ITT
Bagel
Obligatory
Why does he generate the most memes of all the idealists?
hi guys brazilian transexual here. where do i start with hegel?
>>25596467He's the most relevant and of lasting significance.
Fichte was truly a legend. He was in full demon mode non-stop.>Sun-Clear Report to the Public at Large concerning the Actual Character of the latest Philosophy: An Attempt to FORCE the Reader to Understand
>>25596473here
>>25596478>>25596481answer me >>25596473 you fucking troglodytes
>>25596484I did, sir.
>>25596483thanks nonny ><
>>25596467pseuds love pretending to have read him and create memes to signal their supposed "esotericness" to their internet friends
Old and stale, anyway.Let's call it a classic.
>>25596484Phenomenology is the introduction to his system. It’s written in a relatively easy and comprehensible manner because it is directed at the rank beginner and explains everything from the ground up. It doesn’t even presuppose that the reader knows what philosophy is; he essentially says “look at the wall” and then takes you down a rabbit hole by examining the nature of experience. Though tbf the who “look at the wall” experiment was invented by Fichte who took it in a totally different direction. Anyway the Phenomenology is what you want.
>>25596489This happens all the time with esoteric or difficult authors.See Evola, Guernon, Stirner, Kant, ...The list goes on.
>>25596363That chart that says you have to read 49 secondary works, each about 400 to 800 pages long, in order to understand Phenomenology of Spirit.
>>25596501someone post it
>>25596363
>>25596537kek tf was this guys problem?got the full clip?
>>25596547https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bay7Wh8D-HM
>>25596537I've told you faggots before the documentary this is from is pure kino - this and Ghost Dance (1983)
>>25596589Why would I wanna know about the sex life of Hegel. Derrida is just a pervert who gets off on fantasizing about this shit I can see it in his eyes.
Hegel was a doomer.
>>25596501>>25596506There you go..
>>25596489This may be true, but it says nothing about hegel.If anything it shows his lasting impact.
>>25596473>>25596484First you have to understand Kant.
>>25596592good thing he's not the only one
>>25596636Checked if Aurora is on this ready to write..>No Böhme, in the trash it goesBut this actually checks out.
>>25596646Sigh, alright post the Hegel on Heidegger erotic fanfic.
>>25596578THEY LOOK IMPRESSED, AND CHEEKY ON THE DOWN-LOWSO DO THE BYSTANDERS
>>25596489Many such cases.
>>25596679BESCHAU!DAS NEUE DEUTSCHE LITERÄRE ROMANTIK!
I think Hegel SUCKS
>>25596694Bitches love Hegel.
>>25596706Oh yeah? Well, quite frankly I think you SUCK
>>25596714
>>25596787good one
Does this count as a meme by now?Has anyone here actually read it?Should I?
>>25596770We just had an entire thread about this shit, kek
>>25596787
>>25596770
Did hermetic hegelianism ever take root here?
>>25596770define what you mean by "nothing" first.
>>25596790>>25596808Yes and Heterodox Hegel.
>>25596843He did. Not this shit again.
>>25596850How is it? What insights did you gain? Should I or nah?
>>25596473At the beginning.
>>25596915
Whose gonna complete the system of german idealism?
>>25596920>
>>25596863I broke up with a girl irl because I felt she was taking too much time from reading philosophy. I only have two days off a week and she was demanding hours of time, sleepovers, movie-nights, just way too much time away from philosophy for my comfort.
>>25596928You did the right thing.
>>25596928Get one who's into the shit you're into or don't get one at all.
Oh, the germans.You just gotta love 'em ...
>>25596920It can never be completed, it proceeds into infinity. Hegelians don’t get it.
>>25596938I can see the reflection of a black hole in Hegel's eyes, Hegel must be a physicist of some kind :D
>>25596467he made a method for idealists to Larp their theories being correct by getting too much into philosophy aka living in cloud cuckoo land
In the war against Skynet, the human resistance should've just went back in time to kill Hegel
>>25596467Because of Marx basically. There was a lot of interesting philosophy that came out of Kant but only one philosopher directly inspired a world-changing political movement which would also be prominent/influential among the intelligentsia. Scholars who work on ‘the other guys’ often have a chip on their shoulder about Hegel and think he’s overrated. I love this quote from Beiser’s work on Hegel; apologies for its length but it is on point, except that as a Fichte guy I would lay a rather different emphasis. Beiser is a Schelling guy.>What Hegel portrayed as his own characteristic doctrine, what he regarded as his unique achievement, was all too often said years before him. There is not a single Hegelian theme that cannot be traced back to his predecessors in Jena, to many earlier thinkers whom Hegel and the Hegelian school either belittled or ignored.>The fathers of absolute idealism were Holderlin, Schlegel, and Schelling [mainly Schelling]--though the first would find no mention in Hegel's history of philosophy,the second would be trivialized and dismissed, and the third treated as a mere footstool.>So many ideas that are seen as uniquely Hegelian--the dialectic, immanent critique, the synthesis of Fichte and Spinoza, the absolute as the identity of identity and nonidentity, the importance of history within philosophy, self-positing spirit, alienation, the unity of community and individual liberty--were all commonplaces in Jena before Hegel came there in 1801.>To say this is not to belittle Hegel's acheivement: in unsurpassed fashion he summarized and integrated into one system all the themes his less scholastic and organized contemporaries had left in fragments or notebooks.>Nevertheless, to say this is to put Hegel in proper historical perspective: he was not the creative and original thinker that his history suggests or that his disciples imply. Hegel's strenghth lay in his synthetic and systematic powers, in rationalizing and organizing the wealth of ideas created by his contemporaries.>In truth, Hegel was just as his friends in the Stift once portrayed him: der alte Mann, who ambled along on crutches. He was a tortoise among hares; and, when all the hares had squandered or consumed their energies, he alone trudged, slowly but surely, over the finish line. Like all victors, he then rewrote history from his point of view, as a tale of his own triumph.
