Hegelian Bros...

>>24578116 (OP)
No way Russel was really this retarded.

Russell is not refuting or "destroying" anything here, he is simply describing it. The example is not a bad way of getting a grip on Hegel's metaphysical ("speculative") logic, and the whole passage clearly reflects Russell's early engagement with British Hegelian thought when it was still dominant in Britain. He obviously did read Hegel sympathetically and seriously at some point.

Look at the last few sentences. He is accurately and adequately describing Hegel's central contention: that ultimately the truth can only be contained and expressed in the Whole, and thus all particular ("finite") attempts to express, represent, posit, or capture truth lead us inexorably from the particular and contingent back to the whole in its necessity.

This passage is a good litmus test for whether your interest in philosophy is genuine or internet-brained trend-following. If you see RUSSELL and HEGEL and UNCLE and assume "RUSSELL must be PUNKING HEGEL with an UNCLE" because your mind converts everything into streamers "beefing" over "drama" between other rival streamers and Twitter retards posting gotchas at each other, you need to get offline and go read some philosophy. Not Youtube summaries, not another Wikipedia binge. Go buy a physical copy (of Russell or Hegel, or whoever you want) and sit down at a wooden table and read it.

>>24578116 (OP)
Tldr so you're an atheist now. There are plenty of time loop dilemmas to consider at this point. Anon, you could be your own uncle.

>>24578691
I would agree with the overall "read the texts" sentiment, but since Hegel's texts do not contain the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" meme, Russell is not engaging with Hegel, hence his inability to understand what happens once you're at the in-itself-and-for-itself stage.
Far from "relations cannot be real", relations, interconnectedness, and intersubjectivity are indispensable for Hegel, and errors, such as Russell's, are but stepping stones.

>>24578116 (OP)
lol this is funny because russel is a non-dualist philosopher trying to attack another western non-dualist.

>>24578116 (OP)
>"uncle = universe" as a thesis necessarily brings about that "nephew = absolute" because the uncle requires a nephew
How does he derive that a nephew has to be the absolute from the thesis ? Besides, aren't dialectics only reducible to man in their thesis/antithesis/synthesis form ?

>>24578116 (OP)
Holy fuck Philosophy is childish

>>24578116 (OP)
Wordcel garbage.

>>24578116 (OP)
>muh facts and argumentation
see how that loser shit leads to >>24578674. schopenhauer knew better and called the charlatan a retard preemptively. now its on their loser followers to prove value, which is something they will never be able to do. so they mutter "you are too stupid to understand" which is not taken seriously by anyone.

>>24578674
He was the worst kind of idiot because, beyond simple stupidity, he considered smugness a form of intelligence.

Very British. They accept their totalitarian state with exactly the same smirk.

>>24579142
Hegel is not that complicated. It is just that too many weary and struggle to continue the thought. They instead want pauses and repetitions of already known and established things; things they themselves are already familiar with and want confirmed (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche readers etc.). Hegel however writes that thinking is precisely rereading the same sentence multiple times and it change its meaning every time. Normal people hate this and instead want to debase themselves again to lower level beings that don't think and instead revert back to quotidian playing with imaginations of the fun toys they see during the day; fixed and certain things that never need to be thought about! Fine to be a debased entity, but it doesn't negate dialectical thinking reaching higher form. You can clearly see this unwillingness to think in the Russel quote and the appeal to comfortable known absolutes like "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" and even his conclusion is frankly 'wrong'. This is a waste of time to debate, however, as none of you have read enough of the philosophical history and know neither Latin, Greek or German sufficiently. You'll never be able to think like Hegel.
>"Hegel zu widerlegen heißt, ihn zu bestätigen."

>>24579184
you started with a plain wrong assumption, and proceeded to present an attack based on psychologizing the opponent instead of showing anything worthy in hegel (there isn't any).

>none of you have read enough of the philosophical history and know neither Latin, Greek or German sufficiently
this one is funny though the bar of entry keeps raising, not only people have to read everything hegel wrote and be familiar with the entire philosophy before him, they need to be fluent in latin greek and german to understand him sufficiently. just lol.

>>24579003
>Holy fuck Philosophy is childish

>>24579184
>Hegel is not that complicated
>This is a waste of time to debate, however, as none of you have read enough of the philosophical history and know neither Latin, Greek or German sufficiently. You'll never be able to think like Hegel.
You sound like someone with many friends.

