Thread 24677393

Hegel thread.

I know a few of you niggers are reading the Phenomenology, where are you in the book and what do you think?

literally got my copy today
i'll let you know once i bother reading it

>>24677393 (OP)
I got filtered by the entire section on religion and hence absolute knowing but I think I'm understanding it better now. Hegel is definitely not an atheist, people who think he is saying "God is just the same as man" are getting filtered badly.

>>24677393 (OP)
Funnily enough my class just started talking about Hegel in my Sociology theory class yesterday. Seems like a relatively chill guy compared to his forerunners .though lol .
>>24677418
From what I've got from what we've read . God is just pure consciousness and he's behind the inevitable change within society ?

>>24677393 (OP)
I can't take it seriously knowing how the plutocrats are using his philosophy on their regime, same happened to Plato's

>>24677473
At least in the Phenomenology of Spirit, God is the essence, the in-itself of reality. As you move through the book you see consciousness dally with various defective forms of this essence - it's an unreachable beyond before which I must annihilate myself; or, it's a beyond to which I can give only token obedience; etc. On the other hand, there are defective forms of universality all of which end up suppressing/alienating individuality. Absolute spirit turns out to be the universal reconciliation of the opposition between universal duty and the particularity of action, in the form of judging/universal consciousness and singular, active consciousness - it's forgiveness, absolution, this is the true essence in which our relationships with others make sense. We have to know this essence as our truth and if it wasn't the knowing of a consciousness, it wouldn't be adequate to being the highest truth.

But religion per se only ends in representational thought and has to be transcended by absolute knowing. But if absolute knowing is a sort of union with God in a matrix of forgiveness, then it is just the genuinely religious life, which Hegel calls absolute knowing instead. On the other hand, you could say that it's anti-religious because it attacks the separation of God and man.

What do I have to read before hegel

>>24677620
The more the better but in principle you could read him blind. You could read his History of Philosophy first. I dunno I am early in reading him but I did not have trouble starting with the Phenomenology. Hegel did intend it to be the introduction to his system. I realize from a response last thread that I really need to get through his Logic to properly understand what he's doing.

STOP READING FUCKING HEGEL WHILE I'M STILL STUCK ON KANT REEEEEEE

Philosophy after 1500 ian't worth selling

>>24677651
>Kant
lol, lmao even. Hegel explodes him, there's nothing left of Kant but a smoking crater and charred bits of peruke.

"While idealism expresses the simple unity of self-consciousness as being all reality and immediately makes it the essence, without comprehending it as the absolutely negative essence - for only this absolutely negative essence has in its own self negation, i.e., determinateness, or the difference itself - it is along these lines that there is a second idealism even more incomprehensible than the first idealism [that posits a thing-in-itself]. This second idealism declares that there are differences in the category, or species of the category. This assurance itself, just like the assurance about any determinate number of species of the category, is a new assurance, which, however, contains in its own self the claim that we no longer need to accept it as an assurance. For while it is in the pure I, in the pure understanding itself, that difference itself gets underway, it is thereby posited that immediacy, issuing assurances, finding the given, is to be abandoned here, and comprehension is to begin. However, to take up again the plurality of categories in some way or other as something we simply come upon, for example in judgments, and then to continue to put up with them in that form, is in fact to be regarded as a disgrace to science. Where is the understanding supposed to be capable of demonstrating necessity if it is incapable of demonstrating the pure necessity it has within itself?" 235

>>24677675
Unreadable.

>>24677798
He's saying that the basic concept of idealism is that self-consciousness is all reality and there's nothing outside of it - Kant's thing-in-itself being a mistake in this regard, and Fichte's Anstoss too. But it's an even greater error not to realize that the mode of the I's acting in the world are part of the I itself. Kant makes the mistake of seeing the differences of our thinking about the world as existing 'on their own', arbitrarily deriving them from logical judgments. It's a failure to appreciate the self as pure negativity; here it's understood as a "thing" (the simple intellect) opposed to a bunch of other "things" (the 12 categories). If self-consciousness is all reality its mode of relating to the world should be unified and intelligible, not ad hoc and retarded.

>>24677591
Yes but if you pay attention the entire point of the section on Religion is that man forms representations of the self-consciousness of spirit which are all inadequate. So Jesus for example is sublated. In absolute knowing, absolute spirit is self-conscious because are are conscious of the essence of ourselves - spirit is conscious of itself. So like all the other idealist theologies it's a sort of anthropocentric atheism. Hegel rejects the idea that God is actually something apart from ourselves.

>>24677915
Also note that the three shapes of religion correspond to the forms of Consciousness. Absolute knowing is self-consciousness.

>>24677620
try this

Observing Reason is a slog, like driving through Nebraska. Nothing else to add at this time.

>>24678223
Based chart, the Theoretical Outline is indeed a must-read. Fichte wrote the Foundation on the fly so he had to compress his Deduction of Representation so much it’s almost incomprehensible. But that’s some major shit, and the Theoretical Outline treats it in depth. I do think you should read the Nova Methodo lectures first of all. Beiser only shits on them because they directly contradict his reading of Fichte lol

>>24678223
>Maimon
>no Jacobi
This niggie can’t read German.

>>24678289
Why do you keep shilling these lectures so hard? Does Breazeale’s estate deposit five cents in your account for every post?

>>24678388
It’s just objectively better. In the original version, Fichte is trying to focus exclusively on perception and knowledge and exclude ethics. But his system is ethical idealism. Not only is the original version defective, it’s almost impossible to understand as written because he leaves out essential components. The relation of imagination to understanding is impossible to comprehend without ethics, but the Grundlagen only gives you an abstract, empty essence. It’s like he’s trying to be Reinhold but hasn’t come to grips with how different their systems really are. The lectures are an integrated system, the published version is a mere fragment. The lectures make intersubjectivity primary through the theory of the first moment of self-consciousness. And compare the abstraction of space/time/causality in the published books with their ethical concretion in the lectures.

“If they’re so great why didn’t Fichte publish them?” Because he realized the weakness of his Kantian, transcendental stance in wake of Schelling. So for the rest of his life he’s making God the principle of consciousness and nature, fleeing the dualism he never had really intended. I spent months on the published Jena system, I didn’t really understand it until I read these lectures.

>>24678456
He also realized how fucking retarded the general reading public actually was after the atheism controversy. He decided live lectures where he could interact with the audience were the only way to impart philosophy. Unfortunately this means all we have of Fichte are what he would see as the dead letter of the written word. But the spirit gives life… Nature is nothing but imagination.

The tragedy is Fichte rushed through a bullshit version of his system in 1794 because he needed the money. Then he got so buttblasted by the hostile response to this gimp of a published metaphysics that he never publicly completed it. So he’s a footnote when he ought to be a main character. Hegel’s system is formal and reaches an artificial conclusion. The amnesty of absolute spirit would be subject to its own dissolution, and Fichte grasps the eternal motion and instability of consciousness in his I=I. Hegel wants to sublate this movement in a final reconciliation, but it’s impossible.

>>24677620
start with spinoza, then follow the chart already posted here (monadology -> baumgarten's metaphysics -> kant). only after finishing the kant on the chart you should read some jacobi (hegel was inspired by him) then move on to the rest of the works listed there.

all of the summaries of hegel's work in this thread are wrong, just screenshot my post and stop browsing from here. unfortunately for some reason every pseud who hears about german idealism once in their lives immediately attaches themselves to some random philosopher categorized under it and rushes into these threads to shill their oshi (who has apparently already solved all of philosophy) while simultaneously actively misconstruing their own arguments in order to make their "opponents" seem like unga bunga cavemen and themselves like the only sane person in existence. i am no exception. leave now.

hegel x schelling ftw btw <3

>>24678541
There is no bait in the realm of pure imagination.

