced my soul. Hegel ain't shit
>>24681157I hate him. Write me why you like him I won’t be mean. To me early Schelling is just playing silly games. “Nature and consciousness are… one!” “Ok and what does that mean, how does your thought develop?” “Well like a=a and a=b and then like (bla bla bla) magnetic poles (bla bla bla) self-positing (bla bla bla).” It just seems like a goofy schema he tries to apply to everything. His system is stultifying, formal and symmetrical, to me.
>>24681173The major flaw in Schelling is that he seeks unity via difference. So there is no unity, he actually introduced division into Fichte’s system thinking he was unifying it. Not only ought the not-I not to exist, the not-I doesn’t really exist at all, it’s all in our imagination.
>>24681173Nobody reads early Schelling you idiot. Start with the Freedom essay. It’s a high iq version of Schopenhauer.
>>24681137False, it goes back to the Freemasons.
I think I was on self-consciousness when I stopped. Im too much of a brainlet and was getting way over my head
>>24681171I read Deleuze's on grounding, it had some distinctly Hegelian features. I can see why you're protective of your bizarro version. I secretly suspect the Deleuze may have realized something, not sure what or if it was even relevant, there's some distinct diametrically opposing concepts I encounter periodically that leave me inclined to say he may have performed the process intentionally in such a way as to disintegrate certain recognition features. It could just be something along the lines of an early work vs a later work. By comparison, the reason Kant is traditionally used as a stoic for a facsimile of Hegel was likely due to Kant rejecting primacy of Being, doctrine of essence, and doctrine of notion. Epistemology was arguably his highest priority, or at the least the central point of his system. This produces his machine surrounded by fog persona.
The only part of this book worth reading is when he calls for the “total inversion” of the Jews.
>>24681130Was Hegel really an atheist?
>>24681568He was a Lutheran and his philosophy is Lutheran fundamentally. Absolute idealism is Christian at the deepest level. If you remove this you get a gimped materialist version that’s not really coherent
>>246811450.5 of CoPR and I didn't get the full argument so now I have to read the Analytic again except that I need help so I'm reading secondary literature now but I don't get what Descartes, Spinoza and Hume are saying (in the secondary literature) so I ordered the Copleston History book for understanding those before I can move on with the secondary literature and I'm about to jump off a roof
2nd paragraph. Nigga goes on a rant about preface in the 1st and then begins writing one from the second.
>>24681731No, he sees religion as merely a representation of philosophy. He does not think “God” is actually apart from us at all, but that’s humanistic atheism.
>>24681451>Kant is traditionally used as a stoic for a facsimile of HegelThat's a tradition of the royal academy of fuckwits.
>>24683617Deleuze used the same premises, does that make him a product of the royal academy of fuckwits?
The entire section on Religion is very based, probably my favorite part overall. He talks about how our understanding of the gods changes with ourselves; so for example sacrifices are part of the process of the gods becoming “more human” because the priest is acting in their stead and the people eat most of the food. This process plays out too in drug cults, the Bacchantes etc - you’re consuming the gods in those rites. As the ethical society breaks down the gods are sublated completely and you end up with comedy. This death of the gods leads to man seeing God as man - Christianity. So on Hegel’s telling Christianity has more to do with Greek and Latin comedy than it did the ot. Lots of cool shit in this part.
>>24683606Yes, many are filtered by the idealists because they read their esoteric language as expressing conventional theism or “mysticism”. If Hegel was alive today he’d include pronouns in his emails. It’s a progressive, atheistic, secular school overall. Fichte was the only one autistic enough to rise to the level of what you might call “devout atheism”, a priest of reason as he called himself.