>>24579184
Russell's credo can be boiled down to: "Life is fundamentally simple, despite its complexity, so it can be reduced to simple, clear, logical relationships. For example: since I am intelligent and therefore right, anyone I criticize must be stupid and wrong." This is childishness at its finest.

>>24579184
Philosophy is literally about defining the most basic aspects/categories of reality. If you can't translate it it's not philosophy it's poetry

>>24579222
Yet Russel had many changes and phases in his philosophical life.

>>24579226

That's true. But isn't it also true that the older he got, the closer he came to the look I mentioned, becoming exactly like that around 1940?

Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IEYW5wuK3Y

>>24579225
>"Philosophy is literally about defining the most basic aspects/categories of reality."
>t. reads Russel unironically

>>24578691
Russell is reading Hegel’s Logic as if it concerns propositions (representational thought as Hegel would say) so no it really is retarded.

>>24579237
I haven't read him. I have read Hegel though and that's absolutely what he's doing.

>>24579244
Then you read the section in the foreword of Logik that explicitly said Philosophy can now only be done in German, right?
And hegel would never describe what he's doing as
>defining the most basics aspects of reality
That is a way to childish and insufficient way to describe what he is doing. An anglo would perhaps describe himself in such a way.

>>24579222
I'm sure that's exactly how he thought. a masterful analysis by peanut brain.

>>24579257
It's not childish it is 100% accurate and it bothers you because it doesn't sound impressive and obscure enough. He has a tripartite metaphysics which he maps onto the physical world and consciousness.

>>24579273
>He has a tripartite metaphysic
I think I know what you are alluding to, but he writes in the final chapter of Logic that the coherent triplicity is a quadruplicity. He makes an explicit point in saying this to perhaps preempt any latching onto the Kantian triplicity as you are doing. And seeing a triplicity in everything Hegel does is an obvious sign someone had to consult anglo secondary sources to just get through the pages.

>>24579321
That is completely irrelevant to the fact that it's literally just a set of nested categories, as I said it was. I don't care about Hegel, I was just taking issue with your putting on airs about how inscrutable and untranslatable and blah blah whatever he is. You're just being annoying and pretentious and have some insecurity complex about anglos

>>24579321
>uh it was not three, actually it was four durr
unreal.

>>24579335
>You're just being annoying and pretentious and have some insecurity complex about anglos
The thread is on anglos, retard. If this was Dugin giving one of his retarded anti-European comments Id complain about Russian ignorance.

And yes, Philosophy is untranslatable since it is firmly rooted in culture and time. Seethe more angloid, but Russel is your greatest philosopher kek

I can't suss out what psychological drive fuels hegel fanboyship. like imagine doing this for free. what's the motivation?

...yes?

>>24579335
>the biggest reason people find philosophy to be obscure is that they seek to be told what to think

>>24579321
I haven’t read the Logic yet (nta) but how does this relate to him embracing and endorsing the triadic schema in the preface to pos? He basically says it’s the only thing Kant was right about, but that Kant didn’t understand it’s significance.

>>24579406
No it’s just legit fun and enriching to understand complex thinkers. It makes you guys seethe so hard, I don’t get it.

>>24579426
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F86BAdeNw
is you
>Ich nehm nie ein Buch persönlich. Ich nehm es nur als Angebot wahr.

>>24579426
>this dilemma leads to the common outcome that despite humans having the ability to think there are many who have never taken the trouble to do so and simply claim they have understood all about it.

>>24578116 (OP)
He's not destroying it tho

>>24579458
But that’s not what it’s like to read someone like Hegel. The entire process is active, you have to argue with the text and almost construct the system yourself to even understand it. You think it’s more a process of deciphering or translating and at the end you say “aha, pure genius!” Reading someone like Schopenhauer, on the other hand, is very much like being spoon-fed. You guys can seethe for eternity, Schopenhauer is a midwit philosopher and only midwits read him.

>>24579794
>the text being written in an unclear manner is good
You are such a goddamn pseud lmao

>>24579800
It’s not written in an unclear manner.

>>24579225
Hegel was a theologian pretending to be a philosopher. His works are fundamentally religious and have little to do with philosophy.

>>24579794
>I read Hegel to feel smart
Yes, we know. That's why he's so popular. That's why he's the favorite anachronistic pop-philosopher of all pseuds worldwide and that's what all pop-philosophers do to accrue a wide-ranging audience.
It's not about the love of wisdom and the seeking of truth, it's about bloating your fetid ego and making you feel like you're more intelligent than you actually are.
>smart people read this author so I'll read it too because I want to be smart

>>24579184
>no actually i'm not retarded, you need to read my passage a billion times to get it

>>24579003
If you think its so childish become a sophist instead. Oh wait you already did.

