Discuss.

>>24542496 (OP)
I liked when he called Hinduism an L religion
that was a W for him to say that fr

Everything going wrong with the world right now is all his fault. Wikipedia told me this.

>>24542496 (OP)
>upon encountering one who claims you are your skull bone shape, smash it's head in.

>>24542496 (OP)
> This guy's a real jerk!

retarded failed scientist

>>24542496 (OP)

He influenced Marx so he's a hero in my eyes

>>24542496 (OP)
I don't care what others say about him, he called women plants and that makes him based!

I might be getting filtered here, but is his deduction of other minds/Spirit really as simple as:
>you're tryin' to know the world
>but to know the world you gotta know it as known
>but to do that you gotta know another mind knowing the world
Because that's pretty weak. If you've already posited self-consciousness you could just reflect on your own reflecting. I also must say that where Fichte is intensely autistic he's at least moving his material along and pursuing science. As much of a midwit take as this may sound, Hegel really does seem to be intentionally making his writing confusing just for the sake of it. Hegel is trying to deduce all of consciousness from thinking/truth-seeking but consciousness is actually more complex than that, truth-seeking is only one aspect of consciousness.

Still enjoying him and what I just said is probably shit. It's not smart to critique one of these idealist wizards when you don't even completely understand their books yet. Maybe a Hegelanon can set me straight.

I consider it an important success on my part that I've quickly figured out he's a quack.

I do not understand why retard cucks pretend his philosophy is anything but a continued rationalization of christianity

>>24542496 (OP)
Discus

>>24543785
Haven’t read the master-slave dialectic in a long time, but as far as I remember, we immanently experience other subjectivities in our own. In short, the content found within our empirical self (such as beliefs, for example) is not caused by ourselves, but by others.

In force and understanding, consciousness tries to grasp the truth of phenomena, which is no other than an interiorization into phenomena. But by doing so, it negates phenomena. It negates phenomena because phenomena is but an exterior form of something else. The truth of phenomena is to point to something other than itself. This “other” is the essence. When we try to understand gravity, we negate the particularity of each gravitational phenomena in order to get gravity in itself. That’s the essence. But gravity without reference to the multiple gravitational phenomena is but an empty abstraction that tells us nothing of what we experience. The truth of essence is to manifest itself in an other (phenomena) and the truth of phenomena lies in the inner essence. This movement is the movement of thought itself. Whenever we try to think of something that is not a thought we only get. A “thing” is but a particular mode of thought. Naive realism tries to distinguish between what we think and the object of thought, but when defining the object thought needs to be introduced. Subject and object are one and the same, since the essence qua essence and thought qua thought are the same. The manifestation of essence is the activity of the subject positing itself into an other and realizing the truth of this otherness is its own internal truth. The truth of the universe is consciousness, and the truth of consciousness is self-consciousness.
(cont)

>>24543785
>>24545006
>cont
Nevertheless, this infinite or pure subject remains in opposition to the finite subject (or empirical self, however you may call it). The finite self does not recognize itself in the infinite, insofar his thoughts (or inner contents) are contingent upon someone else. Yes, the empirical self has thoughts, but these thoughts are the thoughts of an other. In this sense, the finite subject becomes alienated, since his own activity merely consists in reproducing the thoughts of an other. It is not my activity but the activity of an other in my own self. The transition is not from the finite subject to the infinite subject, but towards another finite subject. The finite leads to another finite and so on, leading to a false infinitude. In order to solve the paradox, one must not posit another finite subject, but to negate finitude itself. The contents of subjectivity must be reflected in their own determinacy i.e. to just think in the object itself. When this reflection is achieved, the infinite subject is revealed. The infinite manifests itself in the finite subject, or more precisely, every finite subject is the manifestation of the one single infinite subject. Each one requires the other. The movement and reconciliation between one and the other (the finite with the infinite and the finite with other finites) is Spirit.

>”Spirit wins its truth only by finding itself in absolute dismemberment.”

>>24542496 (OP)
deleuze says he is a filthy bastardman

>>24542496 (OP)
Typical philosofag post ruining this board

>>24545050
thank you for posting for feels. a+

>>24545006
>>24545011
NTA very interesting food for thought. If this really is a fair representation of Hegels thought, then it really is similar to Schopenhaeur in many respects, I think Schop definitely tries to be more practical, and I like that Schopenhaeur takes more into consideration than simply human beings, but animal's and even rock'z "will's".

Because my first thought in response to this:
>The truth of the universe is consciousness, and the truth of consciousness is self-consciousness.
>(cont)
was. Wouldnt the answer to whether this is really the case to get to and consider as much as possible how the world is viewed and experienced from the "conscious" of an animal? If possible of course.