>>24678541
Spinoza was a nig honestly. “Everything is one… because it just IS, ok?” Spinoza’s logicism and rationalism inspired the worst in Hegel and Schelling. Fichte was immune. He had passed through a Spinozist phase as a youth… he put it behind him like a man immediately upon reading the Critique of Pure Reason.

>>24678598
Are you retarded? Even if you don't 100% agree with Spinoza (which I don't even do) reading him is still necessary for understanding Kant and others' critiques of him and precisely why his philosophy was freedom-restricting and ultimately needed to be superseded. Also

>unironically believes Spinoza thought le everything is god

Ethics is pretty much the only thing you need to read of his and it's barely over a hundred pages. Then you can call Spinoza a jewish faggot (which he was) with confidence. But even though it would be incredibly easy to find out what Spinoza actually thought you decided to pollute this board with your troglodyte nonsense about how Fichte (who you also don't understand) totally destroys the dictionary.com definition of "pantheism" you just googled. I hope you get sodomized by a hairy fat old man like the twink in my yaois.

>>24678811
>like the twink in my yaois.
Opinion disregarded faggot.

Bump

This board needs the idealists

>>24678811
>random, bawling assertions
I have read the Ethics. You seem to assume I think Spinoza was an eleatic monist. But my shitpost was specifically calling out his ontological argument.

>>24681028
Don't worry, he didn't actually read your post, which was why he had a stroke midway and started bitching about pantheism when you never mentioned it.

I’m surprised more of the fedora crowd aren’t into idealism.

“Within conscience, spirit subjugates itself just as it has subjected its objective world per se; it also subjugates its representational thought and its determinate concepts, and it is now self-consciousness existing at one with itself. Within the latter, spirit for itself, represented as object, signifies the universal spirit which contains all essence and all actuality within itself; however, it is not in the form of free-standing actuality or in the form of self-sufficient phenomenal nature. Spirit has, to be sure, a shape, or the form of being, as it is an object of consciousness. However, because in religion this consciousness is posited as having the essential determination of self-consciousness, the shape it takes is completely transparent to itself, and the actuality that it contains is enclosed in it, or is sublated in it, exactly in the manner in which we say “all actuality”. It is universal actuality, the actuality that has been thought.”

lol if you said what he’s saying there in plain German you’d be run out of town on a rail. All of modern “spirituality”, liberal Christianity, secular humanism, yoga mats, was foreseen and fostered by le German wizardmen.

Even the ol’ “Jesus was a great moral teacher but then Paul ruined everything!” goes back to Fichte.

>>24677658
Are you saying Marsilio Ficino was the last good philosopher?

>>24677651
Which works of Kant have you read so far?

>>24678223
This should come between Baumgarten and Kant

>>24677473
>Funnily enough my class just started talking about Hegel in my Sociology theory class yesterday

Be concise. You could've just said "My Sociology theory class started talking about Hegel yesterday."

>>24677620
https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1716171773589549527

>>24681130
It’s amusing how Hegel tries to transcend the enlightenment and criticizes its atheism and deism but ends up in such a similar place. Just Kant or Fichte with an accent on forgiveness.

Politically I’d say PoS is not liberal or communist, it’s if anything anarchist. Hegel shows how any “democratic” mass movement collapses into tyranny and what moves us forward is man apart from the state in free and private intercourse. He even theorizes about how we’d move past the state - modern, enlightenment societies turn out to be so repressive, and also so empty, that man spontaneously finds himself. An absolutely negative state turns out to be really nothing. And lots of idealists were anarchists, just look at The Oldest Program, or Fichte himself was an anarchist/communist. Some people read absolute knowing as describing some souped-up liberal state but I don’t see that at all. Absolute knowing is the Amnesty of conscience + the sublating of religion.

>>24678223
We need a chart for Schelling's work.

Kant pierced my soul. Hegel ain't shit

>>24681157
I hate him. Write me why you like him I won’t be mean. To me early Schelling is just playing silly games. “Nature and consciousness are… one!” “Ok and what does that mean, how does your thought develop?” “Well like a=a and a=b and then like (bla bla bla) magnetic poles (bla bla bla) self-positing (bla bla bla).” It just seems like a goofy schema he tries to apply to everything. His system is stultifying, formal and symmetrical, to me.

>>24681173
The major flaw in Schelling is that he seeks unity via difference. So there is no unity, he actually introduced division into Fichte’s system thinking he was unifying it. Not only ought the not-I not to exist, the not-I doesn’t really exist at all, it’s all in our imagination.

>>24681173
Nobody reads early Schelling you idiot. Start with the Freedom essay. It’s a high iq version of Schopenhauer.

>>24681137
False, it goes back to the Freemasons.

I think I was on self-consciousness when I stopped. Im too much of a brainlet and was getting way over my head

>>24681171
I read Deleuze's on grounding, it had some distinctly Hegelian features. I can see why you're protective of your bizarro version. I secretly suspect the Deleuze may have realized something, not sure what or if it was even relevant, there's some distinct diametrically opposing concepts I encounter periodically that leave me inclined to say he may have performed the process intentionally in such a way as to disintegrate certain recognition features. It could just be something along the lines of an early work vs a later work.

By comparison, the reason Kant is traditionally used as a stoic for a facsimile of Hegel was likely due to Kant rejecting primacy of Being, doctrine of essence, and doctrine of notion. Epistemology was arguably his highest priority, or at the least the central point of his system. This produces his machine surrounded by fog persona.

The only part of this book worth reading is when he calls for the “total inversion” of the Jews.

>>24681130
Was Hegel really an atheist?

>>24681568
He was a Lutheran and his philosophy is Lutheran fundamentally. Absolute idealism is Christian at the deepest level. If you remove this you get a gimped materialist version that’s not really coherent

>>24681145
0.5 of CoPR and I didn't get the full argument so now I have to read the Analytic again except that I need help so I'm reading secondary literature now but I don't get what Descartes, Spinoza and Hume are saying (in the secondary literature) so I ordered the Copleston History book for understanding those before I can move on with the secondary literature and I'm about to jump off a roof

2nd paragraph. Nigga goes on a rant about preface in the 1st and then begins writing one from the second.

>>24681731
No, he sees religion as merely a representation of philosophy. He does not think “God” is actually apart from us at all, but that’s humanistic atheism.

>>24681451
>Kant is traditionally used as a stoic for a facsimile of Hegel
That's a tradition of the royal academy of fuckwits.

>>24683617
Deleuze used the same premises, does that make him a product of the royal academy of fuckwits?

The entire section on Religion is very based, probably my favorite part overall. He talks about how our understanding of the gods changes with ourselves; so for example sacrifices are part of the process of the gods becoming “more human” because the priest is acting in their stead and the people eat most of the food. This process plays out too in drug cults, the Bacchantes etc - you’re consuming the gods in those rites. As the ethical society breaks down the gods are sublated completely and you end up with comedy. This death of the gods leads to man seeing God as man - Christianity. So on Hegel’s telling Christianity has more to do with Greek and Latin comedy than it did the ot. Lots of cool shit in this part.