>>24578786
The thesis/antithesis/synthesis thing is close enough (posited, negation of the posited, negation of the negation) that it's commonly used as a shorthand, was especially so in the young Russell's British Idealist milieu. It's been a meme for years now to say "Hegel never actually said it!" 99% of the time when it's said, it's just people wanting to look like they have the "inside scoop" on something, who actually know nothing about Hegel.

>Russell is not engaging with Hegel
Russell's grasp of the progressive negation of negativity and the relationship between finitude and infinitude here shows that he engaged plenty with Hegel and his contemporary British interpreters, who were very sophisticated even if "heterodox" Hegelians. Anyone who reads a lot of Hegel will recognize that Russell is basically on point here. It's actually a surprisingly sympathetic description of Hegel's method and preserves the intent behind the method, which is way more charitable than Russell's contemporary reputation would probably suggest. Its "tone" is right. He's obviously putting his own insouciant British touch on it, speaking it in plain English, but again, it's obvious he's also subtly indicating to his reader that he knows his Hegel decently, because he knows laziness or sloppiness would be pounced upon.

He isn't saying Hegel thinks relations aren't real. He is saying he thinks they aren't substantial, which is true. They are real only in relation to the truly substantial.

>>24579242
No he isn't. He is clearly referencing the Science of Logic or at least the Encylopedia Logic here, and he's clearly read it. There is no way he doesn't understand Vorstellen. The insufficiency of Vorstellen is baked into the passage posted by the OP.

he has such a punchable face guy looks like a squirrel

>>24579396

Lol this. I'm not a philosofag so I did not understand half of this schizobabble but from what I can gather Hegel's proposition as framed by Russel does not sound problematic.

So many seething low IQ posts itt kek

>>24579386
What is more suss is the need for the anti Hegel seethe and crying at others that they totally wasted their time with Hegel (while you are wasting your time with Hegel by proxy.)

>>24579386
It's pseudointellectualism. See >>24580638
>So many seething low IQ posts itt kek
It's driven by this need to posture intelligence and try to portray oneself as an intellectual (because one lacks the qualities of a genuine one), and most importantly as someone who is more intellectual than others. Status-seeking behavior.

>>24580638
shitposting takes marginally less time than reading hegel. this faulty comparison is already giving a clue about your mental capacity.

>>24578674
I mean this is the guy who thought that whole of Kant's work was "fiction". The only reason why Russell is even talked about today is his history book which is better left unread no matter who you are

>>24578116 (OP)
Guys, does anyone here have a good /lit/'s reading order chart on Hegel?

>>24579212
>>24580379
niggas fell for ragebait. Like, do you guys ever learn that it's bots that expel such low effort replies randomly in a thread

>>24578691
This 100% and whoever made the meme is an absolute retard with no fucking reading comprehension.
>you need to get offline and go read some philosophy. Not Youtube summaries, not another Wikipedia binge. Go buy a physical copy (of Russell or Hegel, or whoever you want) and sit down at a wooden table and read it.
The only correct answer to 99% of threads on /lit/

>>24580798
They’re all retarded, they’ll tell you you need to read the Philokalia and complete works of Luther. Conventional advice these days is to start with something like the Propaedeutic to get your feet wet, you can find it online. You can also just start with the Phenomenology, it’s a steeper ascent but within a week or two you’ll be used to Hegel’s terminology and way of thinking. It also has the advantage of being concrete since he’s describing the progression of actual thinking/consciousness/society. The more of previous lit and philosophy you’ve read the better. Aristotle is more important than Kant. Still previous reading is mostly useful for understanding who he’s engaging with, it’s not like it directly helps you parse his sentences as such.

>>24580798
>Guys, does anyone here have a good /lit/'s reading order chart on Hegel?
1) Nick Land
2) Engels
3) Deleuze & Guattari
4) Marx
5) Aristotle
6) Lacan
7) Robert Graves Masturbatory Fantasies
9) Hegel

>>24580851
This anon is correct, without Lacan you will simply not be able to read Hegel.

