Ok /lit/, I attempted to open a dialogue thread using a negative dialectical argument to no avail before this one. So, that leaves me being blunt and forward. I have two choices regarding Hegel:

1) The Phenomenology was originally intended to be the “introduction” to Hegel’s system, particularly his Logic, by way of a negative dialectical argument.
2) Though historically and pedagogically the Phenomenology is prior to the Logic, it is strongly suggested one read part of the Logic before engaging the Phenomenology.

Basis: the Phenomenology does not actually make clear just what Hegel’s famous core method (dialectics) is supposed to be; worse, it has what many consider another phenomenological method in play alongside the dialectical method and the confusion increases.

The one place I found so far the most helpful https://hegel.net/en/e0.htm

I'm considering just jumping into his aesthetics/art stuff where both columnated.

>>24530717 (OP)
Bruh you have to read the Philosophy of World History before you try to engage with any other piece of Hegel's work.
At the very least the introduction to it. That's where he makes his philosophy the clearest.

OP here
>>24530729
my chived post, sry
>>24525170
look, let's consider that extraneous little things are already accounted for and I understand the scope already. Thanks, though. It'll be one of those books I'll read to see where I plot on his map.