>>24683606
Yes, many are filtered by the idealists because they read their esoteric language as expressing conventional theism or “mysticism”. If Hegel was alive today he’d include pronouns in his emails. It’s a progressive, atheistic, secular school overall. Fichte was the only one autistic enough to rise to the level of what you might call “devout atheism”, a priest of reason as he called himself.

W-what are you talking about Hegel?

“ SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, which is aware of being the reality, has its object within itself, but an object which, at first, is merely its own (für sich), and is not yet in actual existence. Existence stands opposed to it as a reality other than its own; and the aim of self-consciousness consists in carrying out what it is “for itself” so as to see itself as another independent being. This first purpose is to become conscious, in that other self-consciousness, of itself as an individual, to turn this other into its own self. It has the assurance that this other already is essentially itself.

In so far as it has risen from out of the substance of ethical life and the quiescent state of thought, and attained its conscious independence, it has left behind the law of custom and of substantial existence, the kinds of knowledge acquired through observation, and the sphere of theory; these lie behind it as a gray shadow that is just vanishing. For this latter is rather a knowledge of something, the independent existence (Fürmichseyn) and actuality of which are other than those of self-consciousness. It is not the seemingly divine spirit of universality in knowledge and action, wherein (all individual) feeling and enjoyment are stilled, that has passed into and fills this new level of self-consciousness; but the spirit of the earth, a spirit which holds that being alone as true reality which is the reality of individual consciousness.

It repudiates sense and science
The highest gifts possessed by men-
It has gone over to the devil,
And must be o'erthrown”

>>24683978
Of God no… not… THAT!

“It plunges thus into life, and carries to its completion the pure individuality in which it appears. It does not so much make its own happiness as take it directly and enjoy it. The grey shades of science, laws and principles, which alone stand between it and its own reality, vanish like a lifeless mist that cannot contend against the living certainty of its reality. It takes to itself life much as a ripe fruit is plucked, which comes to meet the hand that takes it.

Its action is only in one respect an act of Desire; it does not aim at abolishing the objective fact in its entirety, but only the form of its otherness or objectivity, which is an unreal appearance; for it holds this to be inherently and implicitly the same reality as its own self. The sphere in which desire and its object subsist independently and indifferent towards each other is that of living existence; the enjoyment of desire cancels this existence, so far as it belongs to the object of desire. But here this element, which gives to both separate and distinct actuality, is rather the category, a form of being which has essentially the character of a presented being. It (i.e. the element) is therefore the consciousness of independence — it may be natural consciousness, or the consciousness developed into a system of laws — which preserves the individuals each for himself. This separation does not per se hold for self-consciousness, which knows the other as its own proper self-hood. It attains therefore to the enjoyment of Pleasure, to the consciousness of its actualization in a consciousness which appears as independent, or to the intuition of the unity of both independent self-consciousnesses. It succeeds in its purpose, but only to learn there what the truth of that purpose is. It conceives itself as this individual self-existent (Fürmichseyn) being; but the actualization of this purpose is just the cancelling of the purpose. For it comes consciously to be, not object in the sense of a given particular individual, but rather as unity of its self and the other self-consciousness, consequently as cancelled and transcended individual, i.e. as universal.“

>>24681192
Why?

>>24683978
>>24683984
Who knew Hegel was so lewd?

You will never truly know Hegel, if you haven't read him in German, you pseuds.

Did somebody say "Hegel", lol?

>>24684963
Same for Nietzsche. If non-fiction can't be translated, it's fiction.

>>24684993
Notice how he stares into your soul with his right eye.

>>24685062
Hegel uses a whole new language, it's not like Nietzsche who's just a great German stylist. You don't get it, if you don't speak German.

>>24685082
>You don't get it, if you don't speak German.
Agree to disagree, mein freund.

>>24684963
>>24685062
quatsch. Man muss ein großer Depp sein um die deutsche Philosophie auf Deutsch zu lesen! Hegel, in etwa, ist Kauderwelsch im Original. Leute wie Kojève machen daraus aber tatsächlich soetwas wie Philosophie!

Das gilt natürlich nur für Kauderwelsch: Schelling, Fichte, Hegel etc.

Hallo Hallo ich kann Deutsch. Guten tag meine Freunden, heute werden wir ein guter Tag haben und sehr viel unser Deutsch verbessern so dass wir die großen deutschen Verfasser lesen kann.

>>24685170
Alles hat ein Ende, nur die Wurst hat zwei.

>>24685177
kek

>>24685082
I know for a fact that you don’t get much from reading Greek or Latin philosophers in the original, doubt very much that it’s any different for German. “Dasein is literally being-there and bestimmung can mean vocation whoahhh shit dude wtf” give me a break. He wasn’t writing German anyway he was writing in the idealist argot.

>>24686299
>t. doesn't know German

>>24686303
Yeah I don’t, and I’m not such a pseud as to think it’s valueless. But I have definitely met people online who taught themselves German but still can’t understand Hegel.

Re: religion and God people just get filtered by not reading carefully. The idealists like to use theological language to talk about very modern and non-theistic ideas. Hegel clearly thought Christianity was, at best, a mythological rendition of idealism. Spirit is not God in an other world but if you reject that other-worldliness you’ve rejected Christianity, full stop, and all theism. He thought Christ simply represented man’s being the first principle and the Phenomenology criticizes Christianity on multiple fronts.

“This spiritual religious community does not have a consciousness about what it is; it is spiritual self-consciousness which, to itself, is not this object, or does not develop into a consciousness of itself; rather, to the extent that it is consciousness, it has those representational thoughts that have been examined.” Etc

Anyone who thinks Hegel was a pantheist, a Christian, a “mystic” is a fucking pseud who doesn’t know how to read. If he was alive today he’d play pickleball with his boomer academic friends and have an npr tote bag.

>>24677393 (OP)
>german idealism
no thanks

Also reading his bio by Pinkard. He comes across as very Widmerpoolish. Like he wasn’t really brilliant but brute forced his way into being a famous philosopher. On the other hand you could read it as encouraging that such a mediocre person could go so far.

But the phenomenology is so gay. He thinks forgiveness will solve everything, it’s the end of history, spirit knowing itself. Nigger, Origen and Augustine knew about forgiveness, forgiveness is not a post-Kantian discovery. I think his criticisms of modernity are on point; in general, it’s a great book. Retarded ending though. He takes you down this path of despair and at the last second waves a magic wand “no more despair is forgive :)” He was still so Schellingian, it is sad.

>>24686593
false and gay. Hegel was an autocratic mystical wizard.

>>24686597
German idealism is the operator’s manual of the modern world. Those autists had it all figured out. You might not be interested in idealism but idealism is interested in you. These were the first people to seriously, intelligently work out what it means for man to be first. The song they make me think of is XTC’s Dear God

>>24686602
Yes, Hegel is very overrated. Fichte is very underrated. But in general idealism is a dead end because man is not first, or, the essence of man is to know that he is not first.

This passage slays dogmatists. Hegel was such a rascal.

Brain-fibres and the like, looked at as forms of the being of mind, are already an imagined, a merely hypothetical actuality of mind — not its presented reality, not its felt, seen, in short not its true reality. If they are present to us, if they are seen, they are lifeless objects, and then no longer pass for the being of mind. But its objectivity proper must take an immediate, a sensuous form, so that in this objectivity qua lifeless — for the bone is lifeless so far as the lifeless is found in the living being itself — mind is established as actual.