>>24580682
do you go into every thread on 4channel.org/lit/ to seethe at people? Maybe yes, but I am inclined to believe no, and you are instead just a seething brainlet obsessed with hating Hegel.
>>24580681
Why are you people so mad? fucking kek lmao

>>24580870

>>24580423
>He isn't saying Hegel thinks relations aren't real.
>It follows that relations cannot be real
You aren't engaging with Russell, just as he isn't engaging with Hegel.

>>24580983
I derive a sick pleasure from poking hegelians. when they're pressed to show what they have for reading that crap they just lose it. all they have is insults, and seething.

>>24581004
You have not read Hegel deeply and are being dishonest. The progression from Existenz to Wirklichkeit is precisely what he is talking about. This is not even significantly different from other emanationist logics: the realness we grasp in everyday life or even scientific understanding (as in, Verstand) is not the true, ultimate realness of the real substances. In Descartes, all apparently real things ultimately resolve into two substances, themselves dependent on one substance, God. In Spinoza, all that we experience is dependent on one substance, God. In Leibniz, all apparently inanimate things and space and time are mere appearances, and ultimately only souls and God are substantial. Russell is not preserving Hegel's technical vocabulary because he doesn't care. He's expressing the basic emanationist character of it and the distinction between ordinary and speculative cognition.

>>24581084
>makes statement
>is contradicted
>"I'M NOT OWNED I'M NOT OWNED I'M NOT OWNED"

>>24578691
>Russell is not refuting
he literally is
>because your mind converts everything into streamers "beefing"
no dude, it is YOUR mind watching streamers having a fight and "talk it over" in discord so your dumbass think russell and hegel are friends!
russell calls hegel a fraud and his logic bullshit in "history of western philosophy", a book you clearly haven't read, let alone other works of analytical philosophers,
so stick with your controontinal philosophers which is for low iq shitskins without the ability to parse math signs

>>24580444
checked

If you just pick one (1) philosopher, any you like, Hume, Aquinas, fucking Proclus, anyone, and spend a year or two studying them deeply and reading their collected works, you will know more about philosophy than 99% of the people who post about philosophy online. Philosophy is a demanding, high iq hobby, but it’s also fascinating to midwits, who outnumber the knowledgeable people 100 to 1. After mastering said philosopher come here, or even reddit, to talk about him and see how retarded everyone is - including the guys who namedrop five or six thinkers in every paragraph. At best you’ll have some dullard asking you to spoonfeed him answers to idiotic questions (“If phronesis deals with the ultimates… is that the telos? Is the ultimate the telos?”) which he could answer himself by doing what you did and reading the books. But of course the guy you’re talking to is illiterate, this is why he’s turning to you in the first place. Very sad state of affairs. Philosophy is great and all but it’s a solitary hobby - dare I say mental masturbation?

Hegel thought women peed out of their vaginas: “The depth from which spirit pushes out from its inwardness but which it only manages to drive to the level of representational consciousness and then abandons it there, and the ignorance of this consciousness about what it says, are the same kind of connection of higher and lower which, in the case of the living being, nature itself naively expresses in the combination of the organ of its highest fulfillment, the organ of generation, with the organ of urination.”

If both men were brought back to life for a day, whose lecture would draw more students and professors?

Hegel is DOGSHIT

Which is confirmed by the retards here that sperg out when you say so

Hegel sounds like a stupid person’s idea of a smart person

Waste of time to bother with him

I’m pissed because I couldn’t sleep last night and now I’m too fried to read Hegel. It might as well be written in Arabic.

>>24582263
No one’s sperging out at you guys, you’re the ones posting meaningless accusations of vagueness and incomprehensibility and pompousness over and over and over again. Give it a rest already, maybe read a book?

>>24582274

Because he sucks.

And people should be told he sucks.

The only thing worse than his philosophy is his writing

>>24582265
Now you know what it feels like to be a Schop fanboy.

>>24582263
I have a friend who excels in mathematics and I used to think she was a brainiac until I found out she’s into Hegel and spends by her own estimate at least ten hours reading him every week. I then realized that being good at math doesn’t preclude one from being a midwit pseud

>>24582330


Lmao

>>24582330
You don't really need to understand anything about math to be good at math. Obviously you have a better shot at doing so if the subject is easy for you but you can really just be totally pragmatic about it.

>>24582347
She’s good at proofs

Hegel’s the only philosopher who can debunk scientific racism and call for the “total inversion” of the Jewish people in the same paragraph.

>>24582330
does "she" have a penis?

