tfw you realize the system isn't in a book; it's in your head.

tfw you realise this retarded bitch thought magnets made things heavier

no book can contain the system

>>24550843
>he doesn't know

>>24550856
correct, this bootlicking pig didn't know his ass from his elbow

No thinking here. Just mindless metaphysicians.

> Stop being so hard on yourself.
I'm not I'm hard on the system.

>>24550838 (OP)
What does Hegel aim to solve in philosophy?

>>24550843
Not what he says.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature2.htm

>The varying density of matter *is often explained by the assumption of pores*; - though "to explain" means in general to refer a phenomenon back to the accepted, familiar determinations of the understanding, and no conceptions are more familiar than those of "composition," "pieces and their details," and "emptiness." Therefore nothing is clearer than to use the imaginative invention of pores to comprehend the densification of matter. These would be empty interstices, though physics does not demonstrate them, despite its attempt to speak of them as at hand and its claim to be based on experience and observation. What is beyond these and is merely assumed is the matter of thought. It does not occur to physics, however, that it has thoughts, which is true in at least two senses and here in a third sense: the pores are only imaginative inventions.
>An immediate *example of the peculiar specification of gravity offered by physics* is furnished by the phenomenon that, when a bar of iron, evenly balanced on its fulcrum, is magnetised, it loses its equilibrium and *shows itself to be heavier at one pole than at the other*.-The axioms presupposed by physics in its mode of representing density are: (1) that equal amounts of equally large material parts weigh the same;-in this way the formal identity of gravity remains consistent-(2) the measure of the number of parts is the amount of weight, but (3) also of space, so that bodies of equal weight occupy equal amounts of space; (4) consequently, when equal weights are found in different volumes, the equality of the spaces is preserved by the assumption of pores which fill the space.

He's commenting in an aside on a contemporary physical hypothesis about matter which wasn't able to explain the phenomenon of a magnetized bar of iron *appearing* heavier on one side. His claim isn't that it's actually made heavier, he's agnostic about what's actually going on. No contemporary physicist had a grasp on electromagnetism until Faraday (who started publishing his investigations about the time Hegel died) and Maxwell.

>>24552001
correct, what he actually said was even more retarded than how schopenhauer politely sanitised it

>>24552583
Pointing out that the at-that-time contemporary hypothesis of matter as porous in a certain way doesn't explain what's happening with magentized bars of metal is retarded? Your brain is cooked if you're looking for any and every possible justification to hate an author you only hate because another author told you to.

Do not use secondary sources or cribs, do not be a redditor. Any educated person can understand PoS by reading it over and over again. The modern cribs are full of shit, you also miss out on the entire experience of thinking through the book. This is awful advice and it’s all you hear on reddit - supposedly you can never understand this book on your own. Have you read the preface? Hegel was writing for the lettered public in general, pseuds and dilettantes like you and me.

Another thing you hear is that you have to know the entire history of philosophy to understand Hegel. This is also pretentious nonsense. By all means the more you’ve read the more connections you’ll notice. Aristotle and Kant are especially important. But the fact is Hegel is doing his own thing. Sure, it’s useful to know that in Schelling’s autistsprach “form” is particular and “essence” is universal, but it’s not really that helpful. Hegel wants you to use your brain to think about what he’s saying and so decode his highly idiosyncratic language on your own. For what it’s worth, many of these supposed big brain reddit Hegelians don’t really know a thing about Aristotle or Kant - again because they lean heavily on modern secondary sources rather than put in the work to understand the primaries on their own terms.

Great philosophy makes you struggle and sweat to think your way through it. Kant said you can’t teach philosophy, only philosophizing, and the post-Kantians took this very seriously, which is why they wrote so esoterically. Someone who leans on some modern professional expert to read Hegel is only learning historically, which is to say he’s not really learning at all. Hegel put it well in the Differenzschrift: “The living spirit that dwells in a philosophy demands to be born of a kindred spirit if it is to unveil itself. It brushes past the historical concern which is moved by some interest, to collect information about opinions.” The struggle and despair, the labor of the concept, is what you should WANT if you’re reading someone like Hegel or Fichte. If that sounds boring or tedious, you’re not ready yet.