The principle involved in this idea is that reason claims to be all thinghood, even thinghood of a purely objective kind. It is this, however, in conceptu: or, only this notion is the truth of reason; and the purer the notion itself is, the more silly an idea does it become, if its content does not take the shape of a notion (Begriff) but of a mere presentation or idea (Vorstellung)-if the self-superseding judgment is not taken with the consciousness of this its infinity, but is taken as a stable and permanent proposition, the subject and predicate of which hold good each on its own account, self fixed as self, thing as thing, while one has to be the other all the same.

Reason, essentially the notion, is immediately parted asunder into itself and its opposite, an opposition which just for that reason is immediately again superseded. But if it presents itself in this way as both itself and its opposite, and if it is held fast in the entirely isolated moment of this disintegration, reason is apprehended in an irrational form; and the purer the moments of this opposition are, the more glaring is the appearance of this content, which is either alone for consciousness, or alone expressed ingenuously by consciousness.
The “depth” which mind brings out from within, but carries no further than to make it a presentation (Vorstellung), and let it remain at this level — and the “ignorance” on the part of this consciousness as to what it really says, are the same kind of connexion of higher and lower which, in the case of the living being, nature naïvely expresses when it combines the organ of its highest fulfilment, the organ of generation, with the organ of urination. The infinite judgment qua infinite would be the fulfilment of life that comprehends itself, while the consciousness of the infinite judgment that remains at the level of presentation corresponds to urination.

>>24686667
He is saying that materialist philosophy is like pissing and idealism is the other one.

Hopefully it’ll be slow at work and I can finish my second reading of PoS. Then I’ll be an absolute knower, in layman’s terms, a mage. I swear he wrote the last section dense af to discourage people from skipping to the end.

Bump

>>24677418
hegel is a becomingfag which is retardation. God is not "becoming" anything.

Don't read Hegel directly, read Kojeve or Fukuyama

>>24689180
Both misunderstood him terribly though.

>>24689170
>there is absolutely nothing to be said of being which does not in fact determine it

>absolute nothingness is the beginning of all consciousness and yet unattainable while conscious

>only through practice does concreteness occur

You might have enough time left to get there. If you make it, don't ever say a damn word. Eventually you will realize how this works. You will wake up one day and realize you are now part of a centuries long conflict that has been conducted across the planet and possibly the universe amongst various sentient aliens for millenia. You can acquire a suit and make it the last suit you need, no fancy gadgets, just dialectic. There are even dialectics about gadgets to explain why you never needed them in the first place and why the word can't technically be defined. There's a dialectic like this for just about everything. If there isn't one will be provided for you.

>>24689269
do becomingschizos really?

>>24689323
Oh, where is it then?

>>24689170
You’re wrong and so is the anon to whom you’re replying. God isn’t some sort of “being” that “changes” he’s the idea of perfected humanity, man in a state that sublates the oppositions between eg sensibility and duty, community and individuality, good and evil, through forgiveness. God is an idea that comes to be fulfilled, the telos of man. On the other hand, because “He” is not a separate being or a person, “He” is not God at all in any orthodox sense, and you could fairly describe the Phenomenology as atheistic.

“The content of the representational thinking (of xianity) is absolute spirit, and the sole remaining issue is sublating the mere form…. The overcoming of the object of consciousness is not to be taken one-sidedly, as showing that the object is returning into the self, but rather, it is to be taken more determinately, both that the object as such exhibited itself to the self as a vanishing moment, as well as being instead the self-relinquishing of self-consciousness that posits thinghood, and that this self-relinquishing does not only have a negative meaning but rather a positive one as well…. Self-consciousness knows this nullity of the object as a result, on the one hand, of self-consciousness relinquishing itself of itself - for in this self-relinquishing it posits itself as object…. On the other hand… self-consciousness has equally as well also sublated this self-relinquishing and this objectivity, and it has taken them back into itself; thus in its otherness as such it is at one with itself.”

The “object” and “thing” to be sublated in absolute knowing is Christ. Christ turns out to be a mythological prefigurement of completed modernity. Many say Hegel was a wizard but truth be told he was something of a satanist, or at the very least a fedora. The “scientific”, esoteric writing serves as a beard for radically humanistic and anti-Christian ideals.

>>24689359
>there is nothing anywhere which does not contain both immediacy and mediation.

>to elevate this to awareness is but a single point in an absolute idea.

>for an idea to be absolute it must have no suppositions, the beginning is always pure being.

>anything spoken is a subject speaking for itself

>the nature of the grounding cannot be determined prior, it must be determined by the nature of the content and it's subject matter.

>the motive force takes place either way.

>the dialectic unfolds

As it has always been metaphysician, as it will always be. Throughout the history of the planet by every notable culture, and even amongst the alien races of the universe. Were they to show up one day, the unspoken agreement would already be known amongst them. If it wasn't then suitable dialectic unfolding would still occur.

>>24689446
This anon is in the know. All of the idealists believed in aliens, Kant mentions them in the cpr, Fichte also speaks of them. But they’re not scary aliens they’re finite rational frens :) Strictly speaking German idealism is a philosophy of all rational beings, not just man.

>>24689446
Dialectics fails to thread the needle it gives itself. Submits to twofold temptations. Collapsing God. Collapsing Man.

Christianity proper is completed philosophy. Alexandrian trinitology mogs Hegel.


>>24689440
Perfected man is not modernity. Hegelian error. There was Adam Kadmon but that was prelapsarian. One can also strengthen the subtle bodies in this lifetime. The proverbial spirit and soul and so on. This singularitarian stuff is not to be of this world but only after death and resurrection and apokatastasis which is an ontological break as much as fall itself

>>24689456
Kenneth Grantian Kantianism

>>24689464
I agree basically with you. Hegel, early Schelling, even Kant are trying to rationally “solve” the human condition and tie it up with a bow. Fichte is king for me because he recognizes our brokenness and instability as essential. Hegel literally thought Napoleon would instantiate absolute knowing, what a fucking schmuck. Then again Fichte thought that Germany’s defeat be Napoleon would usher a new age in its own way. Very silly. It’s hard to get into the headspace of people who thought that completing Kant would immanentize the eschaton.

>>24689481
KANT DOES NOT NEED CONPLETING

>>24689464
>there will be some who having been subjected to dialectic turn away from it due to willful error or mindless stupidity.

>even the most advanced dialecticians in the world will sometimes find their motive impulses frozen and shit will rise to the surface. It can be flushed but periodically it provides new paradox material.

>a dialectician left in isolation for too long may develop imaginary reproductions and attempt internal dialectic. The results may or may not be healthy.

You must just be speaking for yourself. If you have an agreement with others then return to thy shitbox and let the unfolding occur either way.

>>24689534
This, too, is dialectic, you shallow-pate.

>>24689543
Then you have no completed philosophy.

>>24689554
Philosophy is for that reason the handmaiden of theological completion as queen of the sciences.

>>24689573
I don't remotely care. Go back to thy shitbox or discourse with another anon who might be interested.

>>24689497
Incompleteness is an inevitable result of system building. Elsewise one ends in contradiction
>>24689481
Late Schelling is best. Predicted EM theory some say. I am partial most of all to Novalis. He was a relatively pure Christian.

>>24689578
What's wrong, dialectics boy? Having trouble sublating the other?

>>24689583
You can't demonstrate.

>>24689581
anna?

>>24689470
go on

>>24689605
Absolute knowledge is a learned ignorance at best. But the road goes on forever and the party never ends...

>>24689607
Jarvis, what is Romantic Delusions in Schizophreniforn disorders?

>>24689614
Alien phenomenology. Engineered evolution. Secret chiefs are real, chief.

