Why is there a sudden interest in Hegel on /lit/? It seems there's so many posts about him lately. Not that I'm complaining, he's pretty neat, I'm just curious. The same thing is happening with Schopenhauer.>Everyone please read John Owen also, kek.
performative reading
>>24738453The geist wills it so
Hegel has always been big on /lit/ because people see him as the "final boss" and think if they understand him they'll win at reading.
>>24738506this. hes midwit attractive parsimony alone renders hegel worthless
I can barely handle Descartes. I think I'm just a little bit stupid bros...
>>24738453Sounds like you're using the manipulative version of the bandwagon fallacy. You made this thread so people would discuss him. Okay.
>>24738453It's maybe three or four people, that's it. It's the same handful in each thread.
>>24738456I've read some philosophy. Have had enough of the philosophers to be honest. I am a religious man, a Muslim, faith is my source of truth.I don't read to show off, I read to attain knowledge. Ilm, knowledge. It is an actually an obligation of my religion. Seeking Ilm, seeking knowledge.Besides Koran, I read programming books. I'm a computer programmer. I'm trying to read more American authors as well. Also started selling books, if it goes well enough I might try publishing some independent authors. I want to support authors who write good books that succeed just on merit rather than obscenity and transgression as post-modernists do. I think we need a new literary movement what is pure and good, wholesome and worthy. Tired of this depressing, edgy, post-modernism. Everything is so dark and serious. We could use a bit of light.Gonna read that corndog book, Corndog Zen. Also, Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Kesey and more Steinbeck.
>>24738535So naturally you're familiar with the esteemed Rene Guenon
>>24738535>I think we need a new literary movement what is pure and good, wholesome and worthy. Tired of this depressing, edgy, post-modernism. Everything is so dark and serious. We could use a bit of light.I think that 9/11 traumatized the American psyche and brought about a general malaise and disorientation.https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7The government narrative of 9/11 is a lie and it has killed 4.5 million of my people in the Middle East so far, we now have clear and scientific proof of this lie. It was a false flag attack by zionist Jews for the expansion of their imperialist project in Palestine.But to keep things relevant, bringing things back to literature, I think it really screwed up the American psyche. At this point, our culture has been so dark and edgy and serious for so long that I think we need a bit of relief. Light heartedness, goodness and purity, warmth. A recovery.
>>24738539No, and I don't consider him great and esteemed. Confused and heretical, syncretic nonsense to be honest. If you want to know Islam, read the Koran, Hadith, and Tafsir. If you want more to read, consider the books of history and the mystical tradition. That is an immense amount of literature. The Koran and Hadith alone make entire careers out of scholars. No need for esoteric syncretism or strange books of heresy.
>>24738557Just convert. Islam is just warmed-over Christianity
>>24738514>everything I don’t like is midwit
>>24738453Hegel is good to understand the evolution of western thought between XIX and XX century, and its important to grasp his insights on dialectics since its a philosophical conception of change. But people are using Hegel for the most stupid reasons nowadays>let me analyze modern art through Hegel aesthetics!!!Nigger are you dumb or something?
>>24738776Will name dropping Hegel / pretending I understand him get me art hoes?
>>24738453>suddenYou are just new.
>>24738453>suddenly
Imagine how much better the world would be if Hegel never existed or published his works
>>24738818No you’ll only attract fallout new Vegas fans who heard of Hegelian dialectic being incorrectly explained by Caesar
>>24738967we can only dream
>>24738967>>24739815Society would be the same except you'd have more Fichte and Schelling threads
Why indeed
>>24738453More people are jobless or bored so once they finish entertaining themselves with video games, drugs and music they start reading philosophy. Hegel being the natural conclusion after the Greeks and the other classics.
>>24738974Alright anon I'll take your bait. What did fallout new Vegas get wrong about thesis and antithesis?
>>24738453Sitting down to read the Logic I feel like I'm about to force myself to run a mile without stopping. The language of the Phenomenology is harder but the ideas here are so much more abstract here that it's the more challenging work. It makes me feel nauseous, it literally makes me sweat.>The repulsion of the one from itself is the explication of that which the one is in itself; but infinity as explicated is here the infinity which has come forth from itself; it has come forth from itself by virtue of the immediacy of the infinite, the one. It is a simple relating of the one to the one, and no less also the absolute absence of relation in the one; it is the former according to the simple, affirmative self-relation of the one, and the latter according to the self-same relation as negative. In other words, the plurality of the one is its own positing; the one is nothing but the negative relation of the one to itself, and this relation-and therefore the one itself-is the plural one. But equally, plurality is absolutely external to the one; for the one is, precisely, the sublating of otherness; repulsion is its self-relation and simple equality with itself. The plurality of ones is infinity as a contradiction which unconstrainedly produces itself.REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>24739837First of all Hegel doesn't use antithesis and synthesis. That is a pleb myth.As they say in Boondocks: "read, nigger, read!"
>>24739838Read slow, most people take months if not a year+ to understand the Logic. If you spend an hour or two with it every day you will make progress.
>>24738535>It is an actually an obligation of my religion. Seeking Ilm, seeking knowledge.bro thinks hes special lmaooo
>>24738456TRVKE
>>24738453Why did Heidegger kind of not like Hegel?His works on Hegel are incredibly superficial in material.Is it because Hegel already understood closeness to Being the greek way, but no one listened to those parts and instead we got fag communist jews focusing on his word choice when describing property?
>>24739968Probably because Hegel had already btfo'd the metaphysics of presence and he was jelly. His whole claim to fame is "le absence" but Hegel said that being and nothing were the same in 1810. Hegel even goes out of his way to criticize all precedent metaphysical systems as ignoring nothing and focusing too much on being and the in-itself.