>>25596852>pure being is nothingReally says nothing about anything, it's a contridiction.What a retard.
>>25597026He’s saying that nothing just IS what it is in and of itself. The bare “it” is nothing at all. It’s the foundation of his panlogicism; it’s an aggressive move directed ultimately against the notion of the independent, individual subject. The tl;dr of Hegel is “Everything makes sense and everything is connected to everything else.” It is actually a common perspective, most people are Hegelians of a sort in the modern world even if they don’t realize this.
>>25597045You're just saying "no what he means is this" but you can look up what he wrote, and it isn't what you said.>"Pure being and pure nothing are, therfore, the same."Yes, that's what he said.He equates two abstracted concepts as identical, despite having come up with different categories for both concepts.It's retarded. Any genuine person doesn't say "X is X, Y is Y, X is Y."That doesn't follow, you spent time defining X and Y as their own seperate things.Any person half-bent on getting their point through would just say "X and Y are Z."
>>25597065the fucking best one. I always come back to this and re-read it.
>>25597105But he isn’t talking about ordinary propositions or plain Jane beings he is talking about PURE being. He goes out his way to handhold retards like you through this, even.
>>25597115If an author expends no effort towards being comprehensible, why should any effort be taken in trying to pull meaning out of that author's works?For instance if I say something is blue, and you agree it's blue and then some other retard comes in and says "look man, I get the rose might look red to you people, but it's the pure essence of blue"Nobody has come any closer to ascertaining anything.I might as well just agree to dissagree if you have no other point to make, as for Hegel "handholding" anything in any of his works. That's laughable.His most ardent defenders on this very site insist constantly that he's soooo complex that basically you can't understand anything he says unless you've read the entire western literary cannon.Well great? I don't care what Hegel had to say.I don't need to waste time trying to "get" your choose-my-own-adventure philosophy.
>>25597105Maybe if you actually read the section of the SoL that you're quote-mining from you'd understanding precisely what that means. He starts his attempt at establishing a presuppositionless science, at establishing an exposition for pure thinking itself, naturally, by dealing with the most indeterminate of indeterminates that thinking can extend itself too, a concept that many people coincidentally throw around and have thrown around in philosophical discourse; pure being. Being that is completely devoid of any determination, it is *pure* being, pure 'is-ness' so-to-speak. It is so "illuminating" that nothing can be made within it, and so it is devoid of any content and intelligibility. He contrasts pure being with the equally thrown around concept, pure nothing; equally as indeterminate and pure. It is so "dark" that nothing can be made within it either, and so it is equally as unintelligible. Pure being and pure nothing are therefore, as he demonstrates, the same fucking thing. What motivates the two being distinguished terms is the fact that both have a peculiar history within philosophy, and both can be argued to be the starting point of truly pure thinking and of a truly presuppositionsless understanding in their own right. What these two terms describe, however, are absolutely the same thing. In terms of their concept, pure being and pure nothing are completely identical. Maybe if you actually read what he wrote instead of quote-mining him to support your half-assed critiques, while simultaneously bitching and moaning about how hard he is, you wouldn't be such a loud retard.
>>25597205>presuppositionless scienceThe kind of word babble that you can only spew if you're fully indoctrinated into your pseudointelectual cult.Science can't be presuppositional because it relies on a foundational set of metaphysical, epistemological, and logical assupositions to function.The rest of you post is just more schlock that I have time nor patience for, I concede no points to you and agree with you on nothing. bye
>>255971831) Many sections of SoL are very readable, the notes and additions. The passage I’m thinking of is an addition.2) It’s impossible to push the envelope of thought in plain language.
>>25596642>without secondarySo what's wrong with some good secondary lit? And does anybody have any recommendations for secondary lit on Hegel's Phenomenology?
>>25597241Oh my god you are so annoying.>Science cant be pressupositional because it relies on a foundational set of "assupositions" (assumptions?) to functionI guess you meant to say presuppositionless because otherwise whatever the fuck you just said means nothing otherwise.To be fair, I wouldn't blame you for having this specific stance though. Hegel was (obviously) a *German* Idealist, and hence his original writings were in German. The German word that translates roughly to the English word 'Science', is 'Wissenschaft'. Wissenschaft can be best articulated in English as the extent or scope with which a thing is systematized, regarding its study, or just systematizing itself. It's a lot different from the implications of the English word 'science', where you might envision chemists or geeks in lab coats or whatever. This is also why the word Wissenschaft isn't used uniformly across all particular sciences, and has appropriate prefixes depending on the study (e.g. Naturwissenschaft; the natural sciences, like physics, Politikwissenschaft; the political sciences, etc etc). So when Hegel is talking about the establishment of a presuppositionless science, he is not referring to whatever the natural/material sciences have going on (he says this himself in the SoL, he isn't talking about science in such a sense), but he is instead referring to a presuppositionless systematization; an attempt to simply systematize without having any presuppositions to support it. This naturally leads to the (retrospectively-made) conclusion of such a presuppositionless science being pure thinking, and yada yada.
>>25597270I recommend reading the Science of Logic instead of his Phenomenology. He wrote the SoL when later in life, when he was more mature and when his philosophical system was more developed. If the PoS you're reading is the one in the attached image, it has explanations of the passages near the end of the book. It's a relative waste of time though, imo.
>>25596537I’m watching the full documentary now and enjoying it. I like when the interviewer asks him this stupidly vague question, “What is love? Why is it important? Talk about Plato or something maybe.” He fumbles a bit at the retardation of the question and eventually says: “The basic question in philosophy is - what is being? Is it a who or a what?” That was a very succinct/insightful formulation of the major fault line in western philosophy I think. The person is unintelligible; love is unintelligible. Hegel is an enemy of love and life itself.