Like i said though, if this really is Hegels thought youve done a great deal to make him not sound crazy and hardcore posthoc. Which is bad because im a schopgod. But good because philosophy is interesting, and I like interesting philosophy.

>>24545037
I was just trying to make /lit/ better for the litizens. I don't know anything, don't ever accuse me of knowing things. I know how this works. I don't even know if the torch has been passed. I don't know if the litizens approve of the current board. Litizens united! I'm a pseud yes you got me. Litizens can make things happen!

>>24542496 (OP)
One man writes a spicy book and look where we are.

Bright light can be just as hard to see as darkness

^deep

>>24545006
>we immanently experience other subjectivities in our own. In short, the content found within our empirical self (such as beliefs, for example) is not caused by ourselves, but by others.
Yeah that is certainly what he's saying. Not exactly what I'm getting at though which is simply the question of the necessity of there being other minds. Hegel seems to think, more or less, that everything we experience is in the understanding, everything is intelligible. It's only the understanding that can 'hold together' these various moments - none of them can be true in and of itself, but only in relation to the other moments (for example positive+negative poles of electricity vs. the unity of electricity) and only thought can function as the 'genus'. That's all kosher, it makes sense. But then he seems to make this move that, because everything that is only is insofar as it is understood, we simply must have another independent mind as an object of understanding.
> But gravity without reference to the multiple gravitational phenomena is but an empty abstraction that tells us nothing of what we experience.
Not only that, but all of these laws try to be unities but even as unities of law they depend on various particularizations. The unity considered in itself is insufficient, it turns out not to be the essence.

Thanks for the answer I'm not trying to argue with you just adding onto what you said. The rest is beyond where I've read to so far.

>>24547545
>But then he seems to make this move that,
If you think that's a questionable move just wait until you see what he does in the rest of the book. Hegel's famous because of his difficult writing. Anyone who can suffer through it feels like a genius and finds himself compelled to defend him because the struggle of understanding makes it feel like you've thought these thoughts for yourself - a very simple psychological phenomenon. I know you won't believe me so keep reading and find out for yourself.

"In skepticism, consciousness experiences itself in truth as a self-contradictory consciousness. From out of this experience, there ten arises a *new shape* which brings together the two thoughts which skepticism keeps asunder. Skepticism's thoughtlessness about itself has to vanish because it is in fact *one* consciousness that has these two modes in it. This new shape is thereby one that is *for itself* the doubled consciousness of itself as self-liberating, unchangeable, self-equal self-consciousness, and of itself as absolutely self-confusing, self-inverting - and it is the consciousness of its being this contradiction. - In stoicism, self-consciousness is the simple freedom of itself; in skepticism, it realizes itself and annihilates the other aspect of determinate existence, but on the contrary it doubles *itself* and is, to itself, now something twofold. This doubling, which was previously distributed between two singular individuals, the master and the servant, is thereby brought back into one singular individual. Although the doubling of self-consciousness within itself, which is essential in the concept of spirit, is thereby present, its unity is not yet present, and the *unhappy consciousness* is the consciousness of itself as a doubled, only contradictory creature."

IN PLAIN MAN'S ENGLISH: The skeptic sets himself apart from the world and mentally destroys everything around him - this is how he becomes 'free'. But he lives in contradiction because in daily life he thinks and acts against his own supposed skepticism. So now we get a new phase, 'unhappy consciousness', which affirms both sides of consciousness at once - consciousness standing aloof from life, and consciousness lost in life. The first is like the master from earlier, the second like the servant. The dialectic of these two will be the development of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Hey this is actually pretty neat but fucking hell is it a bitch to read. This paragraph is not that bad but many are word soup.

"Because, to itself, this contradiction of its essence is *one* consciousness, this *unhappy* and *estranged consciousness within itself* also must always have in one consciousness that of an other consciousness. But just when it thinks itself to have achieved victory and to have achieved restful unity with the other consciousness, each must be immediately expelled from the unity. However, its return into itself, or its reconciliation with itself, will exhibit the concept of the spirit that has been brought to life and has entered into existence, because in it, as one undivided consciousness, it is already a doubled consciousness. It itself *is* the beholding of a self-consciousness in an other; it itself *is* both of them; and, to itself, the unity of both is also the essence. However, *for itself* it is, to itself, not yet this essence itself, nor is it yet the unity of both."

IN PLAIN MAN'S ENGLISH: This one's not that bad either desu probably doesn't require much glossing. The unhappy consciousness has affirmed these two poles but it hasn't actually reconciled them, and Hegel is going to show how that reconciliation comes about. The 'master' side (God, as it turns out) is really only an alienated aspect of its own consciousness. But it can't see this yet, even though a unity of the two poles is what it is seeking. For itself it is the 'servant', it's lost in nonsense contingency, and the aloof, overlord side will for it turn into another being.