>>24689630
noice

>>24689625
Why do you say it's schizopheniform? Have you been watching me?

>>24689648
Since before you were born...

I’m a pseud for criticizing PoS without yet reading the Logic desu.

>>24689440
Thanks for educating me, anon. Is it fair to say Hegel is a pantheist? because I look at pantheism as if it's satanic atheism.

>>24690223
Like I said I think the fairest characterization is atheist. He can talk in a way that “sounds” very theistic, about the Trinity and such, but if you know what he’s actually saying, it’s atheism. Even if you want to grant him that his God is God (a matter of words) you couldn’t characterize it in the standard -isms because for Hegel speculative thought by definition transcends determinate categories like pantheism. There is a sense in which it is panentheism, that might be closest, but then that implies that God is something in which things are like water in a cup and that would be incorrect. “God” is the telos, it’s teleotheism.

>>24686602
You're reading is overly simplistic. To understand absolute knowing, it helps to think in terms of what it is not. It is not faith in an other-worldly beyond, which always turns into hypocrisy because of the conflict of here and there. It's not utilitarianism/materialism, because this turns into a negative essence (absolute state-terror) that blots out the individual. Then again it isn't individual commitment to duty, morality, because this too collapses. It's the unity of being-for-itself and being-in-itself, and of the universal and the particular. Evil is sublated by good, by the movement of reconciliation. So what would this look like? I don't think you should blame Hegel for staying in the realm of thought, for him his philosophy was only the germ-seed of the new age. But the idea would be that good and evil in society are equalized by reconciliation. This means that The Truth is right there in front of us, it's our being in society as forgivers and forgiven. And Hegel even says in the preface that absolute knowing was the philosophical exposition of something that many people would already have felt in themselves.

The forgiveness of the age of faith, for Hegel, would not be genuine/complete forgiveness because it alienates itself into an other-worldly beyond and only knows its content in the form of representational thought. The forgiveness of absolute knowing is immanent and immediately present. This isn't merely acts of forgiveness, it's a reorientation of the relations of humanity to itself, and it's the "completion" of the idealist, enlightenment project, for man to be all things. On the other hand, it absorbs religion, which the enlightenment rejects, because it recognizes in Christianity the true philosophy in the form of representation, and the enlightenment proper collapses into the nihilism of absolute terror, partly because it rejects the element of Thought which is found in religion, albeit only as representation.

>>24677651
I kant man.

>>24690697
>“God” is the telos, it’s teleotheism.
That actually makes sense, very interesting.

I started reading Science of Logic today. Don't want to say too much because I'm sure that it, like the Phenomenology, can only be understood when finished. I'm not sure if I'm grasping the relation of logic to phenomenology. Hegel makes it sound like, having obtained absolute knowing, you can reflect upon the substance. But this reflection begins, not with any sort of wealth of content, but with immediate being. Or in other words the logic of the concept is transparent to the self because it is itself self-like, negativity; the exposition of thought in logic is the exposition of God because in absolute knowing God is the self (and not the self). Is that basically right?

Excited about it overall; the Phenomenology is messy because it's making a certain "point" about society and man. But the logic should be purer and might help me appreciate Hegel more.

Bump

>>24677393 (OP)
I got filtered harder than I did by Marx
I think I need to relearn how to read before trying this again

>>24691467
Logic is like the operating manual for what happens in the phenomenology; or you could say it’s the study of negativity as such as a developed concept. In the Phenomenology you see how our existence is “conceptual” in absolute knowing and how negativity drives this process, logic studies thinking itself. Those who skip the Phenomenology get filtered because they don’t understand what absolute knowing even is.

>>24692406
You just have to read carefully and repeatedly, it helps if you’re versed in German idealism already. In general idealism is a massive pseud filter which is why there’s hardly any online discussion of it. Your typical internet dilettante is not going to wade through thousands of pages of >>24686667. They’ll stick with Plato, Schopenhauer, etc.

>>24692463
Yes, many choke on the tough, vital meat that is genuine idealism.

Any pseud who thinks Hegel was really a Christian or theist should well consider these words:

“ Now in actual reality the knowing substance exists, is there earlier than its form, earlier than the shape of the notion. For the substance is the undeveloped inherent nature, the ground and notion in its inert simplicity, the state of inwardness or the self of spirit which is not yet there. What is there, what does exist, is in the shape of still unexpressed simplicity, the undeveloped immediate, or the object of imagining (Vorstellen) consciousness in general. Because knowledge (Erkennen) is a spiritual state of consciousness, which admits as real what essentially is only so far as this is a being for the self and a being of the self or a notion – knowledge has on this account merely a barren object to begin with, in contrast to which the substance and the consciousness of this substance are richer in content. The revelation which substance has in such a consciousness is, in fact, concealment; for the substance is here still self-less existence and nothing but certainty of self is revealed. To begin with, therefore, it is only the abstract moments that belong to self-consciousness concerning the substance. But since these moments are pure activities and must move forward by their very nature, self-consciousness enriches itself till it has torn from consciousness the entire substance, and absorbed into itself the entire structure of the substance with all its constituent elements. Since this negative attitude towards objectivity is positive as well, establishes and fixes the content, it goes on till it has produced these elements out of itself and thereby reinstated them once more as objects of consciousness. In the notion, knowing itself as notion, the moments thus make their appearance prior to the whole in its complete fulfilment; the movement of these moments is the process by which the whole comes into being. In consciousness, on the other hand, the whole – but not as comprehended conceptually – is prior to the moments.”

im doing my senior thesis on hegel's philosophy of history where do you recommend i start

>>24681451
>Epistemology was arguably his highest priority

This is his detractors framing: the Architectonic is directed toward saving Metaphysics, and a mere Epistemology is incidental to that end. Hegel proves himself the anointed with the Greater Logic on that count.

>>24693259
Yes, practical philosophy is the soul of transcendental idealism, not responding to Hume. Hegel himself recognizes this.

Bump

>>24677418
Does Hegel believe in an afterlife? If he doesn't he's an atheist

>>24693259
>no prior
>formal/informal distinction
>outside scientific discourse

Demonstrate or go back to your shitbox.

>>24694918
I’ll defend him a bit. Hegel’s conception of metaphysics is indeed deeply Kantian. He gets rid of its subjectivity, formalism, unscientific character, but the basic idea that metaphysics means determining primary thoughts that underlie everything else, is still Kantian in spirit. Probably the only area where Hegel is nearer to Kant than Fichte is.

You sometimes hear that Hegel ended up rejecting the Phenomenology. But what really happened is that he started teaching his system at the gymnasium (to 15 year olds lol) and the book was too long so he started giving a truncated version and then logic or pneumatology. So it came to have less of a place in his teaching because he realized you didn’t need to work through all those shapes to attain the stance of science. But he didn’t actually reject it.

>>24694944
I'm not opposed to this, that does lead to a split though. You could view Hegel's critique as a revocation or a continuation, or perhaps theoretically a complete novation. You could even contrast previous manifold images with a present version. CoJ would still fall under philosophy of right though. Without the external world Kant is subjected to too many threats, theoretical is the best way to protect him otherwise, with the external world you can still arrange Kant > Hegel but without then Hegel > Kant is still hard to argue against. Even a fully updated version with the external world is still hard to contend with, without ext world then the usual culprits still try to show up and disentanglement issues start to occur.

>>24695080
Novation is a nice turn of phrase but I’d simply call it a perfection of the whole idealist project.