>>25597276Right, Hegel is starting from liberal modernity and explicating it in this vast circle of circles. The ‘presupposition’ of modernity is its lack of presuppisitions, its totalizing rationalism that has nothing outside of itself. But because Hegel is a really high IQ proponent of modernity he is essential reading for anyone dissatisfied with the status quo. It’s child’s play to find cracks in this Hegelian edifice, that’s how Marxism started. You need to know your enemy. These retards talking about the “freedom” of “the market” and so on do not even have a rationally intelligible position to attack, it’s just propaganda and phenomenalism. Hegel is a worthy opponent as it were who gives a deep, even a theological justification of our current world order.
>>25597326Oh man when they are in his study and she asks him “did you read all of these?” and he says “no! Only three or four. But I read them really really well.”
>>25597342I agree with you that Hegel is absolutely monumental proponent of modernity and liberalism (although many people deny so), and that the "politically vigorous" average joe, whether it be annoying self-identifying "free market capitalists" or the typical marxist, operate on implicit philosophical presuppositions that they themselves haven't thought critically about, and have only adopted memetically. The former are just kantians, or even worse, crude empiricists. The latter are mostly philosophically illiterate as well, although they love to use Hegelian terms to posture themselves as 'dialectical' or whatever (they assume Marx was an advocate for dialectical materialism as well). However I don't really agree that it's child's play to find cracks in the giant mountain that is Hegelianism. On the contrary, it is significantly easier for most people to simple ignore or strawman what's put forward in Hegelianism (not just in the Science of Logic, but in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right). Marx's critique of Hegel wasn't very strong either, and his claim to derive his worldview from Hegelianism or its facets is pretty faulty. Virtually nothing about the qualitative truth of the world escapes Hegel.
>>25597373Brother every time you look into the eyes of another human being you are seeing the death of Hegelianism.
>>25597399I don't understand what you mean.
>>25596648>Checked if Aurora is on this ready to write..I read a Jung text on Aurora. Bohme seems more impactful that people here talk about
>>25597403I mean that Hegelianism is predicated on the surpassing of the individual subject. He sees us as domesticated cogs in a vast world order and it isn’t so. He can’t make sense of the subject and yet here we are. When I talk about Faulkner with my brother, when I stumble drunkenly through my neighborhood, when I convince my coworkers to do every task as slow as possible because our bosses are fucking retarded, in general when I refuse to consent to normie society, I am demolishing Hegel.
>>25597415You’re really just illustrating how liberalism collapses into antisocial behavior and eventual mass extinction.
>>25597409He's lucid af. It's a mystery to me how some random shoemaker got his hand on these transcendental insights. Also the more you read him the more you understand his major influence on Hegel.I'm pretty sure for example that Hegel got the whole deriving a processual trinity from a duality thing from him.
>>25596955That's pretty much exactly what hegel said.
>>25597270
>>25597415When I agreed with you that virtually nothing about the qualitative truth of the world escapes Hegel, and thus alignment with the idea that Hegel is, of course, the greatest crusader of 'the status quo' in modernity, I understood the status quo in a significantly more embedded sense. 'The status quo', which is a phrase thrown around a lot, can ultimately mean the present state of things (self-evidently). But to what extent? The very conditions of modern society that, regardless of our individual moral alignment with them, persist upon us without giving a fuck. In other words, "actual society", or how society "actually" is (and this is a nod to the distinction between the Idea being conceptual and the Idea being actual, in which the latter is what society is and expresses simply). For instance, you stumbling drunkenly through your neighborhood, despite being an explicit deviation from common ethical sentiments of society, regarding etiquette or something else, your exercising of that behavior is actually quite aligns with the status quo; in its rejection of it, it is affirming it as something that truly exists. Your drunken stumbling through a neighborhood innately affords the real, actual presence of the neighborhood, its laws and sentiments, its people and culture, etc. Those actions you exhibit do not exist within isolation, they are always mediated by the conditions of the epoch you live in, the national society you live in, the local community you live in, your interrelationship with other individuals or with the large forces of the state, the law, etc. You convincing your coworkers to save as much energy as possible in their work, at the sly (but noble) expense of your dumb boss, all exist within the conditions that make such a phenomenon even exist in the first place; the fact that you HAVE a boss, the fact that production and the circulation of commodities is organized in such and such a way, the presence of money, the presence of possible physical or intellectual expenditure during a line of work, the organization of you and your co-workers as what you are with your boss in the managerial class, the fact that you even need to convince your co-workers to do this sort of stuff in the first place (further evidence that the congruent moral sentiments of society truly and actually exist as well), etc etc. Even your chats with your brother, although a more primordial endeavor (people have been engaging in intellectual conversation for a long time, including before the industrial revolution and the dominance of capitalism and political economy) still exists mediated by our present conditions. For example, if you and your brother were to learn of Faulkner over the internet? That's an entire can of worms mediated by the facets of modern society. The same if you were to learn about him from reading a physical book together. Or if you heard about him orally, and on and on and on. Individuals are not as disparate as you may think.
>>25597433No Hegel is a devoted opponent of infinite progress. You got filtered, badly. Seek medical attention.
>>25597453>You got filtered, badly.No U. The engine of the dialectic never stops.Your view on hegel as it seems: Thesis => Antithesis => Synthesis => Closed CircleHegels view: Synthesis => Becomes New Thesis => Open-Ended Linear Progression
>>25597444You’re right, of course you are right. But you need to understand that this trajectory we are on destroys humanity and also you need to recall the Hegelian insight that the dialectical moment is sin. I know how hopeless things are and how futile are my actions and even that I pathetically do not know what I want. I just have this hopeless faith in the contingency and imagination of rational life. You seem to be saying “NO! It’s hopeless!” But I feel real human beings are more creative than that. The altetnative is death.
>>25597464No it’s a circle of circles. It is not open ended he is opposed to this idea explicitly.
>>25597464It's actually neither. The dialectic is simply the inner unfolding/movement of the concept. He says this in his Science of Logic and in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right.