"While at first it is only the *immediate unity* of both, but while, for it, the two are opposed consciousnesses and not the same consciousness, one of them, namely, the simple unchangeable, is, to itself, as the *essence*, the other, however, the manifoldly changeable, as the *inessential*. *For it*, both are essences that are alien to each other. Because it is the consciousness of this contradiction, it itself takes the side of the changeable consciousness and is, to itself, the inessential. However, as consciousness of unchangeableness, or of the simple essence, it must at the same time concern itself with freeing itself from the inessential, which means to free itself from itself. For whether it is indeed *for itself* only the changeable and the unchangeable is, to itself, something alien, *it* is in that way *itself* simple and thereby unchangeable consciousness. It is thereby aware of the unchangeable consciousness as *its* essence, although it is still aware of it in such a way that for itself *it itself* is again not this essence. The stance that it assigns to both thus cannot be an indifference of one to the other, i.e., cannot be an indifference of itself with respect to the unchangeable. Rather, it is immediately itself both of them, and, for it, it is *the relation of both* as a relation of essence to the inessential, in such a manner that the latter is to be sublated. However, while both are, to itself, equally essential and equally contradictory, it is only the contradictory movement in which the opposite does not come to rest in its own opposite but instead newly engenders itself only as an opposite within it."

IN PLAIN MAN'S ENGLISH: This is mostly also pretty easy. Consciousness "is" both but it does not know this; its being both is how it, as it is for itself, the changeable, is in relation to the unchangeable. For Hegel essence = the 'truth' of something. So our changeable life is false/incomplete, its 'truth' is in the unchangeable (at this stage). For it to be 'sublated' would be for our changeable life to be part of/subsumed within the unchangeable. But as he says at the end an actual union is impossible because the two sides are contradictory, so there will be a movement of attempts at reconciliation -> dissolution -> fresh attempt etc. until you get to Reason.

"As a result, there is a struggle against an enemy in which victory really means defeat and in which attaining one thing means instead losing it in its opposite. Consciousness of life, of its existence, and of its activities only amounts to a sorrow over this existence and these *doings*, for consciousness has therein only the consciousness both of its opposite as being its essence and of its own nullity. In elevating itself beyond this, consciousness makes a transition into the unchangeable. However, this elevation is itself this same consciousness; it is thus immediately the consciousness of the opposite, namely, of itself as singular individuality. Just as a result of that, the unchangeable which enters int consciousness is at the same time affected by singular individuality, and it is current there only together with singular individuality. Instead of singular individuality having been abolished in this consciousness of the unchangeable, it only continues to emerge within it."

IN PLAIN MAN'S ENGLISH: Anyone who is/has been religious should immediately understand exactly what Hegel is describing here.

"However, in this movement consciousness experiences this very emergence of singular individuality in the unchangeable and the emergence of the unchangeable in singular individuality. For consciousness, that singular individuality itself comes to be in the unchangeable essence, and, at the same time, its own singular individuality comes to be in the unchangeable essence. For the truth of this movement is the very oneness of this doubled consciousness. However, to itself, this unity becomes at first itself the sort of unity in which the difference of both is still dominant. As a result, what is present for consciousness is the threefold way in which singular individuality is bound up with the unchangeable. At one time, it comes forth again, to itself, as opposed to the unchangeable essence, and it is thrown back to the beginning of the struggle, which remains the element of the whole relationship. However, at another time, for consciousness the unchangeable itself has in itself singular individuality such that singular individuality is a shape of the unchangeable into which the entire way of existing moves over. At a third time, consciousness finds itself to be this singular individuality within the unchangeable. To consciousness, the first unchangeable is only the alien essence passing sentence on it. While the other unchangeable is a shape of singular individuality like itself, consciousness becomes, thirdly, spirit. It has the joy of finding itself therein, and it is aware that its singular individuality is reconciled with the universal."

IN PLAIN MAN'S ENGLISH: There's the good old Hegelspeak. The movement here: first you're estranged from the unchangeable; then the unchangeable becomes a singular individual; finally the individual realizes his identity with this previously 'other' singular individual, reconciling the two poles. What's he saying? Is this anti-religious or what? Let's find out together.

>>24542496 (OP)

>>24547695
Schopenhauer was a pseud, he barely graduated university. Hegel, ironically, was the one who defended him.

>>24547704
>Schopenhauer was a pseud
>he barely graduated university.
>pseud
>no university
>no university=pseud
i have no idea how this type of person stumbles upon a discipline like philosophy when its so infamous for people who either didnt go to, or rejected university and academic circles.

