In philosophy I'm mostly interested in Hegel. I don't really want to read for years Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, etc. just to understand himI'm currently reading the introduction to the Lectures on the Philosophy of History and it's a bit hard, but manageableAre there any history of philosophy books that would give me a rough, general understanding of previous philosophers to tackle Hegel?I didn't like Plato, I didn't really care about what is justice, love, etc. Aristotle was more interesting, but difficult enough on his own and a sort of long-term reading project
>>25362851Do you want to, or need to? If it's the former, you haven't done enough preparatory reading.
>>25362851just read Kant if you want to understand...read Hegel if you want to get retarded...
>>25362851Just read a secondary source like JN Findlay’s book on Hegel. It will basically tell you what you’re in for from the perspective of an academic who has infinitely more time and effort to spend on it than you do anyway. Kant is the only one you really need to read Hegel anyway. Spinoza and Aristotle may be influences in some vague sense but you don’t need to read them or even anything about them to understand Hegel. I don’t have a secondary source for Kant though other than CD Broad’s book.
>>25362864I want to>>25362872What should I read of Kant? Would it be enough to read Allison's Transcendental Idealism and Kant's Prolegomena?
You have to read ALL of these. And I mean ALL of them.
>>25362851you can start with Routledge introduction to Hegel it covers all the background necessary in intial chapters. Btw hegel wrote his own history of philosophy book which might interest you.
>>25362887I'm actually reading that one at the moment, it's pretty interesting
>>25362883> Allison's Transcendental IdealismNever read it but since the author is probably an academic scholar and I’m some 4chan anon I imagine their book is probably better than my opinion on it would be anyway > Kant's ProlegomenaIt’s been years since I read prolegomena but I don’t recall it being particularly helpful. If you wanted to read the bare minimum of Kant just read the “dialectic of reason” section from the critique of pure reason.
>>25362851I'd recommend a video essay on the 'Tube on Hegel's basic ideas at this level.However deep the philosophy hole is, don't forget that you are yourself, and not Hegel.
>>25362886wow, it seems a bit overwhelming
>>25362901The first 14 actually aren’t. Theyre mostly fragments and short dialogues of Plato like Timaeus. Plus it doesn’t even say to read all the works but only excerpts ie only Genesis and exodus of the Bible
>>25362908I don't know if I would be able to read that many books, especially when I don't really care about themI doubt anyone on this site or anyone without a PhD really has done all this reading
>>25362919You think no one has read Book 6 of the Repunlic or Genesis before?
>>25362931I meant all of them just to read Hegel
>>25362940dood why are you interested in Hegel ? That is what Iam asking myself...As I said just read Kant (Critique of pure reason)You can read that book without reading anything before... and you will understand it completely...Why the fuck Hegel ???
>>25362983can you stop whining, people have their interest op might want to understand how Hegelian thought operates in reality. I hate fucking kantiancels always crying about Hegel
>>25362983I don't give a fuck about Kant, why are you shilling him to me?
>>25362994because Kant is what is our Zeitgeist today...Kant is what took 2000 year old Platonic and Aristotelian thought and turned it around into a new way of thinking...Kant is where metaphysics ended until today...Kant is the best among Plato and Aristotle...Kant is what you need to understand to actually get anything going on...Kant is the fucking goat...Kant is the final boss...while Hegel is... yeah... a pseud...a retarded one...at best an artist...nothing...a waste of time...
>>25363007you are larpingno one cares about Can't
>>25363021I agree with that anon, Kant is better. You might have heard the old story about the indians who first saw Columbus’ ships, they didn’t even see the ships until they were close because they were so unusual they were unintelligible. Reading Kant is like that, he uses this clunky scholastic language but what he’s saying is extremely avant garde and it surpasses Hegel. Ofc he’s wrong about many things but his basic approach is radical. To the OP when I first started reading philosophy I thought of Hegel as the final boss but Kant and Fichte were much better and also more intellectually challenging. If you want to understand Hegel they’re indispensible anyway.
>>25362940If you didn’t already know, that list is composed of the key works cited by Hegel in his history of philosophy lectures which he did at Jena college in the 1820s. Hegel read all of those for one and for two, many of the ones on that list are only key works and excerpts, Corinthians and John are absolutely doable within a week. Those are two books only of the New Testament. People like you are exceptionally annoying.
>>25362886>only read part 1 of Fichte’s Science of Knowledge!A true Hegelian made this chart.
>>25363367You can read the entire thing. As it says in the image it is 63 key works (including excerpts) to give you the most basic overview of progression to Hegel. It’s all taken from his Jena college lectures
>>25363375Dude Hegel and Schelling are taking a stance against Kant/Fichte, understanding the latter is not or at least should not be optional. Fichte’s Science of Knowledge is extremely demanding, it is not intelligible apart from the whole. But even in Part One - Fichte, like Kant, presupposes an unresolvable antithesis. But Fichte finds these antitheses in practical reason and makes practical reason first, as Kant wanted to do but never quite accomplished. The first principle in the 1795 Foundations is not Cartesian self-consciousness but God, the fulfilled ought, which is unintelligible. Hegel and Schelling say essentially “hmmmm nice antithesis you have there, shouldn’t you explain it?” But Kant and Fichte would say NO, it is just such dogmatic rationalism that leads to retarded, totalitarian systems of life. Hegel’s (and Schelling’s) philosophies are dogmatisms because they DENY this empty place that Kant and Fichte endorse and this leads to bullshit like we’re all living through now. The critique of pure reason leaves a place for the future and the unthinkable, for progress. Kant is explicit, especially in his essay on orientation, that this dogmatic metaphysics destroys free human life. Fuck you and fuck Hegel.
>>25363413 (me)Also as an addendum Fichte’s speculative works are so crazy it’s comparable taking LSD. >tfw the fivefold synthesis finally drops
>>25363355it would take years to read all of that
>>25362851dood... it is like :Kant is the Einstein of MetaphysicsAristotle is the Newton of MetaphysicsHegel is some retardIf you want to know whats going down in metaphysics today you have to read Plato, Aristotle and Kant for a minimum