Anyone interested in me posting some hegel triforces?
>>25597476False. He says it’s a circle of circles, it is CLOSED and he thinks the idea of a Kantian infinite progress is IRRATIONAL. You fucking morons are not smart enough for philosophy.
>>25597474That's where you're wrong kiddo. Hegel's system does NOT collapse into a closed loop.>it’s a circle of circlesYes, It's a self-generating spiral movement, in which returning to the beginning simultaneously constitutes a continuous, progressively richer self-determination and unfolding of the Absolute Spirit.
>>25597431>It's a mystery to me how some random shoemaker got his hand on these transcendental insights.Cheese and Worm.jpg though I imagine a lot more indepth
>>25597487A continuous, progressively richer self-determination of my dick in your ass.
>>25597481>False.?"The method whereby the concept, in science, develops out of itself and is merely an immanent progression and production of its owndeterminations is likewise assumed to be familiar from logic. Its progress does not depend on the assertion that various circumstances arepresent or on the subsequent application of the universal to such material of extraneous origin. The moving principle of the concept, which not only dissolves the particularizations of the universal but also produces them, is what I call dialectic." Paragraph 31 of the Elements of the Philosophy of Right...as well as the introduction to the Science of Logic, where he explores it there too.>He says it’s a circle of circles, it is CLOSED and he thinks the idea of a Kantian infinite progress is IRRATIONAL.He says his philosophical system itself is a circle of circles lmao, not the dialectic itself. And I wasn't talking about the idea of a Kantian infinite progress? Stop being so obnoxious
>>25597504>the concept developing itself means it’s an infinite development!>Hegel’s rejection of the Kantian/Fichtean infinite progress doesn’t mean anything even though it’s central to absolute idealism going back to Hölderlin!>”the dialectic” is primary even though he explicitly says it is a mere moment of speculationYou are so fucking stupid dude.
>>25597510The dialectic being a mere moment of speculation and the dialectic being the inner unfolding/movement of the concept is apparently incompatible? Obviously the inner unfolding/movement of the concept is a moment of speculation when going about his speculative philosophy. What do you think 'the concept developing itself', in the context of the dialectic, refers to? I also cited Hegel himself for you. The concept being merely an immanent progression and a production of its own determinations means what I said. I don't know what else you think I mean. And when the fuck did I say the dialectic is primary? >”the dialectic” is primary???? When the fuck did I even say that?
>>25597520>Hegel is dialectical>therefore the dialectic is infinite and never-endingMe: No Hegel does not like that at all. He spends much of the SoL, especially the first part, arguing against the (to him) empty ‘ought’. Have you read the SoL?>n-noooo.., Hegel is infinite dialectic…I hope you die in a fucking fire, dude.
>>25597528What? I think you're confusing me for someone else because never said, or even implied, that the dialectic is infinite and never-ending. You should chill out.
>>25597534>I’m too ficking stupid to track a simple conversation but here are my opinionsSome day you will be sent to camps.
>>25597541You're suffering from really bad reading comprehension.
>>25597520>The concept being merely an immanent progression and a production of its own determinations means what I said.Right, it MEANS that it is CLOSED you fucking retarded cunt, I hope you get run over by a truck I really do. If you read Hegel you’d know this. You fucking retards who apologize for Hegel based on a youtube understanding, I really wish you were dead.
>>25597556>Right, it MEANS that it is CLOSED you fucking retarded cuntWhen did I ever say otherwise???
Lol I see the shitty alcoholic is back and already having a manic episode.
>>25597241Nta but when I read Hegel I had plenty of time to think about it. If you don't then reading Hegel may not be worth it. If you do, then reading Hegel is great. The issues you seem to have are mostly modernity related, so I'll give you a quick recap:>muh Hegel is modernity! M-m-muh this is terrible! You're a modern. I know, you read a bunch of trudcore and thought you were trad but they can't tell you what's trad either.>nuh uh I'ze reads Heidy finna be bout to be cappy N Nazi up in hurHeidegger is a legit thinker, regardless of his literal affiliation. Yes he has to concede idealism ended with Hegel. Most of you seem to think universals are Jewish coded so you've rejected the whole pure being argument anyhow. There is no point in claiming Heidegger then, especially since the cappy N Nazi's were hypermodern yet still managed to fail at being modern.>you'ze a goylic! Lookee at me meta!No one cares. Either your Jewish now on account of a universal or a complete idiot. >m-m-muh idealism didn't end with Hegel!It did. Feuerbach had an idea to take it further but decided it wasn't worth being called a materialist which is also anathema to you. Marx can refute Hegel and likely on self-replication issues which does have a primitive tribal association in most cases, you get to be socialist, which is also anathema to you. Nietzsche has the option of a fully synthetic aesthetic, but the cost is something new. You're a modern Mr Modern. Nietzsche also has wild card entry into pretty much anything, but if you go that route you won't care about modernity. I mean won't care enough to even talk about it. You're not even close.>m-m-muh SCHOPIE! Muh clarity!Still winds up at a paradox and dumbing down Kant leaves you explaining will, which always sounds like word salad. He wasn't a geometer. His philosophy has merit but if you're not scientific it's just complaining.>m-m-muh there's more to life than geometry! You're technically right, and not wrong. Just don't expect anyone to care about your opinion except modernity where you may have a chance of someone caring since you couldn't hack it in older systems. >m-m-muh hate modernity!For all of time you have had the option to go live in some uncivilized area, nothing has ever been stopping you. I guess you must like modernity after all. You must have time to read Hegel and be a modernity cheerleader.