>>24547695
absolutely based quote

>>24547759
This is typical logic from the Schopenhauerians, they can't follow a simple thought. The problem was his dissertation which is highly derivative if not plagiarized from other thinkers (especially Fichte) and is generally low quality work. It's incredible how dumb the Schopenhauerfags actually are when you engage them in conversation. I'll never forget when I pointed out to one of you how Schopenhauer didn't understand Kant's ding an sich and it was the same thing, "So what you fucking autist?!", not realizing how consequential this was for his entire system. You guys suck, your threads suck, your "based" quotes suck. You're the /lit/ equivalent of objectivists.

>>24547791
dropping random german words into your posts doesn't make you look like an intellectual

>>24542496 (OP)
He and Schopenhauer were right for different reasons

>>24543213
That's actually a reason not to like him

>>24547794
The other anon isn't wrong. Unless one of you Schopefaggots makes it's way to a universal then it's just glorified bitching.

>>24547791
>>24547801
Why are hegeltards so consistently retarded?

>>24547856
Nothing I just said changed and you know it. You won't argue about this. You're going to go back to shitbox and seethe until you do make it to a universal.

>>24547856
it's so endlessly funny to me that Hegel readers will cite blocks of text, provide interpretation and analysis, basically squeeze every drop they can out of their own brain as it relates to Hegel; Schoppy fans just post an AZ quote and call it a day, and then everyone says "wow so based"
it's clear who the winners are

>>24542496 (OP)
unrigorous slop. continental philosophy is just misunderstanding built on misunderstanding built on... ad infinitum

>>24548085
>continental philosophy is just misunderstanding built on misunderstanding built on... ad infinitum
As much as I agree with you for shitting on Hegel. Believe it or not. Science is the exact same. Modernity, Presentness can be a bias in itself I guess. Galileo was disagreed with by the entire scientific community at the time. So was Einstein a bit, but to a significantly less degree.

>>24547695
true

>>24547892
>it's clear who the winners are
Kazza and Freddie, once again, from the crowd, with a chair.

>>24542496 (OP)
>The last paragraph of Logik II
bro...

>>24548085
If you actually read his writings on Math, Mechanics, Chemistry, Astronomy, History etc. as sciences you would find a sublimity in his description of it.
As a Chemical Engineering BA I have never heard or read anyone elucidate Chemistry itself in such a succinct and true manner and then contrast it with Mechanics. I have a great friendship over Hegel with a Math PhD friend who precisely agrees with Hegel's ability to reveal the true movement within these sciences.
It's fine if you don't understand it. You are then simply at the level of 90% of everyone else who studies these things just to get a better job; but for those that are genuine in their study of this field even beyond their university days there is no denying Hegel is spot on.

>>24547695
TRVKE (i have never read hegel)

>>24548700
Im sure I can find just as many significantly more intelligent math obsessed losers than you who find Hegel writings on science and mathematics to be ridiculous. The conceit to appeal to yourself and a friend over a percieved particular intelligence (mathematically educated) to validate a collection of thoughts without any actual seeming engagement with the object, just expression of the subject. Tells me that while you indeed may be very smart. Im not sure I'd ever trust you for good judgment.

>>24548718
You are using punctuation incorrectly. It seems you are a math nerd, so this makes a lot of sense.
I did say 90% only do their degree for the money afterwards. From the remaining 10% it is again at least 90% who do not even think. They simply do the thing in front of them; play with the imaginations of the problems they get presented with.
To find anyone who can engage philosophically with their own field is a rarity, as most are equally as thoughtless as worker ants in their positions that also keep chugging forward with whatever the material before them might be.

Hegel filters almost all of Philosophy students. So, those who are not even familiar with the philosophical history will have an even greater impenetrable approach to his works, which is why you will more often find math nerds flock to Wittgenstein, Gödel just like physicist still flock to Hume and his modern followers. (It's genuinely this pathetically debased.) So, of course, I need to revert to minor examples as my friend (who first studied Classic studies) and myself who also has a BA and MA in Philosophy and classics when it comes to appreciating Hegel beyond trying to be pretentiously exposed to his name.

The assumption that a general class or even majority needed to approve of something for it to be right is obviously banal, and such a matter of fact, as the majority not understanding their science formulating movement, wouldn't go against Hegel in the slightest.

If you can read through the Phenomenology of Spirit (where he exposes the popular sciences in a negative light) and get to your sections in Logik afterwards I am certain you will agree. Thing is, you will never manage because you won't grasp 90% of what Hegel with have written before your superficial field becomes a topic again.

Post em

>>24548746

>>24548750
Obviously she just needs to wear a rubber Hegel mask in bed.