>>24695090
Do not stray down the path of popper. No start shartups are never in short supply. Unfold over time is the only way to continuously create. Go forth yon earnest metaphysician and continuously discover the whole truth.

Bump

If Hegel isn't a Christian, why did he bother with Trinitarian theology so hard? Why bother creating a whole system with a God in it?

>>24697266
From what I understand, it's similar to how Augustine used Plato as a means of creating Christian theology. Hegel is just using Kantian philosophy and German Idealism to create his own Christian theology. The trouble is understanding whether he's trying to surpass Christianity with his system, or if he's just presenting orthodox Christianity in a Hegelian way.

Why an atheist would bother is beyond me. By the way, I'm responding to myself, which is probably one of the stages of Spirit in his system. Kek.

What exactly is "Spirit"? Is it the Holy Spirit? That's what I'm hoping.

>>24697266
>>24697312
Yeah Hegel is a highly controversial philosopher for a reason. I'll try to give an explanation but it's always going to fall short. Hegel basically found himself wedged between the enlightenment movement and the pietists. It is true he tried to create his own and this is where the controversy starts. He thought the enlightenment was too hostile and he also thought the pietists had more or less given up on ideation of God. He did also state theologians were just masquerading idiots. The easiest summary I can offer is that he did come up with a syllogism for his version, the U is a true infinite and it's completely beyond being. The P was Jesus for Hegel although I suppose if you were to map it elsewhere this would be the seminal prophet or authority for any religion, and I is the concrete universal.

This sounds all well and good until you start to get into the parts where Hegel came to his conclusion. He asserted religion is full of various representations and most were derived from sensuous means so you have to undergo a refinement process in order to turn them into concepts. Hegel literally thought that there might be a seed of truth in any given representation but also alot of crap so you refine away the crap to get the seed. The more refining you do the better your concepts become until you reach universality and once you plug this back into the syllogism all religious conflict could be resolved through dialectic.

This sort of turns it into a last man standing affair like his philosophy. It also had some notable logical issues which Hegel ran into himself. He acknowledged some form of revelation but his system implies most all revelation is misleading. He did create a reconciliation syllogism for this, I don't remember what it was but it basically boils down to whatever you think god is isn't God and only absolute spirit is the key to the whole thing. Anything else is lesser god but is still necessary, and he may or may not have implied you have to reach a complete and total alienation before the concept generation is finished.

Lastly when Hegel says person you should be aware he isn't using the normative definition, he had a special religious dialectic on this.

Tldr absolute spirit or bust, everything changes then you die, highest speculative truths can't be reverse engineered, last man standing, devour and assimilate spirits, you still have to do dialectic.

>>24677418
Why did Hegel then spawn people like Feuerbach who think that god is this divine being by nature?

>>24694965
No. It's because he remembered that children exist and go through similar experiences and ideas that romans went through when they were children and that humans do not actually inherit ideas or concepts or the history of ideas and history does not actually progress. It'd just a bunch of meaningless crap.

>>24697462
>god
I meant man

>>24677473
Why the hell are you talking about Hegel in Sociology?

>>24697462
In brutal honesty, Hegel asserts the religious portion is basically a one way ticket and if you aren't the last man standing then you are the masquerading idiot, of course he didn't come out and say this it's basically how his religious portion ended up. His religious system does have flaws but it's also really useful and it's easy to see why Hegel appears heretical to any given religion, it's also ridiculously difficult if not impossible to get rid of him once he's in. For anyone who uses it regularly I'd imagine the distinction is incredibly difficult to maintain. I like it because it works but I don't pretend to be a religious expert.

Yeah so I imagine any reasonable person trying to avoid endless bloodbath style dialectic over non-testable religious material would likely see absolute spirit on the religious side to be a lost cause, at least for any religions where one person can't assume total authority, which is pretty much all western religion. Lowering the bar and incorporating materialist methods is the only way to avoid this. Otherwise Hegel is inevitable.

I'm joining a Hegel reading group next week, how long do you think it will take until everyone except me has given up?

Picture somewhat related, I learned about it in a chinese restaurant. I wish I could bang the owners daughter.

https://forgingploughshares.org/tag/hegels-rescue-of-biblical-christianity/.

PLEASE READ THIS AND GIVE ME YOUR HONEST THOUGHTS ON THIS ANONS. FINALLY, HEGELIAN EXPERTS CAN HELP ME DECIPHER IF THIS IS TRUE OR NOT.

Looking in thread, it seems not true, but I would still like to hear what someone else thinks of it. Basically the author says that Georg Frederich Hegel was indeed arguing from a traditional Christian standpoint, but his theology is closer to what Eastern Orthodox Theologians posit.

>>24697402
Thank you so much for responding to this! I really appreciate it, and your response definitely points me in the write direction.

Yeah, if what you say is true then it sounds like Hegel genuinely thought his philosophical system was the “secret key” to Christianity, and his system was necessary to perfect the teachings of Christianity, which I would disagree with. Does picture related line up with what you’re saying? If so, then I would heavily disagree even more.

It is just so wild that a single philosopher can be called a Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, a wizard, an anarchist, a conservative, and a communist all in one.

I do not believe in the Absolute Spirit God, I believe in the Triune God of orthodox Christianity. Could someone like me still benefit from Hegel, or would Hegel laugh at me from behind his German prose?

>>24697793
To address your pic, Hegel did put some stipulations in there, he basically said you can't use the religious syllogism for economic actualization, otherwise you're an idiot. He also thought it wasn't possible to get an absolute in both religion and philosophy simultaneously, although I've found a few asterisks and caveats to get around that, you basically have to remove the Christian portion and dial it back to absolutist religions containing universals, to my knowledge this is just Buddhism and if you really want to split hairs Mahayana. An argument could be made this just condensed religion into philosophy though so it might still be debatably one absolute or 2 with art, if allowed then theoretically all 3 could be absolute at one time, this is ridiculously difficult to do. Hegel did leave an outline for absolute spirit in Christianity, I don't remember every particular but basically one man has to unite every single Christian in the Christian community via the syllogism but it has to be a graspable concept, achievable in finite reality, and meet the reconciliation standard. I don't know if anyone has ever done it but I sincerely doubt it. Hegel also mentions a process to turn 3 to 1, I took this is a formation of one of his one way ticket non-reversible speculative truths but he mentions this to be a sort of acktual GOD vs God vs god type affairs. I assure you, whatever Hegel thought god was it wasn't what anyone else likely thought. The use of the religious dialectic on how you're not a person was to avoid a logical shortcoming and prevent someone from claiming there are 3 gods in a monotheistic religion or something like that. He had a breakdown for how it worked but it's basically an internal mechanism that has to be activated then you achieve a sort of martyr style attitude then you enter duality state and seek at least one other person and completely submit, then you return to your previous state. If you remove the duality portion you are the perfect slave but you won't have a master, you could also be the perfect master but with no slave. I suspect Hegel intended this as means for universal and absolute submission to god as a concept, the master is Hegel's idea of god and every single Christian on the planet is a perfect slave. That's my personal take, if anyone knows more feel free to contribute, but Hegel makes it clear you're not a person.

To address your post, I generally take Hegel's religious portion as a highly workable system with some flaws that makes digesting religious material easy. For anyone who uses it for a living so to speak, I imagine it would probably break someone's brain irreparably and that's probably why no one has ever brought it to fruition. Some of the outcomes you only learn after having embarked, so if one way tickets aren't in your interest then you should just avoid Hegel's religion. Cont.