I'm 389 paragraphs into the Phenom, not quite halfway, and my notes are already up to 8,667 words
>>25597520> The dialectic being a mere moment of speculation and the dialectic being the inner unfolding/movement of the concept is apparently incompatible?I am not denying either. The issue is that the speculative moment is negation of negation, it is a reconciliation and even an amnesty. Marx criticizes Hegel in just this way; “speculative” philosophy a la Hegel is inherently conservative. This is not like some big secret about Hegel’s thought, it is summed up famously in the quote from the preface to Right that philosophy is its *own* time comprehended in thought. Go read that preface and you will see him make the connection to the infinite progress as well that you find so incomprehensible. I’m sorry if I wished death on you, I was drunk and kind of manic. But this is extremely frustrating, partly because you’re talking “past” me/not understanding what I’m alluding to and partly because you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, like you have absorbed one nugget of Hegelian logic and know nothing else. The dialectic, the first negation, really is the driver of the infinite progress in Fichte. There is no speculative moment in Fichte’s dialectic. Schelling and Hegel (and Hölderlin in On Judgment) reject precisely this open-endedness and lack of resolution in Kant and Fichte. Have you read the Differenzschrift? You simply DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about. Have you read Kierkegaard? Logically speaking his work is a vindication of dialectic against speculation. Are you confused because people refer to Hegelian logic as “the dialectic”? Hegel sees dialectic proper, anagoge like you see in Plato and Socrates as a stage to be overcome. But for Kant and Fichte it is the core metaphysical driver.
>>25597741>hey buddy if you don’t like modernity then go live in a heckin’ cave with your tradwife chud lmaooooThis is what internet brain does to people.
>>25597504>he says the system is a circle of circles, not the dialectic itself!Anon the entire point of his system is that logic, or as you call it here “the dialectic”, just IS philosophy, the absolute idea and thought thinking itself and so on explains everything. I’m saying his system is closed, why it is closed historically as a reaction against Fichte, what are the consequences of this closedness, and your response amounts to “look, right here he says it is immanent progression.” Of course it is, it is an immanent progression that runs in a big stupid circle. This is the entire fucking point of Hegel. And in popular culture Hegel becomes “le dialectic man”, the thinker of change and contradiction, but this is highly misleading; this is largely due to the influence of Marxist dialectical materialism which is at best as it were ‘inspired by’ Hegel. Fichte’s dialectic is famously a triad of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. But it never actually resolves, it is an infinite synthetic chain, the thetic moment cannot even have a predicate. (Recall how Kant speaks of the indeterminacy of the noumenon). There are thetic judgments in Fichtean logic, like “x is beautiful” or “I am…” that are effectively transcendent and suprarational. Hegel and Schelling are self-consciously and openly reacting against this “open” logic of conflict, the goal for both is harmony, whether that is harmony of man and nature, or harmony of the different estates in society, harmony in morals (which turns out to be the annihilation of private morality lol), and so on. Read Fichte, read Kant, read Schelling, and fuck off.
>>25598647>no refutation I would claim Hegel's criticism of ambiguity in modernity applies. You can try turning the trad phenom into a reality TV show called Are You Trad or Not? That's the most thoroughly modern treatment capable of it that also captures its abstract nature nicely.
>>25598579Keep going, champ.
>>25597342Or, you know, because theology is out of fashion and people generally don't see the point in trying to ground something in absolute metaphysics
>>25597428You are demonstrating that people who take Hegel seriously routinely draw conclusions that do not follow from any of their given premises.
Rare Occvlt Hegel.
>>25598048It's amazing how western retards don't know anything about buddhism but act as if they do.Buddhism is process philosophy.
>>25598760So is hegel's.
>>25596363>"This nigga literally influenced Hitler and Stalin!"your response?
>>25598767
>>25597477Hell yeah!
>>25598762Cool. Not sure what that has to do with what I said. Buddhism literally denies that nothingness is a thing. Madhyamaka's concept of emptiness is not nothingness. Nothingness is empty. Western philosophers are just retards who are too retarded to realize that all their thought is just a front for their sordid hedonism.
>>25598772You're right where you're right.The end goal is nothingness though, which makes the whole thing questionable.
>>25598774No. Because nothingness isn't real, you retarded hedonist. Or, wait, do you believe in life after death? No? What do you think happens in death? Nothing?
Hegel is the kind of guy who wants everyone to be hooked up to vr pleasure machines. Marx is the kind of guy who wants the experience said pleasure machines provide to be actualized in reality.
>>25598786>What do you think happens in death?We go to a fountain next to a white cypress. The normies drink from it and forget everything.
>>25598790You're the kind of guy who does not read Marx nor Hegel.
>>25598792Here we see the exemplary behavior of a guy who takes Hegel seriously. Whenever he is asked a question with any personal gravity, he resorts to lying to himself and others. Hegelians are not serious people. They are in it for the clout, the gratification of their meaningless desires.
>>25598798I'm sorry, I forgot Hegel wants to put people in an endless struggle machine and Marx wants people tp continue tp experience irreconciliable pain and suffering for all time in reality..
>>25598803I was telling the truth.You refused to listen.
>>25598808Citation needed.
>>25598774>>25598786Oh yeah. And what do you think is the ultimate goal of christianity? What do you think heaven, theoisis, or the beatific vision is? Because it is absolutely nothing like your worldly existence. Is it, perhaps, in your opinion, nothingness?