>>24582243
He is describing the combination (being placed together) of two distinct organs, not saying they are one organ. LEARN TO READ

>>24582604
That would spoil the analogy. Representational thought isn’t “next to” the concept it’s negated by it. Also you seem to be just as confused about the male anatomy as Hegel is about the female. Interesting, a sort of “inverted Hegel”.

>>24582617
you baited me

>>24578691
Thanks, you made me feel better about my understanding of te text.

>>24582593
No, just autism and pseudery. I did consider asking her out once but when I was with her and some friends their friends walking she started randomly singing British grenadiers and I caught major second hand embarrassment

>>24582670
was she an ivf baby? asking for a science project

>>24581115
I accept your concession. In the future, when having an argument you should not just negatively snipe at the other person but constructively say things. This isn't about being more unpleasant, it's about curbing tendencies toward laziness. If you are always content to say "nuh uh though" (effectively), you'll never learn and improve. When defeated or frustrated, try to get abreast of the disagreement and have the courage to posit your own interpretation instead of just crying about the other person's.

>>24581226
I meant in the passage posted, obviously. Well, obvious to most.

By the way, since you mentioned Russell's History of Western Philosophy, here is a quote from it relevant to my (correct, but only because it's obvious and basic) interpretation above.

>>24582668
I'd say "never listen to retards" but Hegel in his own History of Philosophy says that the glory of Platonic dialogue is that the interlocutors take each other fundamentally seriously and try to interpret them charitably rather than unilaterally deciding to bypass their disagreements. I'm not sure how Hegel would react to the actual, literal retarded people in this thread though.

hegel was a worthless retard cop who thought there were 7 planets and that magnets make objects heavier
typical garbage "philosopher" from the most overrated country in the world

>>24579155
It isn't a totalitarian state and you have 50,000 firearms related deaths per year.

>>24583094
Shoo shoo tranny

>>24583079
It really seems that people have a tendency in their thinking, which perhaps could be crudely divided into the two categories "left brained" and "right brained" (useful for the distinction I am about to introduce). One category (left brained) will resonate with a more strict systematic logic along the lines of Russell, while the other (right brained) will be drawn towards a more abstract, intuitive, almost mystical type of thinking which is closer to Hegel. This divide seems so powerful that it essentially overrides any real dialogue and sorts most people into one of two camps which compels them to show hostility towards the other camp. Would you agree with this? And the real question, why would people enter this thread and then behave in such an unproductive tribalistic manner? Can this troublesome tendency be bypassed somehow?

>>24578691
>>24580423
>>24581084
>>24583079
You're right, although it should be noted that Russell's interpretation can lend itself into making Hegel a schellingian, in the sense that all differences are sublated in the absolute identity, and we all know how critical Hegel was of that idea. You mentioned infinity, and for Hegel, infinity is not a mere separation of finitude since that would limit infinity and infinity is precisely the unlimited. Infinity, insofar as it's the absolute affirmation, is the negation of negation that includes the negated content. It negates the finite (since to be finite is to negate the other) but also absorbs it, not by diluting its finitude but by preserving it as an other. This leads to a retrieval of the separatedness Russell talks about, since the Whole cannot be the Whole if it remains in absolute opposition to its parts. If the truth of immediacy is mediation then the truth of mediation must be a return to immediacy, an immediacy that contains mediation. That's the passage from essence to concept. The singular is self-sufficient if and only if it immediatly references both the negation and the negation of negation. Each perspective is equally unconditioned for all of them equally contain each other.

>>24579257
>Then you read the section in the foreword of Logik that explicitly said Philosophy can now only be done in German
He only says that german lends itself to speculative thought due to the existence of composite words, allowing them to transcend their self-identity or to self-differentiate. It would be quite inconsistent with his philosophy to hold that position. Thought would be reduced to the juxtaposition between signs that bear a contingent relation to one another. There would be no identification between Logos and actuality.
>That is a way to childish and insufficient way to describe what he is doing.
That's how he starts his logic, with the most simple thing there is. If he didn't start that way, he would start with something previously mediated. Thus, he would need to presuppose the arbitrary unity of a multiplicity of elements, without even elaborating on the in-itself of each of those elements. They would only appear as being-for-other. One of the purposes of the Phenomenology is to go from the apparition of truth as an other, to truth in-itself. It is true that this immediate in-itself shows itself to pass unto an other, but it is necessary for the passage into essence, which ultimately reabsorbs the truth of immediacy. Hegel is a thinker of how simplicity transitions into complexity and how complexity transitions into simplicity.