Hello comrades. I need a good starting book on Hegel so I can into dialectics.
Can't into dialectics
Other urls found in this thread:
WT Stace's The Philosophy of Hegel is the best introductory and systematised look at Hegel's philosophy:
Anything you recommend by Hegel himself comrade?
You won't understand anything until you've read all the greeks and all the german idealists before Hegel
Hegel himself wrote a book for starters: libgen.io
But I haven't read him at all yet.
Also this is not necessary. I'm reading myself a good list of previous philosophers but to say this is just to lie.
Science of Logic
If you want into dialectics just read the SEP article on Hegel's dialectics and then read Marx who actually uses it without all the shitty mysticism that Hegel does.
Recently bought Hegel.the essential writings. Should be good
This is a flawed starting point. The entire point of Hegelian Dialectics is that Hegel's conception of the world as largely dynamic, (every meaningful category exists on a spectrum, every object is constantly, albeit slowly changing its own properties, every object is defined largely by its place within a system, and those systems are also constantly evolving), which led him to have a number of problems with the three laws of Classical Logic, (Law of Identity, Law of the Excluded Middle, and Law of Non-Contradiction), so Dialectics is his attempt to create a new system of reasoning that doesn't have the same problems describing empirical events as Classical-Logic does. (Bare in mind this was Pre-Frege, so the ideas of Predicate-Logic, Higher-Order Logic, and Non-Classical Logic didn't exist yet).
For this reason, trying to to explain Dialectics to someone whose knowledge of logical systems is limited to classical logic is very difficult, and trying to explain it to someone with no prior logical training at all is literally fucking impossible. It's like trying to explain Quantumn Physics to someone with no training in maths. Any explanation that could possibly be offered would be oversimplified to the point of uselessness.
If you want my advice, start by reading up on formal (classical) logic. The most advanced type of Classical Logic is Higher-Order Logic, which is basically just Predicate-Logic + Set Theory. Predicate Logic being basically just Propositional Logic + Categorical Logic. Propositional Logic being basically just Boolean Algebra with Propositions instead of numerical variables as input arguments, and Truth-Values instead of ones, and zeros as outputs. Categorical Logic being the original logic developed by Aristotle, and it's essentially just Euclidean reasoning + Rudimentary Semantics.
So start by brushing up on your Calculus, Set Theory, and Aristotle, and go from there.
Once you're done with that, you should start reading up on Non-Classical Logics, the most important for this purpose being:
Non-Reflexive Logic (Rejects the Law of Identity)
Intuitionist Logic (Rejects the Law of the Excluded Middle)
Many-Valued Logic (Rejects True/False value dichotomy for propositions, in favour of a complex spectrum from True-False)
Temporal Logic (Attempts to adjust the parameters of Formal Logic to deal with the problem of change over time, the same problem that Hegel was Railing against).
Once you're done with that, it's time to start reading up on Dialectics as a non-Classical Logic.Here's some links:
(You can get around paying for stuff on JSTOR by using Sci-hub, if you don't know Sci-hub is, fucking google it)
Once you're done with that, it's time to start reading up on Dialectics on its own terms. The best books for this are:
Hegel - Wissenschaft Der Logick
Engels - Dialectics of Nature
Mao - On Contradiction
Sartre - Critique of Dialectical Reason
And then you're basically done.
Op, if you value life and time you'll disregard what everyone else in this thread mentioned.
Spare yourself suffering the run around these people give you. Hegel isn't THAT hard once you get the basics.
Also, avoid paying attention to this pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
hegel drones btfo
Reading Hegel is each leftists pilgrimage, after that they are ascended, sadly I am still but an acolyte, onwards
3/10, legitimately can't tell if this is supposed to be bait, or not.
Not sure whether you're talking about me or him.
what's the relevance? if he wants to like Kierkegaard he can like Kierkegaard. I can choose not to, he's not fucking hegel.
About him, not you. That faggot supposedly read Hegel without any previous background (of course, not without having to depend on tons of help) and since then has bragged here about his blog.
HOLY SHIT, I only just noticed that he linked to his own fucking channel, and presented it like it was a fucking source. And yeah, I went to his page, and he did read Hegel without any prior philosophical background, and actively encourages others to do so, despite describing him as a "Philosopher's Philosopher" in the same breath.
He's either a straight-up Sophist, or completely lacking in critical thinking skills.
Fucks sake man.
user, you linked to a schizophrenic loony bin as a legitimate source. You have to accept that you yourself look like a loony not worth listening to. I suggest you actually not defend linking to the equivalent of leftist time cube man.
You miss the ground of the dynamism: organism. This has nothing to do with formal logic, though it does involve a critique against it just to disabuse you of it. Formal logic is already a pretty easy thing to grasp since it is the way we already think in basic reflection.
Except that's not true. Continentals hardly study formal logic and most of them couldn't even care, yet Hegel is very popular and understood. Methinks this book protests too much.
OP can replace all the stuff you linked with Westphal's book "Hegel’s Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit" which is more important than logic for the Phenomenology, and even for the Science of Logic. The problem is knowing, not validity.
Big brain wojaks read a lot, but they apparently fail at condensing what they learn and communicate it. You all should know it is not about reading quantity, but quality anons.
There are too many lefties who think the point of reading is to dickwave about it, instead of to incorporate more ideas into your worldview.
Nice argument. I linked to a blog post going into stupid detail on this in simpler language and awareness of the method that you clearly don't have.
I have 3 videos on "Dialectics" which go over an expanded discussion of why your formula garbage is just that, garbage, and what the last one finally goes into a structural description.
I have my stuff legitimized not alone,but by people who clearly know their shit unlike you. Every time someone posts a word salad and reading list like you it's clear you actually don't know shit.
Tip top lel. You are the funniest hack I've seen here.
This is the best explanation I can give you
it is though lmao
just fucking read Hegel you imbeciles. why skirt around it by reading all these retards who have no idea what they're talking about? Continentals are lazy faggots who feel superior because they're marginally more well read than analytics """philosophers""", wow, what an accomplishment. how hard is it? he didn't even write that many books.
Bump for quality and i dont like it when daddy and mommy fight 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
didn't read Hegel, got his shit from Danish hacks and Schelling who was a turncoat hired by the state to shit on daddy posthumously
The old Sam Harris defense
What is the argument anyway? I am pretty certain that if you want to able to use the dialectical method, you need to have a firm grasp of logic. Even if you somewhat understand how to perform dialectical thought, it isn't a guarantee that you can perform it. Not unless you fully understand how logic works, and what internal contradictions are. Even if you can explain Hegel's logic, doesn't mean that you can apply it. That would require a rigorous study of logic and earlier philosophers. Aside from that. I have seen people make systematic explanations of dialectics, which don't work like regular formulas. They are a systematic method. They require the person following it to think about the subject at hand, not just follow an input-output formula. I don't think anyone in this thread claimed otherwise.