Can we agree that he’s just trying to deceive us?

Nein

Will we ever have a Hegel thread that’s more than “he’s so hard to read! Does it actually mean anything or is it some sort of ruse??” Followed by a few schope pictures ofc

>>24456660
he's not "le hard". He's just a professional charlatan, there's nothing to be gleaned from his philosophy.

>>24456684
You're saying that because you read and understood his works and found them lacking... right? You're not just repeating the same tired criticisms because you don't have to read him to call him a charlatan... are you?

I never read him.
Everything is opposite, theses antitheses and if opposite meets - syntheses.
That's it. That's h*gel

>>24456686
of course I read it

>>24456684
>write a new system of German idealism
>claim all your predecessors are hacks and pseuds, discourage your readers from looking into them
>meanwhile 80% of your ideas are directly lifted from said predecessors
Schopenhauer, Hegel, Schelling all did this, though Schopenhauer was the most outrageous. Fichte was the only honest one, if anything he tended to exaggerate his debt to Kant.

>>24456587 (OP)
Well op if your truth values are determined by my modality then you don't have any truths. Neither do I so I guess I'll go ahead and get to the agreement portion.

Dosto anon:
>popular here so I guess it doesn't matter if he's popular on reddit
>the well of existential dread will never run dry but he won't be able to make it past this epistemological hurdle

Nietzsche intermediate but it's a waste to talk about other aspects of philosophy. Dosto's don't change because they don't want to change.

The prickly D&G anon:
>I read his treatment on Hume. Brilliant piece. Hume gets a bad reputation as being dour and non-constructive but the treatment I read actually did him justice.
>compilation of previous conversations seems to indicate a fluidity of epistemological influences and balances.

Intermediate: ???
We can still talk.

>>24456684
>there's nothing to be gleaned from his philosophy.
and yet it's weird how practically every single philosopher since has gleaned something from it

>>24456660
no.

>>24456660
/lit/ can't even understand Plato. If you want a decent Hegel thread you should get in a time machine.

deceive you about what?

>>24456760
It‘s Tuesday

ANSWER ME
DECEIVE YOU ABOUT WHAT??

>>24456866
calm down, anon.

>>24456876
NO, I DEMAND ANSWER AAAAAAAAAAA

>>24456881
can we be friends?

>>24456587 (OP)
Being is Being is Being. Nothing is Nothing is Nothing, to the degree that we can say Nothing "is" (as opposed to "is not", since to say that Nothing is contradicts the Parmenidean dictum as it implies that it is a being and thus Being). That's all that there needs to be said on the issue.

Also, measure comes before quantity.

Other than that, I like the gist of SoL. It's like a prolegomena to philosophy itself.

>>24456892
We already are *hugs you*

>>24456923

>>24456931

"Hegel expropriated the past, exaggerating his own originality and individuality. 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 Hölderlin, Schlegel, and Schelling - though the first would find no mention in Hegel's history, 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 achievement: 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 his proper historical perspective: he was not the creative and original thinker that his history suggests or that his disciples imply. Hegel's strength 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 the tale of his own triumph." - Frederick Beiser in picrel

tl;dr - yes.

>>24456959
that can be said about literally anyone that ever wrote anything philosophical, it was always just about observing and trying to make sense of what you observe, putting it into your own order and words to try and explain it to people in yet another way because some people might get one explanation but not another, so it‘s never a waste to reframe since it might reach someone the other framing would not have reached

idk if hegel claimed to be original but i doubt he did, maybe he claimed that his way of putting things and connecting them was original and unique and he would not have been wrong with that, everyones take is slightly different from the take of another, so it‘s almost always original to some degree

it‘s also kinda ironic to claim the original thinkers that came up with the concept of absolute idealism were slighted by not being cited or honored when the greeks were already preaching arete long before

this smells like „uhm at least tag the creator when you repost“ on something that is an ancient concept and an inherent human trait since it‘s simply expression of ego striving

>>24457022
>that can be said about literally anyone that ever wrote anything philosophical, it was always just about observing and trying to make sense of what you observe, putting it into your own order and words to try and explain it to people in yet another way because some people might get one explanation but not another, so it‘s never a waste to reframe since it might reach someone the other framing would not have reached
So true, we've just been saying exactly the same thing over and over again since Pythagoras (pbuh). There are no new ideas in philosophy, every philosopher is just recycling old ones and rephrasing them.
>idk if hegel claimed to be original but i doubt he did
lol
>maybe he claimed that his way of putting things and connecting them was original and unique and he would not have been wrong with that
Maybe you should read someone before opining on what they may or may not have said.
>it‘s also kinda ironic to claim the original thinkers that came up with the concept of absolute idealism were slighted by not being cited or honored when the greeks were already preaching arete long before
It's a zoomer. I'm talking to a zoomer.
>this smells like „uhm at least tag the creator when you repost“ on something that is an ancient concept and an inherent human trait since it‘s simply expression of ego striving
The absolut state of this fucking board.