>>24697793
That was the outcome of his system though, for anyone who uses it with real belief you will attain insights beyond what most systems offer but in order to actualize them in something like Christianity you have to be the last man standing, and I don't even know if that's possible, if not you get to keep it but you also die with it. That sort of dilemma would put any reasonable person off, and given the intense amount of rationality Hegel uses it becomes a question of whether you accept full rationality or you bow out at some point. It's difficult to say whether anyone would get any real use out of it without trying it though.

Technically with Hegel high rationality is basically the norm, this isn't different from his philosophical system in that regard, and Hegel had a series of stipulations on both. If you read and understand Hegel you can become a completely universal agent by the definitions of any given school. You can also lay waste to schools, reform them, or even just stay at a sort of recognized seminal figure. You basically become an entirely autonomous thinking machine at some point.

>>24697266
Because he thought the Trinity was the perfect expression of his metaphysics. For Hegel what’s important in xianity is that man is one with God, is reconciled with God, throwing away anything dualistic. He thinks xianity is a representation of his own philosophy. But what he ends up with is atheistic - God isn’t in heaven he basically is the spirit of man, the thought-structure that underlies the life of man. See >>24692688, there are many other passages like this too. Just because he uses the word “God” doesn’t mean he’s talking about God lol. In the Phenomenology he rejects traditional religious beliefs while also recognizing their value (they’re not just superstition etc), and also criticizing the enlightenment and the idealists. There’s even a line early in Religion when he says other religions have the same basic myth as Christianity does but that xianity is the true religion because of the advancement of Europe - and that the true religion is NOT true in itself, it’s a stepping stone to Hegel as it were. Hegel could call himself a Lutheran because after all in a sense he did believe in it. Fichte writes a lot about the supposed value of this kind of dissembling in his Ethics, the idealist wizard should participate in the church and move it in a more modern direction. There’s also a too kek in Maimon’s autobiography when he tries to convert to xianity but is too honest to lie about what he really believes or what he sees in xianity (they’re wouldn’t let him convert D:)

>>24697312
Just read the phenomenology for yourself and see how “Christian” he was. He was no more Christian than any of them. His metaphysics makes it impossible for man to be here and his essence, God, to really be “elsewhere”. And this means he roundly rejects Christianity as it is typically understood. For him, thinking you were apart from God, that you needed the mediation of sacraments etc, would be like thinking your own mind was not your own. God’s not a supreme being for Hegel he’s the concept, like I said the thought structure, of reality in which we immediately participate. God’s not any sort of “being” at all, not even a being “beyond being”.

>>24697764
It’s filtration at work. If you read Hegel in a halfassed way with your head full of Plotinus and Aristotle he can sound like one of you, but he is not. I’m not going to read all that but I assure that he says, in the phenomenology, that Christianity is a mere “moment”, spirit’s self-consciousness in *representational* form, which is sublated in absolute knowing.

>>24698048
This is incorrect, the idea that “one man” has to “unite” every single member of the religious community is wrong, idk, the more esoteric the philosophy, the more pseuds and stoners come out of the woodwork, it seems.

>>24698288
Well I never professed to be a religious expert, and if you stick to Christianity then the only other acceptable outcome by Hegel's reasoning would be if every member of the Christian community were Jesus since Hegel acknowledged him as the epitome of the Christian spirit but this would likely exclude absolute spirit and you are elevating the Christian spirit to that role without obtaining the reconciliation. Given the chances every member is going to live exactly like Jesus did Hegel's religious system is being relegated to what I would perceive as other styles of theological systems, wherein the remap back to Hegel would be [no absolute spirit] U --> God, P --> Jesus, and I --> concrete individual. The alternative if enacted would make the notion of Christianity as a religion entirely obsolete since every member is the epitome of the Christian spirit?

>>24698048
>the master is Hegel’s idea of God
No, it’s his idea of a false and unsustainable conception of God. In the unhappy consciousness, in the luminous essence, he roundly rejects this idea. So it’s someone writing paragraphs of text with no fucking idea what he’s talking about.

>>24698344
This isn’t about being a “religious expert”, merely having read Hegel would suffice.

>>24698351
>>24698356
You guys are already back to relying entirely on revelation. This implies existence which excludes true infinite. I'm not even going to bother since none of you will ever test anything.

Here's what you can start with, where is it? Answer this and you can solve all the problems you're stuck with.

>>24698373
No, I’m not. Now you’re assuming I think Hegel was an oracle. I actually hate Hegel, it’s just annoying when people say things that are not true, like that Hegel thought God stood in a master/servant relation to us.

>>24698394
Doesn't exist, don't worry about it.

Guys I want to understand Kant and Hegel but I'm a <90 IQ shitskin. Are there any retard friendly books that explain their theories?

>>24681568
Yes, in that he thinks that God is the self-consciousness of existence gradually coming to understand itself

>>24686710
pretty crazy analogy

>>24698373
God is here, God is everywhere

>>24699195
>unable to make it to the particular
>muh we ain't slaves
>muh massuh said we be postmodern
>still at the primitive tribal stage of conflict resolution
>m-m-muh not my heckin god buh gawd

Go back to sucking dick in your shitbox.

>>24692688
>>24692463
>>24686593
>>24684993
Hegel is the king of pseuds.

>>24697592
One of Marx's great influences (everything is about Marx in sociology )

>>24697592
Marx Marx Marx , it's all about Marx and Marx Adjacent things in sociology .

Reading Hegel is like learning philosophy all over again. Roughly speaking I might say he synthesizes Aristotle with Fichte/Schelling - an incredibly based move. I got into the idealists because of this latent Aristotelianism even in Kant but especially in Fichte. It was like they were taking the back door into a philosophy I already respected. Hegel is, speaking positively, like a purifying of Fichte. Fichte is weird because his philosophy, as speculative as it is,
actually devalues thought as such, Hegel is putting thought at the front.

Guys, serious, how do I fix my esl after reading this guy?
Also convince me to read the part on phrenology because I don't think there'll be anything that hasn't already been covered in the previous section.

>>24702005
Phrenology is an important transition on the way to consciousness of consciousness as consciousness. It's like 20 pages long, I can't believe someone who's gotten through 200 pages of Hegel is going to balk at a perhaps 'boring', 20 page bit. It also contains some of his anthropology - what language is; the nature of the distinction of mind and body; etc. And there's a massive top kek peepee bad joke at the end quoted above. >>24686667

Hegel is a pain in the ass but if you get used to his books by study and re-reading, the feel when you can read him at sight is like nothing else. This is what philosophy was meant to be, this feel is the feel people are looking for when they get into philosophy. Apologies for the gay ass meme I’m an autistic philosophyanon not one of the cool kids.

bump

I started reading it 2 days ago but it’s frustrating and I might give up. I’ve read Kant, Spinoza, Aristotle, and others, and Pinkard’s book on the history of idealism so I’m not coming in completely unprepared. What is substance, for Hegel? What is for itself? It’s incredible that he would write in such a technical way without defining a single one of his terms. And flipping through the book it looks like it only gets worse.

>>24705710
HS Harris wrote a two-volume companion for the Phenomenology called Hegel's Ladder that goes paragraph by paragraph and explains everything. Free on slsk, or 150 NEETbux for the hardcovers.