W-what are you talking about Hegel?“ SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, which is aware of being the reality, has its object within itself, but an object which, at first, is merely its own (für sich), and is not yet in actual existence. Existence stands opposed to it as a reality other than its own; and the aim of self-consciousness consists in carrying out what it is “for itself” so as to see itself as another independent being. This first purpose is to become conscious, in that other self-consciousness, of itself as an individual, to turn this other into its own self. It has the assurance that this other already is essentially itself.In so far as it has risen from out of the substance of ethical life and the quiescent state of thought, and attained its conscious independence, it has left behind the law of custom and of substantial existence, the kinds of knowledge acquired through observation, and the sphere of theory; these lie behind it as a gray shadow that is just vanishing. For this latter is rather a knowledge of something, the independent existence (Fürmichseyn) and actuality of which are other than those of self-consciousness. It is not the seemingly divine spirit of universality in knowledge and action, wherein (all individual) feeling and enjoyment are stilled, that has passed into and fills this new level of self-consciousness; but the spirit of the earth, a spirit which holds that being alone as true reality which is the reality of individual consciousness.It repudiates sense and scienceThe highest gifts possessed by men-It has gone over to the devil,And must be o'erthrown”
>>24683978Of God no… not… THAT!“It plunges thus into life, and carries to its completion the pure individuality in which it appears. It does not so much make its own happiness as take it directly and enjoy it. The grey shades of science, laws and principles, which alone stand between it and its own reality, vanish like a lifeless mist that cannot contend against the living certainty of its reality. It takes to itself life much as a ripe fruit is plucked, which comes to meet the hand that takes it. Its action is only in one respect an act of Desire; it does not aim at abolishing the objective fact in its entirety, but only the form of its otherness or objectivity, which is an unreal appearance; for it holds this to be inherently and implicitly the same reality as its own self. The sphere in which desire and its object subsist independently and indifferent towards each other is that of living existence; the enjoyment of desire cancels this existence, so far as it belongs to the object of desire. But here this element, which gives to both separate and distinct actuality, is rather the category, a form of being which has essentially the character of a presented being. It (i.e. the element) is therefore the consciousness of independence — it may be natural consciousness, or the consciousness developed into a system of laws — which preserves the individuals each for himself. This separation does not per se hold for self-consciousness, which knows the other as its own proper self-hood. It attains therefore to the enjoyment of Pleasure, to the consciousness of its actualization in a consciousness which appears as independent, or to the intuition of the unity of both independent self-consciousnesses. It succeeds in its purpose, but only to learn there what the truth of that purpose is. It conceives itself as this individual self-existent (Fürmichseyn) being; but the actualization of this purpose is just the cancelling of the purpose. For it comes consciously to be, not object in the sense of a given particular individual, but rather as unity of its self and the other self-consciousness, consequently as cancelled and transcended individual, i.e. as universal.“
>>24681192Why?
>>24683978>>24683984Who knew Hegel was so lewd?
You will never truly know Hegel, if you haven't read him in German, you pseuds.
Did somebody say "Hegel", lol?
>>24684963Same for Nietzsche. If non-fiction can't be translated, it's fiction.
>>24684993Notice how he stares into your soul with his right eye.
>>24685062Hegel uses a whole new language, it's not like Nietzsche who's just a great German stylist. You don't get it, if you don't speak German.
>>24685082>You don't get it, if you don't speak German.Agree to disagree, mein freund.
>>24684963>>24685062quatsch. Man muss ein großer Depp sein um die deutsche Philosophie auf Deutsch zu lesen! Hegel, in etwa, ist Kauderwelsch im Original. Leute wie Kojève machen daraus aber tatsächlich soetwas wie Philosophie!Das gilt natürlich nur für Kauderwelsch: Schelling, Fichte, Hegel etc.
Hallo Hallo ich kann Deutsch. Guten tag meine Freunden, heute werden wir ein guter Tag haben und sehr viel unser Deutsch verbessern so dass wir die großen deutschen Verfasser lesen kann.
>>24685170Alles hat ein Ende, nur die Wurst hat zwei.
>>24685177kek
>>24685082I know for a fact that you don’t get much from reading Greek or Latin philosophers in the original, doubt very much that it’s any different for German. “Dasein is literally being-there and bestimmung can mean vocation whoahhh shit dude wtf” give me a break. He wasn’t writing German anyway he was writing in the idealist argot.
>>24686299>t. doesn't know German
>>24686303Yeah I don’t, and I’m not such a pseud as to think it’s valueless. But I have definitely met people online who taught themselves German but still can’t understand Hegel.