This is one of my favorite formulations of the difference between absolute idealism and critical idealism. Direct and lucid.>As soon as the Ego is placed in absolute opposition to the object, it is nothing real, but is only something thought, a pure product of reflection, a mere form of cognition. And out of products of mere reflection identity cannot construct itself as totality; for they arise through abstraction from the absolute identity which can only relate itself to them immediately through nullification, not through construction. Infinity and finitude, indeterminateness and determinateness, etc. are reflective products of the same sort. There is no transition from the infinite to the finite, from the indeterminate to the determinate. The transition as synthesis becomes an antinomy; for reflection, which separates absolutely, cannot allow a synthesis of the finite and the infinite, of the determinate and the indeterminate to be brought about, and it is reflection that legislates here. It has the right to allow a unity that is only formal, once the dichotomy into the infinite and the finite, which is its work, has been permitted and accepted. But Reason synthesizes them in the antinomy, and so nullifies them. An ideal opposition is the work of reflection, which totally abstracts from absolute identity; while a real opposition, on the other hand, is the work of Reason, which posits the opposites, identity and non-identity, as identical, not just in the form of cognition, but in the form of being as well. And the only real opposition of this kind is the one in which subject and object are both posited as Subject-Object, both subsisting in the Absolute, and the Absolute in both, and hence reality in both. For this reason it is only in real opposition that the principle of identity is a real principle. If the opposition is ideal and absolute, identity remains a merely formal principle, for it is posited in only one of the opposite forms, and cannot claim recognition as Subject-Object. A philosophy based on a formal principle becomes itself a formal philosophy. (cont'd)
>>25598822Oh ok. In that case, do you think that if someone were to literally extinguish your psychological continuity, to literally obliviate you, would be like annihilating you?
Why does Hegel rustle so many jimmies?
>>25598825Indeed. They do not actually want that. They want tge extermination of struggle and suffering. A state of mind-numbing, world-affirming pleasure devoid of pain.
>>25598833Probably the same reason Hitler does. People just don't like him.
>>25598832No. Our brains do not generate our consciousness. They receive it. God is the transmitter.
>>25598837>semantic trickerymhhh
>>25598842I see. Well, if literal death and loss of your worldly self to be, perhaps, consumed by a hungry God or relegated to watch him in a theater for all time is not nothingness to you, then how is Nirvana nothingness?
>>25598829>After all, as Fichte says somewhere, his own system would be only formally correct for God’s self-consciousness – a consciousness in which everything would be posited through the Ego’s being posited. But, on the other hand, if the matter, the object, is itself a Subject-Object, then the separation of form and matter can drop out, and the system, like its principle, is no longer merely formal, but formal and material at the same time: everything is posited through absolute Reason. Only in real opposition can the Absolute posit itself in the form of the subject or of the object; and only then can there be a transition of subject into object or of object into subject in their essence: the subject can become objective to itself because it is originally objective, that is, because the object itself is Subject-Object, or the object can become subjective because originally it is just Subject-Object. Both subject and object are Subject-Object. This is just what their true identity consists in, and so does the true opposition they are capable of. When they are not both Subject-Object, the opposition is merely ideal and the principle of identity is formal. Where the identity is formal and the opposition is ideal, nothing more than an incomplete synthesis is possible. Or in other words, the identity, insofar as it synthesizes the opposites, is itself just a quantum, and the difference is qualitative; in the fashion of the categories where the first, for example, reality, is posited in the third, and so is the second, but only quantitatively. On the other hand, if the opposition is real, it is merely quantitative. The principle is simultaneously ideal and real, it is the only quality; and the absolute, which reconstructs itself out of the quantitative difference, is not a quantum, but totality.
>>25598848In was talking about the nothingness in buddhist life an thought.
Hegelianism creates ideologies that create people who are worse than the cattle they eat. One need only to open one's eyes and observe the people's behavior: overtaken by delusions and ruled by their pathetic desires for pleasure and recognition. They want to end the struggle, but, and this is the world's most redeemable feature, actively make struggling and pain inevitable by virtue of their wants.
>>25598829>>25598849So many pseuds think the Hegelian rejection of reflection amounts to a sort of Heraclitean or Marxist flux but you can see right here with your own eyes what it really amounts to. Hegel understands that the simple and direct opposition of 'this' and 'that' results in endless and irreconcilable conflict and this is what he is fleeing when he spurns 'the understanding' in favor of 'reason'. I also cannot emphasize enough how weak his logic is here, it amounts to an empty tautology; the entire book is him saying "life must make complete and total sense or else it doesn't make sense!" over and over again. I'm pretty sure Kierkegaard had precisely this passage in mind when he wrote in Either/Or:>Tautology is and remains the highest principle, the highest maxim of thought. No wonder, then, that most people use it. It is not so impoverished either and can well fill out a whole life. It has a jesting, witty, entertaining form; this is the category of infinite judgments. This kind of tautology is the paradoxical and transcendental kind. It has the serious, scientific, and edifying form. The formula is as follows: when two quantities are equal in size to one and the same third quantity, they are all of equal size. This is a quantitative conclusion. This kind of tautology is especially useful on podiums and in pulpits, where one must say much.Hegel thinks Kant and Fichte are 'quantitative' because they think of time as 'quantitative'. Hegel contrasts this with his own supposedly 'rational' thought in which the contradiction inherent in the moment is sublated. Here you see Kierkegaard ironically reduce Hegelian logic to the mathematical syllogism from the Science of Logic. Hegel thinks it is "shallow" thinking that does not think everything and here Kierkegaard shows how Hegel's own thought is extremely shallow and, for all the smoke and mirrors, logically boring.
>>25598853You referred to the end goal of buddhism as being "nothingness" right here >>25598774What nothingness are you now speaking of?
>Open Meme thread. >Walls of text kek
>>25598864Alright, I'll admit it. You got me there. Have a nice day.
>>25598870Fine. Just know that Hegel was working with very early and rudimentary european scholarship on buddhism.
>>25598738Theology has never been 'in fashion', only a small number of autists can really appreciate and feel the weight of these metaphysical arguments. Hegelianism is a logical thinking-through of modernity's self-conception - that's not a hot take it is how Hegel presents his own system in the last chapter of the Phenomenology. If that doesn't intrigue you then you're a normie. Nothing wrong with that, someone has to mow my lawn and make my tendies.
>>25598879Maybe Hegel's greatest insight is the negativity of modernity. This is not an abstract concept, you can see it everywhere. Positivity is essentially crime. So its self-conception really must be a totalizing negative system like Hegel's. Anything else is dishonest.
>>25598876I was just fucking around, my man.I recently visited Thailand.Thai buddhism and superstition are fucking sick.
