Kant vs Hegel

Tryna get into the Phenomenology of Spirit

Need help

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/kojeve.htm
filosofia.fflch.usp.br/sites/filosofia.fflch.usp.br/files/docentes/sites/safatle/2015/posgrad/aulas_FLF5189/Routledge - Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit.pdf
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Just look at it.

Open the book

Philosophy is garbage.

Real man survives without it.

What do you need help with?

Me too famlam. I actually started, one of them with commentary and whatnot. Even so, I Gave up after a certain point, but I was too confused.

I think I understand the gist of dialectics now, though. Basically, you've got a subject which is negated (but the negation is part of the subject). Then you go to a higher order subject but you retain the memory of being in the lower order subject.

That's the gist of it, right ?

marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/kojeve.htm I found this pretty helpful to understand how Hegel breaches the impasse of noumenon created by Kant, wish was my great confusion when I tried to get into Hegel.

Man can survive without it.
But does he truly live?

Are there any good comentaries of POS I can read?

Your first mistake was trying to read Hegel.
Only a glossary and analysis can help you now.

Kojeve is a good starting point for about half of his lectures

You also have a generalized reading done by Routledge:
filosofia.fflch.usp.br/sites/filosofia.fflch.usp.br/files/docentes/sites/safatle/2015/posgrad/aulas_FLF5189/Routledge - Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit.pdf

And if you're a visual/audio learner, Sadler's YouTube series works splendidly. You can process them and the content they cover in around 30 minutes:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

Read Zizek

I am

I don't see how shooting the book will further your understanding

me neither. Worth a try I guess.

Why? It's useless masturbation as if most idealist philosophy before the 20th century, but still historically important in philosophical development. But as a man of 2016, you don't need it. It's like studying alchemy when you could study chemistry. Unless you are reading it for historical reasons?

...

Not really. Unlike the sciences where the consensus of newer theories makes them succeed the outdated ones, philosophy never really has a linear set of ultimate progression. You have thinkers who are inspired by others, of course. But one can still be a Platonist or a Kantian or a utilitarian or a virtue ethics supporter today because philosophy has never really been about 'disproving' others philosophies. It's less about finding answers and more about discovering new ways to ask questions. That's why you never really have philosophers who directly tell people what to do or how to think. You end up with politicians or revolutionaries or artists or someone else down the line who take a philosopher's ideas and try to implement it in action.

nigga i'm still struggling with Kant

Let's think about that. Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. On the other hand, David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrick Hegel. Gotta give this one to Bruce… I mean Kant.

"When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey on grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." Philosophy of Right ( (1821), translated by T. M. Knox, (1952)) p. 13

Confucious

UNLESS YOU GO FULL MATERIALISM!

…

Oh, yeah… it's Yui.. the inteligencia of leftypol.

Pls tell me if this explanation of dialectics is correct or not

Its wrong
t. dialectics man

Lemme check my pulse.

Yup.

Still alive.

Kojeve is rather an unorthodox intro to recommend, don't you think?

don't bother to answer, you are a tripfag and thus cancer…

4got your flag

You're doing the right thing the wrong way.

You don't ever read Hegel for the hell of it, it's not worth it. You read Hegel because you glimpsed something in the bastardizations and abstract passages you encounter, something that just keeps pulling you to him. Hegel requires interested passion, otherwise you're not going to get anything out of his works. They're all written in a thought stream as you would and should think through it.

But otherwise, what do you need help with?


Wrong. Dialectics are just inner contradictions. The transitions of objects into something else is something else to do with what Hegel calls Reason.

Is life just not being dead?
Is that all you aspire to be?

Kant: Understanding is only self-activity in the sense in which one spontaneously, grounded by the unity of apperception, figures and orders the given manifold of intuitions according to a priori concepts. The understanding without the receptivity of intuition cannot determine any object for itself. There needs to be some a priori formally determined reception of the non-identical, a gap between self-activity and receptivity. Our Reason then should not speculate, should not engage in metaphysics but rather engage in the fine tuning of the apparatus by which experience is made possible. We can and must have practical knowledge of substance and freedom but not "theoretical" knowledge.

Hegel: All is self-activity, all understanding can and does reproduce objects for itself. The understanding is both unbounded by the manifold of intuition and capable of thinking through its categories, through its immanent apparatus the noumena of reality which consists most significantly of God, Freedom, and Substance. And Kant's ground for understanding, the unity of apperception is not a true universal, but rather a historical ground that moves towards the universal.

You should really at least have read Kant's Prolegomena before Hegel.

Are you joking or not!

Both
t. mystery man