>>24705710
You have to be patient. He advises you in the preface that studying this work means paying close attention to the sorts of words you're already asking about. A definition is only an abstraction, you come to actually comprehend his concepts in how they're used, and that's why he doesn't define them. Substance is the proper object of consciousness as actual. So for example in ethical spirit the substance is the society itself, or in legal personhood the substance is money and externalities. What substance is in itself as identical with the subject you learn at the end. The entire preface is a joke because he tells you the results on their own are meaningless and dead, but then he gives you those results, general accounts of method, etc. I wouldn't sweat it much but pay attention when he talks about the speculative proposition.

>>24697764
>re: other anon

On Target and his 'thoroughgoing Lutheran' wasn't not kayfabe concession to the Prussian State (Hegel''s head WAS full of 'Plotinus'.)

>>24697793
Voeglin leads to James Lindsay Hegel exegesis, which is far soteriologically worse than if that was correct. The fact of Jesus' life and acts and coming to know and consciously accept them requires work(s)

>>24706080
And it's worth every penny.

Flipping through the preface 36 explains substance pretty well it seems to me.

"The immediate existence of spirit, consciousness, has two moments, namely knowing and the objectivity which is negative to knowing. While spirit develops itself in this element and explicates its moments therein, still this opposition corresponds to these moments, and they all come on the scene as shapes of consciousness. Substance is considered in the way that it and its movement are the objects of consciousness. Consciousness knows and comprehends nothing but what is in its experience, for what is in experience is just spiritual substance, namely, as the object of its own self. However, spirit becomes the object, for it is this movement of becoming an other to itself, which is to say, or becoming an object to its own self and of sublating this otherness. And experience is the name of this very movement in which the immediate, the non-experienced, i.e., the abstract ... alienates itself and then comes round to itself from out of this alienation. It is only at that point that, as a property of consciousness, the immediate is exhibited in its actuality and in its truth."

Immediate existence of spirit is consciousness - spirit subsumes consciousness (and vice versa); consciousness is spirit as being. Like you're in a broader society or web of relations of humanity, you are the immediate existence of this web of relations.

Objectivity is negative to knowing because it's what knowing negates, i.e. in knowing it does not have independent existence per se but is something known.

Spirit becomes the object and the otherness is sublated in absolute knowing. In absolute knowing spirit is the movement of becoming other to itself (in our consciousness) and then sublating this otherness.

The immediate, the abstract etc. - what's simply "known" whose truth has not yet been tested such that your knowing and the object alter. It's not mediated by something else yet. It "alienates itself" by appearing immediate and independent when it's actually a moment of a higher truth, then it "comes round to itself from out of this alienation" as consciousness comes to learn about it and it becomes sublated in something new.

>go on warosu
>set the date-range to 2010-2015
>search for your favorite idealist
>read the effort posts of yore
We're nothing but pygmies compared to the /lit/izens of yore. You've got threads with five, six Hegelians arguing about the meaning of a passage. You've got not one or two but multiple Fichteanons in the same place.

>go on warosu
>set the date-range to 2010-2015
>search for your favorite idealist
>read the effort posts
We're nothing but pygmies compared to the /lit/izens of the before times. You've got threads with five, six Hegelians arguing about the meaning of a passage. You've got not one or two but multiple Fichteanons in the same place. What a time to be alive. I was barely out of diapers back then.

>>24677393 (OP)

Spinoza: God is nature, there is no "should" aside from self-interest. Pretty much just atheism

Hegel: God is Geist, i.e. the superego. it involves "reconciliation" with the forces of your time. So he pretty much just reaffirms the substance of the new testament God

At the end of the day, it's either rejecting the sky-daddy or reaffirming the sky-daddy. All of this German theory-babble is just meant to distract everyone from what's really going on. It's why Nietzsche points out the ridiculousness of someone like Kant standing next to a cathedral asking himself "can we really know the truth?"

>>24706650
Deleuze: God is BwO, just a catatonic schizophrenic. It's reaffirming the inversion behind Nietzsche and Spinoza

All Hegel represents is just a bunch of mental gymnastics meant to uphold the noble lie that is society. That's why he's dangerous, he's riding the tiger of pent up cognitive dissonance that keeps the world spinning

>>24706650
>>24706660
Ah D&G scholastic anon, if you only knew. You believe everything is religion and are now the premier example of scholastic brain rot. It's a mixture fresh from medieval times and while it does have endearing moments it also is scholastic brain rot. I say unto thee you've turned everything into religion to make sense of it, you can now say it's always been that way for you. You're entire movement was but a slog through doctrine of essence and that's just normative to me.

The D&G anon, kindred pseud that you are. I already know, once it happens it happens. Identity of identity of identity and all the various folding and desire to stay as close to the point as possible. New system, new ideas, I know you do dialectic, you just do it internally. You can hate on old Hegel all you want but you are Hegel, except maybe without the religious system, you probably don't have that, hence the scholastics solved everything line. Yeah you can stay in the middle, you can hide in the doctrine of notion for as long as you want. You won't be slaying any Hegelian monsters until you devour your own feces, and then upon doing so you will be a Hegelian monster, except without the religious system. It's a one way ticket so I can't fault you for that. Psychologizing Nietzsche might work but as you already know, might have to toss that one. The schopefags can't help you either, neither can the evoolas. You're all Descartes to me. You'll get that way eventually, you already know technically, why else do you think Deleuze made his selections? Perhaps everyone is a Bergson.

Bump

Thread no die

>>24709396
I would like to put a qualifier on my last statement. The reason Descartes is considered an epitome to me, is because Descartes, the Descartes, did invent something mathematically. Yeah I know, it done always been that way, no new stuff. He also left behind extensive works to essentially recreate Descartes, the Descartes. He was just some guy who solved some math problems for money and wound up changing the entire world, and he left behind a way for anyone interested to do it. Does this mean everyone is going to solve an inventors paradox? Absolutely not. 99% of people won't even come close, everyone is Descartes, but Descartes still filters almost everyone. His methods may appear crudely simple but that hid a terrifying intellect. Due to his writings my door has to be left open just in case an actual Descartes does show up. There's actually nothing wrong with Bergson, he was a top notch thinker. Continuous creation was a far more savvy option than Descartes later writings.

>>24709623
Write more of your like; I’ve read Meditations and Discourses and I could never stand him. He rejected Aristotle for radical skeptical methodology -> dualism -> silly Godproof -> mechanism of nature. I don’t like any of that, most idealists wouldn’t. So vindicate him for me if you like, what do you think I’m getting wrong?

>>24709647
Rules for the direction of the mind, Discourse, Meditations, Principles of Philosophy, Search after Truth, Passions of the Soul, notes, correspondence, letters, responses to the Meditations, and Geometry. He did become more Aristotelian as he went. Descartes did incorporate Pyrrhonean scepticism but his writings indicate he thought of differently than what most people think of it as. His proofs of God were numerous and he almost backtracked a few of them, I wouldn't rely on him for that. Highly simply methods, terrifying intellect. Were it not for the fact he solved an inventors paradox history would have overlooked him entirely. He's also the unrefuted. There are plenty of philosophers who left better legacies and more interesting philosophies than Descartes, so long as he remains unrefuted then an actual Descartes could in theory show up and he might have an inventors paradox. Otherwise it's just a Descartes.

>>24709783
Yeah ok but what about the interaction problem?

>>24709820
What interaction problem?

>>24709864
What do you think I want to know what you think about it about genius? It seems like a fatal objection.

>>24709893
>already explained it multiple times
>nuh but meta nuh
>I don't need your agreement
>nuh but I mean like it's like metaphysics

Descartes may have been the greatest rascal of them all. Verily I say unto thee yon metaphysician, still working on it bro.