>>25598887You guys talk such bullocks. If I understand the point you are trying to make behind the pretentious jargon 'positivity' has always been criminal in every society.
>>25598896The word jargon is jargon in itself.
Knowing picrel probably won't happen unironically pains me.
>>25598896The positive is something that is 'just there' and not made sense of that grounds the intelligibility of everything else. Religion is positive, the family, social institutions, all sorts of things can be, have been, and still sort-of are positive. But the general thrust of modernity is to comprehend everything and in comprehending everything all positivity is annihilated, everything becomes fungible, which is why all of these things are breaking down. And the process is accelerating. What you learn from a critical reading of Hegel is that harmony actually depends on conflict. Harmony without conflict is destruction and death. But this is just what Hegel is offering. He makes a great show of the 'life' and 'individuality' of his logic but it's a false life and a false individuality.>The richest is therefore the most concrete and most subjective and that which withdraws itself into the simplest depth is the mightiest and most all-embracing. The highest; most concentrated point is the pure personality which, solely through the absolute dialectic which is its nature, no less embraces and holds everything within itself, because it makes itself the supremely free — the simplicity which is the first immediacy and universality.This is a bogus conception of personality. Personality does not hold everything within itself narcissistically but is open to others. It is a bogus conception of freedom as well. Now watch some Hegelian pseud will say "he's not ackshually talking about like a person in that passage!" No fucking shit! He actually shows how such a conception of personhood ultimately devours and destroys individuals and becomes a super-subject.
>It is in this manner that each step of the advance in the process of further determination, while getting further away from the indeterminate beginning is also getting back nearer to it, and that therefore, what at first sight may appear to be different, the retrogressive grounding of the beginning, and the progressive further determining of it, coincide and are the same. Yes, this is exactly what is happening. Hegel is right, everything is becoming flattened out and homogenized. It's a metaphysics of modernity.>The method, which thus winds itself into a circle, cannot anticipate in a development in time that the beginning is, as such, already something derived; it is sufficient for the beginning in its immediacy that it is simple universality.Right, there is apparently no escape. Anything you might say or do is only feeding the beast and anything is negated. And Hegel works out the logic of this in depth.
>>25598680Okay bro, sorry for the ultracrepidarianism. Looking back I do think I made some blunders and demonstrated a sense of stubbornness.
>>25598891Read this.
Hegel would've loved white girl pop music
>>25598970Hegel was a massive Rossini fanboy who loved emotional Italian opera, so yes, today he’d probably be listening to film scores and Adele.
>>25599050This is the most annoying thing about Hegel. So much of his reputation amounts to "he is really hard; you have to be really smart to read Hegel." This is true even in academia though no one would openly admit it. And when you argue with a Hegelian, even a 'real', academic Hegelian, the argument tends to descend into "you just didn't understand him. What about this passage here. You just weren't smart enough to understand him. You just didn't read the book enough times." Again they will never say it openly but that's the subtext. I know this will make me sound like a philistine but I have read a lot of Hegel and have the right to openly say: many of the things he says do not mean anything at all, they are basically empty logical games or banal observations dressed up in pseudological gibberish. If I wanted to I could easily rewrite the Phenomenology of Spirit in "plain" language without losing any of the essential content, the logic is bullshit.
>Hegel: Hey Schopenauer, wanna hear a joke? >Schopenauer: Ok >Hegel: Kant's philosophy >Schopenauer: I don't get it >Hegel: Exactly
>>25596389>>25599100
>>25599066Could you give an example of one of his empty logical games or banal observations dressed up in pseudological gibberish?
>>25596467He's the spring that keeps on giving.
>>25597415
Hegel and Freud both offer rationalizing and destructive accounts of religious belief. For Hegel religion is self-consciousness in representational form; it is how man, the rational animal, conceives of himself, and it follows a historical-dialectical progression, starting with very vague religious beliefs (the Titanic religion) through an increasing process of 'humanization' (for example a statue of a human God is 'humanized' compared to a stele with abstract carvings). This process goes so far as to become something approaching atheism in antiquity, and out of this abyss comes Christianity as the most perfect form of religion. Christianity mythologically prefigures modernity and Hegel's philosophy because it's about the reconciliation of God and man, good and evil.Freud sees more of the tension in religion; it arises from guilt over a primordial parricide which would have been re-created all over the world by early man. So religion is not really "about" self-consciousness, it's about guilt and is an attempt to mythologically mediate rebellion against authority and its consequences. I like Freud's account more just for its dynamism. Hegel papers over the tensions and contradictions in a highly contradictory religion like Christianity - for him the contradictoriness of Christianity comes from its primitive, representational form. For Freud religion is acknowledging a deep conflict in our relations to one another that goes back to the dawn of time and has a prehistory that goes deeper than our contemporary notions of right and wrong. Freud is richer in that sense too; he does not read modern liberal ideas of humanity and morality into the past, he tries to show how our modern morals can be derived from primitive, bizarre, barbaric morals involving murder and incest and the underbelly of our surface beliefs. Much more interesting than Hegel.If you like you can memorize this post and use it at parties to make people think you read Freud and Hegel.
>>25599165AI slop.Stopped reading.
>>25599107Easy. I can just open my copy of the Phenomenology of Spirit at random and do it to any sentence.>The interplay of the two forces in this way arises from and consists in the two being thus determined with opposite characteristics, in their being for one another in virtue of this determination and in the complete and exchange of their characteristics – a transition direct from one to the other, whereby alone these determinations, in which the forces seem to appear independently, have being. For example, the inciting force is set up as universal medium, and, on the other hand, the force incited as a force repressed. But the former is universal medium just by the very fact of the latter being repressed: that is to say, this latter is really what incites the former, and makes it the medium it claims to be. The former gets the character it has only through the other, and is an inciting force only so far as it is incited by the latter to be so. And it loses just as readily this character given to it, for this character passes, or rather has already passed, into the character of the other. The former, acting in an external way, takes the part of universal medium, but only by its having been incited by the other force to do so. This means, however, that the latter gives it that position, and is really itself essentially universal medium: it gives the inciting agency this character just because this other character is essentially its own, i.e. because it is really its own self.He is talking about how a thing can be the same and yet different at the same time, which is important for being able to formulate natural laws and so on. In this passage he is saying "it's the same... but it's also different... and it's different... and yet, it can't be different without being the same!" over and over again. I mean yes there is more of a logical "content" to it than that and I could give a "deeper" exegesis it's just that this logical content is all bullshit.
