German Idealism is kind of burning me out, been reading a lot of Kant, want to read some Hegel...

German Idealism is kind of burning me out, been reading a lot of Kant, want to read some Hegel, Fichte is on the list but I don't personally see what's so great about him. Does he need to be read?

Other urls found in this thread:

academia.edu/14013616/Goethe_Hegel_and_Marx
twitter.com/Sophic_Hegemon
qchat.rizon.net/?channels=#bunkerchan
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Depends on what your end goal is. If you're a philosophy nerd, I say you should totally read both him and Schelling. If you just want to have a basic grasp on philosophy, then there's no shame in learning what you can from secondary sources.

But if you want to get into Hegel, it doesn't hurt to read Fichte and Schelling's basic works, as it helps you understand where he's coming from.

Hooo boi, you'll never get to Hegel. Fichte alone will be a mire for the rest of your life, and Schelling is one of the worst fucking writers I have EVER read. Hegel is infinitely more intelligible, probably because he actually is reasonable as opposed to the irrationalist shit of Schelling.

If you wish to go ahead and cheat Hegel read WT Stace's philosophy of Hegel, it's possibly the best resource on him and alot better than the modern resources on him.

Do you view Hegel as a purely enlightenment figure? Or just has a better writing style than Schelling?

Both. Hegel's Logic is, amazingly, highly readable even if it's difficult due to demanding the most rigorous thinking possible. He has his moments of poetic turns of phrase and speculative propositions.

Try reading Schelling's Essay on Freedom, jesus christ is he a horrible writer even when he's making great dialectical points.

I can testify to this as well. His "Philosophical Inquiries Into the Nature of Human Freedom" is a slog from which we have discovered very little in 30 pages. Hell, I have only highlighted seven times so far; for comparison, I usually highlight multiple times per page in "Science of Logic," not to mention garnering a wealth of knowledge and having a great time doing so.

The meme that "no one reads Hegel" may be TRUE - inasmuch as after reading him, it is hard to believe most secondary literature is written by people who have read (let alone understood) him. However, he's not as difficult as you might have bee let to believe. Dense yes, but far from impossible. He is infinitely more accessible than Schelling (at least in "Philosophical Inquiries Into the Nature of Human Freedom" so far). One of the great things is that Hegel needs no real prior reading. He only requires that hie is read in a dedicated manner with thorough investigations and his ideas understood before moving on; we (the mumble philosophy group) are making a lot of great discoveries along the way. I'm not THAT familiar with Fichte apart from what I've read of others quoting him, but the important parts I know of him seem to be either contained within or better done in the Hegelian system.


I definitely need to read him, then. Most people I've encountered this far - Žižek included (heresy, I know) - are not very good resources on him.


Hegel is THE Enlightenment Romantic.

...

What do you then make of books such as "Hegel and the Hermetic tradition"?

Or Hegel's appreciation of the Romanticist science of Goethe?

academia.edu/14013616/Goethe_Hegel_and_Marx

I think this idea of Hegel (and Marx) as a purely Enlightenment figure is a Leninist misunderstanding/invention. For example Lenin's "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" does not mention that Marx appreciated Romantics such as Heinrich Heine or Shelley for example

What's this mumble philosophy group? Does Holla Forums have a reading group dedicated to reading German Idealism?

I really like Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, hell, I've transcribed the first two chapters of the shit scan that is online.

Read Hegel's Logic or Phenom, however, and you cannot seriously take Hegel to be what Magee claims. Hegel was interested in the occult and mystical, particularly Hermeticism, because of the inteligible quirks of its concepts, Böhme is pertinent. Hegel gained an intuition and appreciation of dialectics from Böhme's otherwise crazy incoherent ramblings.

The Logic, for example, is one motherfucking giant development of what a real idea in general is.

That Hegel liked the Romantics is well known, yet he criticized them as well. He incorporated what he thought were positive insights from them into his philosophy.

When are you going to abandon Hegel for a real science of being (aka Materialism)?

When you tell me what Reality is ;)

A.W. is actually transcribing "Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition" at the moment.

Goethe is the second most knowledgeable person to have lived. He is infinitely important to me.

The basic idea of Romanticism is that “man is a finite principle tending to the infinite.” Obviously Hegel is a Romantic. His romanticism is that the infinity is only fulfilled and realised by speculative thought, reason, self-consciousness—and things like religious feeling, moralism, or aesthetic contemplation cannot achieve infinity because each involves a self-annihilation of the human spirit. Also, I love Percy Bysshe Shelley. He is one of my all-time favourite poets.

Yes. Specifically, we're more of the Bunkerchan group, but yeah, we are certainly open to new members; you can join us if you want to get in contact. If you have Twitter, message me there for the details: twitter.com/Sophic_Hegemon

Or, if you prefer, you could join the Bunkerchan IRC (no password required; just make a username and join).
qchat.rizon.net/?channels=#bunkerchan


Maybe when we travel to a mode of Reality in which this is true.

I always thought Holla Forums was philosophically illiterate

Are you guys reading German Idealism because of the failure of Marxism? Why bother reading?