Re: religion and God people just get filtered by not reading carefully. The idealists like to use theological language to talk about very modern and non-theistic ideas. Hegel clearly thought Christianity was, at best, a mythological rendition of idealism. Spirit is not God in an other world but if you reject that other-worldliness you’ve rejected Christianity, full stop, and all theism. He thought Christ simply represented man’s being the first principle and the Phenomenology criticizes Christianity on multiple fronts.“This spiritual religious community does not have a consciousness about what it is; it is spiritual self-consciousness which, to itself, is not this object, or does not develop into a consciousness of itself; rather, to the extent that it is consciousness, it has those representational thoughts that have been examined.” EtcAnyone who thinks Hegel was a pantheist, a Christian, a “mystic” is a fucking pseud who doesn’t know how to read. If he was alive today he’d play pickleball with his boomer academic friends and have an npr tote bag.
>>24677393>german idealismno thanks
Also reading his bio by Pinkard. He comes across as very Widmerpoolish. Like he wasn’t really brilliant but brute forced his way into being a famous philosopher. On the other hand you could read it as encouraging that such a mediocre person could go so far. But the phenomenology is so gay. He thinks forgiveness will solve everything, it’s the end of history, spirit knowing itself. Nigger, Origen and Augustine knew about forgiveness, forgiveness is not a post-Kantian discovery. I think his criticisms of modernity are on point; in general, it’s a great book. Retarded ending though. He takes you down this path of despair and at the last second waves a magic wand “no more despair is forgive :)” He was still so Schellingian, it is sad.
>>24686593false and gay. Hegel was an autocratic mystical wizard.
>>24686597German idealism is the operator’s manual of the modern world. Those autists had it all figured out. You might not be interested in idealism but idealism is interested in you. These were the first people to seriously, intelligently work out what it means for man to be first. The song they make me think of is XTC’s Dear God
>>24686602Yes, Hegel is very overrated. Fichte is very underrated. But in general idealism is a dead end because man is not first, or, the essence of man is to know that he is not first.
This passage slays dogmatists. Hegel was such a rascal.Brain-fibres and the like, looked at as forms of the being of mind, are already an imagined, a merely hypothetical actuality of mind — not its presented reality, not its felt, seen, in short not its true reality. If they are present to us, if they are seen, they are lifeless objects, and then no longer pass for the being of mind. But its objectivity proper must take an immediate, a sensuous form, so that in this objectivity qua lifeless — for the bone is lifeless so far as the lifeless is found in the living being itself — mind is established as actual.The principle involved in this idea is that reason claims to be all thinghood, even thinghood of a purely objective kind. It is this, however, in conceptu: or, only this notion is the truth of reason; and the purer the notion itself is, the more silly an idea does it become, if its content does not take the shape of a notion (Begriff) but of a mere presentation or idea (Vorstellung)-if the self-superseding judgment is not taken with the consciousness of this its infinity, but is taken as a stable and permanent proposition, the subject and predicate of which hold good each on its own account, self fixed as self, thing as thing, while one has to be the other all the same.Reason, essentially the notion, is immediately parted asunder into itself and its opposite, an opposition which just for that reason is immediately again superseded. But if it presents itself in this way as both itself and its opposite, and if it is held fast in the entirely isolated moment of this disintegration, reason is apprehended in an irrational form; and the purer the moments of this opposition are, the more glaring is the appearance of this content, which is either alone for consciousness, or alone expressed ingenuously by consciousness.The “depth” which mind brings out from within, but carries no further than to make it a presentation (Vorstellung), and let it remain at this level — and the “ignorance” on the part of this consciousness as to what it really says, are the same kind of connexion of higher and lower which, in the case of the living being, nature naïvely expresses when it combines the organ of its highest fulfilment, the organ of generation, with the organ of urination. The infinite judgment qua infinite would be the fulfilment of life that comprehends itself, while the consciousness of the infinite judgment that remains at the level of presentation corresponds to urination.
>>24686667He is saying that materialist philosophy is like pissing and idealism is the other one.
>>24686667
Hopefully it’ll be slow at work and I can finish my second reading of PoS. Then I’ll be an absolute knower, in layman’s terms, a mage. I swear he wrote the last section dense af to discourage people from skipping to the end.