>>24739976So why didnt Heidegger see him as a bro like Hölderlin? Hegel and Hölderlin were irl bros; Heidi could have written a great analytical piece on their reciprocal influence between poet and denker.
>>24739981Didn't Hegel and Holderlin practically live together at one point? And it was in that time that they became friends.When you are separated by decades of time it makes it easier to be spiteful.
>>24739985I always wondered if that line in the preface to PoS about the 'loony chatter' of 'genius' poets was a dig at Holderlin.
>>24739838Sweateth, puketh, shitteth, run the mile, but don't you dare quit!
>>24739985yes, I believe they were roommates in Tübingen studying together, and remained in correspondence afterwards for quite some time.
>>24739968Heidegger liked Hegel plenty. See the 1940s notes and course on Hegel where he grapples with the Logic. Heidegger had reservations about the theoretical mindset required to get the Phenomenology and Logic started, but that reservation holds for other philosophers Heidegger "liked", he just didn't think it was helpful for what he was doing. From the 40s material:>The explorations that we are attempting in the form of a discussion should not interrupt the course of your work of interpreting Hegel’s Logic. The questions that we are striving toward are also not intended to “intrude on” Hegel’s philosophy from the outside with the “impatience of incidental reflection,” which is thoroughly contrary to a system of thinking, particularly of the Hegelian type, and must therefore also be fruitless.>It is also true that Hegel does not simply serve us as an arbitrary opportunity and foothold for a philosophical confrontation. His philosophy stands definitively in the history of thinking—or should we say: of beyng—as the singular and not yet comprehended demand for a confrontation with it. This demand holds for any thinking that comes after it or for any thinking that simply wants to—and perhaps must—prepare again for philosophy.>Nietzsche, who freed himself very slowly and rather late from the pathetic slander and disregard for Hegel that he inherited from Schopenhauer, once said that “we Germans are Hegelians, even if there had never been a Hegel.”>The singularity of Hegel’s philosophy consists primarily in the fact that there is no longer a higher standpoint of self-consciousness of spirit beyond it. Thus any future, still higher standpoint over against it, which would be superordinate to Hegel’s system—in the manner by which Hegel’s philosophy for its part and in accord with its point of view had to subordinate every previous philosophy—is once and for all impossible.>All the same, if the standpoint of a necessary confrontation with Hegel’s philosophy is to be on equal footing with it, and that means of course that it is in an essential respect superior to it, while at the same time not brought to and forced on it from the outside, then this standpoint of the confrontation must in fact lie concealed in Hegel’s philosophy—as its own essentially inaccessible and indifferent ground. However, that and why the standpoint of Schelling’s late philosophy may in no way be taken up as a standpoint superior to Hegel shall not be dealt with here.>In view of the uniqueness of the standpoint of his philosophy, the confrontation with Hegel is also subject to unique conditions. It has nothing in common with any sort of “critique,” that is, an account of what is incorrect, which would be derived from applying the standards of preceding standpoints or of earlier standpoints that, in the meantime, have been revised—for instance, those of Kantianism, Medieval-Scholasticism, or Cartesianism.
>>24739845>Hegel didn't use...Let me stop you right there. Not only was he trained in it he expanded upon it.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
>>24739968Hegel subsumes nothingness without truly confronting it ontologically altho perhaps ontically and meta-physical/psychological-ly he has many truths...
>>24739968Western philosophy after Hegel feels like an afterbirth desu.
>>24740014Read yr own link (pic related)
>>24740017He doesn't "subsume" it, it drives literally everything.
feel like these niggas never say anything
>>24740030Not actual nothing. Idgaf what yr sol shit says
>>24738453Spinoza is outHegel is in
>>24740237Protestants rising
>>24740235"Actual" nothing, by which I assume you mean abstract nothing, does not exist any more than does abstract being. So you're another anon who has picked up some anti-Hegel arguments from postmodern youtube channels but hasn't read the Logic.
>>24740277>the SoL is true because it says it isBraindead. Hegel makes fun of you in PoS preface btw
>>24740295I never said the SoL was true, I said you haven't read it and are lazily parroting arguments you've heard elsewhere.
Is this picture related true, bros? Anons have tried to explain it to me but I truly don’t understand why Hegel would bother with Christianity if he was not a fundamentalist at heart. I’d like to think that he’s like Augustine or Aquinas, and that he’s using philosophy to support Christianity, but it just seems highly unlikely.
>>24740310>you disagree so you must have not read itPleb
>>24740313Yes, Hegel is the closest you will come to God in this life. And as in salvation the point is apt, as in Hegel's philosophy, when understood, you become God, not simply one with God, or one of God's, but God himself; reading Hegel is salvation in that sense. From Kant through the German Idealists to Hegel they are all beautiful Chrsitian figures that less philosophically developed cultures simply fail to recognize. It's like comparing Boethius to the common jewish rabbi. The rabbi will appear like a rat in a gutter contemplating his God compared to the perfect philosopher who encompasses all of antiquity's philosophy.Pope Benedikt had no problem referencing these German thinkers because he recognized (even if feebly) their devout Christian nature. You could not expect almost anyone else in the catholic church, let alone any of the debased protestant strains, to recognize that.
>>24740608>t. Damned heretic
>>24740313It's off-base in claiming that Hegel thought reading his books would mean salvation. But besides that it's basically correct.
>>24740669I'm catholic, thank you.
>>24740608>And as in salvation the point is apt, as in Hegel's philosophy, when understood, you become God, not simply one with God, or one of God's, but God himself; reading Hegel is salvation in that sense.Is this a proper use of commas and semi-colons?