I mean it sounds like you are following Zizek's advice to "Return from Marx to Hegel"

"92: But when we look carefully at this pure being which constitutes the essence of this certainty, and which this certainty pronounces to be its truth, we see that much more is involved. An actual sense-certainty is not merely this pure immediacy, but an instance of it. Among the countless differences cropping up here we find in every case that the crucial one is that, in sense-certainty, pure being at once splits up into what we have called the two 'Thises', one 'This' as 'I', and the other 'This' as object. When we reflect on this difference, we find that neither one nor the other is only immediately present in sense-certainty, but each is at the same time mediated: I have this certainty through something else, viz. the thing; and it, similarly, is in sense-certainty through something else, viz. through the 'I'".

What did he mean by this?


They'd actually have to read Marx to do that.

As I thought.. ;) you don't know what your terms even mean, yet you just throw out marxist buzz words.

By the way I've read more Marx than 99.9% of L-pol which has read any Marx. The only ones who have read more are the ML's and MLMs on /Marxist/

This is probably the fifth thread in which I've posted on Holla Forums, perhaps excepting the literary threads or whatever. I don't consider myself a Holla Forums member. From what I know, most of Holla Forums does not read. It is painfully obvious while lurking because if people actually read what they're trying to discuss, they probably would not have these problems in the first place.

Well, I would be reading Hegel >without< the failures of Marxism, but yes.

By this logic, why bother doing anything then? Think of reading theory as my anime.


Precisely, but within the Hegelian circle, we also like the Marx that read Hegel (post-1855 Marx), with the consideration that what is useful is not determined by


What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little cave dweller? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the System of the Absolute, I’ve been involved in numerous readings of the "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences," and I know over 300 confirmed Things-in-Themselves. I am trained in Logic and I’m the top dialectician in the entire World Spirit. You are nothing to the me but just another dogmatist. I will wipe you the fuck out with contradictions the likes of which has never been seen before in Philosophy, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, muggle. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of sorcerers across Nature, and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the spells, caveman. The Science that wipes out the particular mechanical little thing you call your life. You’re fucking mathematically formulaic, kid.

I am between Being and Nothing anywhere, anytime, and I can shake your rigid system foundations in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my Becoming. Not only am I extensively trained in the syllogism of the Concept, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Absolute Idea and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable cave dwelling ass off the face of the World Spirit, you little materialist. If only you could have intuited what unholy retribution your analytical “common sense” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the hundred-dollar price, you goddamn empiricist. I will cast holy triadic spells all over you and your geist will melt. You have always already passed into Nothing, you pre-Kantian dogmatist.

Not the guy you are replying to but where did you get those diagrams? They look very useful, did you make them?

I understood none of those diagrams but they'll make perfect bait.

I don't know where they're from but it looks like Hegel's and Heidegger's existentialist beliefs

He did…because, you know, we choose to actually understand what we are reading instead of reading for the sake of reading, say, posting ad hom. shit like "hurr durr they haven't read Marx; I haven't either, but XDXD." We would prefer to actually have knowledge rather than have the mere mask of a theoretician (see below). We especially do not care to impress anonymous users on a message board. However, we are inclusive to whomever genuinely wants to learn.


Exhibit A of what I was talking about above.


No.

So you're an anti-banter group.

No, we are not anti-banter. Just read "Science of Logic." Or at the very least, should read Kant and learn about Pure Reason. Pro-tip: it is a faculty which does logic and you'll learn how to not make these amateurish mistakes.

—————————————
1. Not all banter has to be bereft of purpose. As Hegelians, we know how to sublate meming merriment and sobriety.

Oh you're autistic.

My niece is autistic.

Ah! Here, comrade. Take this Pepsi Max and enjoy your nature walk through the Negev.

Please have more of these threads.

...

...

Do you guys have anything else recorded of your discussions besides the discussion of the SoL on mixcloud?

Maybe if you browsed more you'd see yuiposter collecting sages for his retardation.

From these few posts I'm worrying you might ave succumbed to a sort of gestell of theory. Might not be the case but I just wanted to let you know (in case its true and you can fix it, or even if it's not true then you'll be at least aware of a potentially 'rutting' appearance).

...

To respond to the inquiry of what that passage means, since I was fucking tired and falling asleep when this thread was up yesterday, it means this:

Sense-Certainty is a mode of knowledge akin to mysticism which believes that truth is the content of experience without thought. Because it is still a consciousness that exists it must refer to the world, and all it can do is say "this" of anything it encounters, for to do more would limit its rich experiential content. In attempting to be concrete it thinks and only really knows abstractly through the most empty universals. Thought it does not recognize it, in pointing out the "this" it presupposes another "this", the I that encounters and knows "this". Sense-certainty thinks it has immediate knowledge of the "this", but in reality it has knowledge that is mediated, the "this" as I is how the "this" of the object is known, and the "this" as object is the "this" that makes the I known as different from an object. It self-contradicts.

I know you hate reading, but you could make the bait less obvious. I don't expect you to say something - anything - worthwhile and prove me wrong, but feel free to try. I would love to be wrong since that would mean progress, but so far I am not.

I never said this. I said they do not read theory about their own ideology, let alone the ideologies which they are arguing against. The Admin(s) must be aware of this too; hence the "Read a Fucking Book" flag.


Thanks for your concern, comrade. I am not sure what you mean because I have not yet read much of Heidegger. Could you please elaborate?

good thread

Yes, you need to read Fichte. He explains why he logically eliminates the Kantian noumena and arrives at Idealism.

Hegel never adequately explains this move because it's so obvious to him. He simply lays out the Kantian point of view, denies its validity, and insults its naivete.

In order to really understand how and why Hegel moves beyond Kant's noumena, you must read Fichte.

bump for theory