>>25598770Can do. Here's some lucid geometry.
>>25599208
>>25599246
>>25599250
>>25599220
>>25599264
>>25599269
>>25597477
>>25599189Seeing Hegel as a ‘mystic’ or the culmination of a ‘mystic tradition’ is like seeing Taco Bell as the culmination of Spanish culture. Hegel appropriates everything he can including Christian mysticism and transforms it into something else.>bro… look… right here, he says he’s talking about divine cognition!Fuck off. Go read a book not the three or four ‘spooky’ Hegel quotes you’ve been posting for the last decade here.
>>25599277
>>25599280
>>25598760>Buddhism is process philosophy.Buddhism just uses process philosophy to critique essentialism, and then discards it in favor of anti-foundationalism.
>>25599278>>25599278>Getting mad at someone posting a meme in a meme threadIs this really the hill you wanna die on?Keep your opinion then.
>>25597477>>25599208>>25599220
>>25599289I’m sorry anons but these guys ruin Hegel threads. It is very annoying to think there are grown men in their 30s who think Hegel was some sort of sorcerer. And they’ve been posting the same few quotes for years and in all that time have not read one of Hegel’s books from cover to cover. It’s not exactly a secret that Bohme is an influence on Hegel, that cabala is an influence via Spinoza and Maimon, etc. But to understand the nature of that influence you would have to think through the books. “He’s so cryptic… he’s like… a wizard man!” I’m sorry anon it’s just stupid and annoying. Meme threads in general are cancer.
>>25599322Fair enough. Let people have some fun though.
>>25596439unfucked version
lowkey hegelian
>>25596413shiny version
honestly the time has come to pull up the drawbridge, we've been trying to show these people the simple majesty of the light of reason for decades and they dont want to hear it
>>25599325>Let people have some fun though.No.
>>25600131Nah eventually they'll find the way. Some of them at least.
>>25600157Gotta say I respect the consistency.
>>25600157Based.Fun ist ein Stahlbad.
rare edgy bm hegel
Can all you FUCKING FAGGOTS quit shitting up the catalog with low effort german idealism threads holy fuckIts always>picture of random dude/book by random dude>random quote from said book>nothing else, no arguments, no additional explication, no details, no attempts at applying whatever the shit you're quoting is to something newAre you going to talk about specific details from the Science of Logic? About the strains of hermetic thought or medieval philosophy synthesized into Hegel's system along with reactions to people like Kant or Hume? About how his political philosophy was derived from the Science and not from, say, the Jena Logic? Are you going to critique a particular passage, seek to draw out depth through analysis or comparison with another thinker, or draw parallels between this work and something from another field, such as physics? Anything?Of course not, you're just gonna shit out a thread or two just like this one every fucking day like you (and/or your equally fucktarded copycats) have been doing for MONTHS OF YOUR FUCKING LIFE, because all you really care about is being seen as le epic mysterious cool guy who understands Hegel, the esoteric and occult thinker who's, like, this evil german autism wizard, like, dude, he's so hard to understand, anyone who gets him must be a fucking genius!! and actual philosophy as secondary to the achievement of that goal.I know you're going to reply to this with a screenshot of your own post (can't forget to suck your own dick at every opportunity, right?) quoting Hegel or Kant or someone talking about how philosophy is only for enlightened initiated trve arvan kvlt white men instead of of bothering to put any real effort into your posts, but I want you to know that if I ever happen to see you in real life, if I'm at a cafe or some shit and I look over some dude's shoulder and he's using his shitty little smartphone screen to copy-paste a Schelling quote onto the garbage-ass 4chan mobile webpage thread creation prompt and getting smudges all over the fucking thing and probably laughing quietly to himself about it all I'm gonna grab that shit and launch it into fucking orbit and slam your fucking head and dumbass pencil neck right into the fucking front counter and fuck your asshole in front of the cute barista, the middle aged white dude typing on a laptop at the table behind us, the dude fumbling for change at the other cash register (who the fuck still pays for coffee with cash?), everyone, and while you're making gross unnngghhhh noises while feebly trying to escape my grip (I've been grip training for 7 years and can hold 400 pounds with one hand, good fucking luck) I'm going to loudly tell the horrified onlookers that while I greatly respect German Idealism and its thinkers, I will never respect FAGGOTS who use it as a vehicle to affect an air of pretension and mystery like you do, and then I'll nut all over the back of your shirt and walk the fuck out while you collapse into a heap.
>>25600301Quit throwing a gradeschooler's tantrum.>I WENT IN THE HEGEL MEME THREAD AND IT WAS ALL MEMES ARGGGGGGHHHNo fucking duh, start your own threads you giant pissbaby.
>>25598907>There is nothing erotical about the Dialectic. Beings just screech out in pain into the void.
>>25600094rare
>>25600197>the night in which all metalheads are black
HEGEL?
>>25596648It's 33
Flexing my collection, i personally started with the Encyclopedia then i plan to read the Phenomenology, with some excerpts of The German Constitution, pray i get the Science of Logic, the Philosophy of the Fine Arts and The Philosophy of Right, alongside his correspondance, i want to extract whatever he was writing for my own plans.
>>25600456posting collections of books you haven't read yet is tres gauche
>>25600479Yk i got law studies rn but i like to hoard so when i have more free time i can consume em all, plus i love having books around me, theyre my friends.
>>25600456basé
>>25601615