>>24457044
anon, you are so infinitely superior, i kneel

>>24456587 (OP)
well Monism/Absolutism is illusory to us by nature.

>>24456959
>So many ideas that are seen as uniquely Hegelian - the dialectic
Nobody who has read even slightly about German Idealism ascribes "the dialectic" to Hegel. It's purely a pop culture association. You're quoting a pseud.

>>24457156
Yes there is a dialectic in Hegel and Beiser is not a pseud. Read this and publicly admit that you are wrong.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

>>24457297
Continuing the thought here's a relevant portion from that article:
>This “textbook” Being-Nothing-Becoming example is closely connected to the traditional idea that Hegel’s dialectics follows a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, which, when applied to the logic, means that one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two (see, e.g., McTaggert 1964 [1910]: 3–4; Mure 1950: 302; Stace, 1955 [1924]: 90–3, 125–6; Kosek 1972: 243; E. Harris 1983: 93–7; Singer 1983: 77–79). Versions of this interpretation of Hegel’s dialectics continue to have currency (e.g., Forster 1993: 131; Stewart 2000: 39, 55; Fritzman 2014: 3–5). On this reading, Being is the positive moment or thesis, Nothing is the negative moment or antithesis, and Becoming is the moment of aufheben or synthesis—the concept that cancels and preserves, or unifies and combines, Being and Nothing.

>We must be careful, however, not to apply this textbook example too dogmatically to the rest of Hegel’s logic or to his dialectical method more generally (for a classic criticism of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis reading of Hegel’s dialectics, see Mueller 1958).

So a criticism of a crude misrepresentation of the dialectics has morphed online into "only pseuds say that Hegel has a dialectic" even though Hegel talks about dialectics all the fucking time. This online idiot critique of a misreading often says 'the version of dialectics being attributed to Hegel is actually from Fichte' but this is itself a gross misrepresentation of Fichte's synthetic method apparently based on the first few pages of his 1794 Foundation of the Entire Science of Knowledge.

>>24457297
Who said there's no dialectic in Hegel?
He says that it's an "idea that [is] seen as uniquely Hegelian", which is strawman nonsense. Maybe among his retard students, or whatever, but not among anyone who studies philosophy in good faith. Yes, there are lay people who ascribe the terms thesis, antithesis, synthesis to Hegel, so? There are people who think Einstein proved "everything is relative", too.

>>24457355
I see what you're saying now and I misread your post. I admit it, I am the retard of this exchange in that respect. I agree that Beiser is overstating his case because all of the ideas he cites are changed in Hegel. It is pretty retarded to claim that Hegel was just "synthesizing" Schlegel, Holderlin and Schelling. But I thought the quote would get some (you)s. I still maintain that it's at least half true; people who only know Kant and Hegel won't be aware of how much of Hegel depends on his predecessors, and Hegel does pooh-pooh them.

>>24457297
>>24457315
>So a criticism of a crude misrepresentation of the dialectics has morphed online into "only pseuds say that Hegel has a dialectic" even though Hegel talks about dialectics all the fucking time.
brilliant, that's exactly what happened. nailed it on the head.
>>24457355
>Yes, there are lay people who ascribe the terms thesis, antithesis, synthesis to Hegel, so?
there are otherwise philosophically-educated people who are not well-versed in German idealism who think that this is an appropriate characterization of Hegel and of dialectics. that is the audience that Beiser is addressing. you are flailing in your damage control. I'm still laughing my ass off at your attempt to call Beiser, one of the foremost experts on German idealism alive today, a pseud. Christ, you're a dense moron.

>>24456587 (OP)
>A thoroughgoing Lutheran would never.

>>24456684
Fuck you, man.

>>24456587 (OP)
Everybody is trying to deceive you, intentionally or otherwise, including me right now. Read James Burnham.