Alright I fell for the memes and bought this book and I must say it slaps. The preface alone is gold, he systematically destroys every false conception of philosophy there is, from the mystics who think arguments are just window-dressing for supernatural gnosis, to the pseuds who think philosophy is accessible to common sense and doesn't require any hard studying, or who think philosophy should be edifying or contain life lessons.

When you get into the book itself he drops you right off the deep end with the one and the many. He leads you through movements of consciousness from immediate sense perception, which turns out to require the universal (the 'this', the 'now); then this universal of perception collapses, basically because you can't distinguish its unity from its parts; then into the supersensible, which starts off as a mysterious void or holy realm and then becomes the unity of simple, ultimate laws, then the understanding affirms the differences within these laws, so law itself becomes a one-many, until:
"This simple infinity, or the absolute concept, is to be called the simple essence of life, the soul of the world, the universal bloodstream, which is omnipresent, neither dulled nor interrupted by any difference, which is instead itself both every difference as well as their sublatedness."

He writes technical prose but mixes it with grace and humor. This book also absolutely filters retards, you will find almost nothing online to read about it worth reading. I found a few reddit posts about the Force and Understanding section and they were both awful (one claimed it's about Schelling, I guess because he mentioned magnetism; another claimed the 'inverted world' is a reductio ad absurdum, when it's actually integral to the transition to self-consciousness, and is about how any simple aspect of a law also contains its inversion, i.e. punishment of a crime is not commission of crime but it 'contains' commission as its inversion, or the north pole is not the south pole but it 'contains' the south pole, etc.)

General Hegel thread.

philosophy is accessible to common sense and doesn't require any hard studying. it necessarily has to be if plato is right and ideals are ubiquitous. philosophy should be edifying or contain life lessons too, that's how the philosophy of the ancients is.

didn't read the rest it's too retarded already.

>>24559689 (OP)
>another claimed the 'inverted world' is a reductio ad absurdum,
That's Pippin. Kojeve thought it was somehow about Christianity. Another "big brain" thought it was about Platonism. Yet another insists the entire section on Consciousness is about Kant even though it completely ignores all of Kant's concerns and posits the immediate reality of the world, I guess because it talks about sensation and understanding it's gotta be about Kant? There's more Plato and Aristotle in it than Kant. Another big brain commentator claims the two sorts of supersensible realms represent empiricism and realism, apparently not noticing that the first ("realist") conception of the supersensible, in which the maximally universal law is the truth, is only a moment that's sublated, and the moment that he thinks represents 'empiricism' posits that the differences in the law are non-essential, which has absolutely nothing to do with empiricism.

>>24559695
>philosophy should be edifying or contain life lessons too, that's how the philosophy of the ancients is.
Check it out, a pseud who has only read Plato's dialogues and maybe some Stoic slop.
>philosophy is accessible to common sense and doesn't require any hard studying.
Whatever you say buddy.

Most people who claim to like philosophy in real life or on /lit/ don't know what philosophy is and have hardly read any.
>In lieu of the long course of cultural formation, a movement as rich as it is profound and through which spirit arrives at knowing, we now see the view that both the immediate revelation of the divine and the views of healthy common sense, neither of which are bothered or educated by any other type of knowing or by genuine philosophy, are supposed to be a complete equivalent for philosophy, and that they are as good a surrogate for philosophy as chicory is lauded as a surrogate for coffee. It is not pleasant to note how ignorance mixed with formless, tasteless crudity, which is itself incapable of concentrating its thoughts on an abstract propositionand even less so on the connections of many such propositions, assures itself at one time that it is itself freedom and is tolerance of thinking, and at another time it even assures itself of its own genius. Natural philosophizing, which holds itself to be too good for the concept and which through this deficiency takes itself to be an intuitive and poetical thinking, trades in the arbitrary combinations of an imagination which is quite simply disorganized by its own thoughts. When it is flowing down the more peaceful riverbed of healthy common sense, it dishes out at best a rhetoric of trivial truths. Such philosophizing could have long ago spared itself the trouble of bringing forth final truths of that sort. They were long since to be found, say, in the catechism, in popular proverbs, etc.

>>24559689 (OP)
>Another AI slop post
Tiresome.

>>24559792
It really is.

Why not bump my legitimate idealism thread while this other fool posts his one sentence spam.

>>24559982
Since you're fine with hopping into threads to pick fights, let me bring one back to you. I figured you'd bow out of the Plato thread like a coward, you do this every time we have it out about Plato. You'll say something I disagree with, I'll differ gently and qualifiedly, and you come out swinging like a retard and picking fights, and then crashing out about pseuds while maintaining a literal wiki-tier understanding. You'll bitch about anamnesis being retarded, and, when I point out that Plato doesn't buy it himself and shifts the meaning later in the same dialogue, you'll start crying like a fag and denying it just because you have an emotional need to use Plato as a punchingbag.

You're a miserable retard in his 40s who spends too much time here, bitches about the quality of discussions, and chases away anyone with questions on your wheelhouse subjects. Your Hegel threads will be memed on because you have a thin skin and total impatience to even talk to anyone at a different level of understanding. Your OP starts with you picking targets and ends with you bitching about reddit posts. You've done all that judicious reading of Aristotle, and you didn't learn shit from his Rhetoric.