NEWSFLASH

Is this a serious question?

Which of Hegel's students from both the right and the left understood Hegel best?

Literally nobody.

Karl Rosenkranz lead the putting together of his works after he died, he was probably the closest former student friend he had at the time of death. Rosenkranz was a liberal reformist, and therefore had the general spirit of Hegel's politics, but he had little to say concerning the details of the system. Beyond Rosenkranz, who didn't understand more than a shadow himself, nobody truly understood the scope of the system's significance in its philosophical detail.

That's somewhat depressing.

Would you then say the best intro to Hegel is Hegel?

Schopenhauer was the first to truly understand Hegel.

Yes. Just go in dry, it gets easier on its own if you have patience and give it time.

Spirit of Christianity is considered a good place to get the main aim Hegel had for the system. The collection that is in has a great intro overview essay. Hegel's Ladder has a great intro overview as well.

This

Schopenhauer begrudged Hegel's success. There was one incident where they had both scheduled lectures at the same time and everyone went to Hegel's instead of Schopenhauer's.

I feel like the opposite is true for me. Everytime I go back and reread something of his it becomes a little more obscure. I do think I this could be fixed if I expanded the scope of what I've read of his.

It's just proof of Schopenhauer's superiority. Geniuses are always under appreciated during their life, but history has proven him right.

Read the overviews i mentioned. You can also listen to Bernstein, who is fantasticly entertaining even if he has overwhelming detail. You could also just come on mumble and chat, you git.

bumping because threads about jews on the front page do not deserve more visibility than Hegel.

Max Stirner

I can see why.
Schopenhauer is depressing as fuck.
Granted, my introduction to him was "Studies in Pessimism"

Schopenhauer, quit possessing this young boy to make him say such illogical shit. Be damned to Hell where you belong!

Happy Birthday m'man.

It's true though. If not for Marx's appropriation of dialectics, which we are told actually has little to do with Hegel, nobody would remember that mystic. Meanwhile Schopenhauer forever will be remembered as the only German philosopher who could actually write down a coherent sentence.

Yui has enough sense to fuck off, so why don't you?

Have you actually read anything by Hegel? It does not appear so. Hegel's sentences are the most coherent - they just require that the reader think rather than simply absorb information. Hegel deals with the thinking of thinking.

Most people here are ignorant only because they do not read any theory, but that doesn't mean they are beyond saving. Also, Yui is still around.

Literally nobody but you I suppose?

His students very well may have understood some of Hegel, but if so their works do not reflect it. Sure, there are people who are capable of understanding the significance of Hegel's system (we know of a few), but reading Hegel is too difficult or demanding a task for most people because it is a totalising philosophy which requires much analysis, not one in which a person can having a passing interest.

Do you understand Hegel?

Great. At least he's pulled his head in and taken off the trip.

Hold on here didn't Marx re-study the Logic in the 50's in preparation for writing Das Kapital? How could he of "ignored" the Logic?

Not totally. I have a working knowledge of the various aspects of his system, and I understand what I have read so far, but I do not yet >understand< Hegel. Since Hegel begins from a foundation which builds upon itself all the way up to the Absolute, we read paragraph by paragraph because we cannot proceed to the next stage unless we understand the current section after a thorough investigation. We move along with the dialectic, teasing out what he is saying before moving on to a new section. Using this method, I hope to eventually >understand< Hegel.

Can you source this? Interesting if true.

Studied for the first time, you mean. He hadn't really read Hegel until ca. 1855, which is why I do not consider his works before this date to be particularly useful. What A.W. meant is that he ignored the logic of the human mind in favour of the phenomenology.

Marx's quote: "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the process of thinking - which under the name of 'the Idea' he even transforms into an independent subject - is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought."

Marx studied under Bruno Bauer at uni (1839-1841), but since Bauer himself was not a strict Hegelian, Marx did not learn Hegel from him. He previously told his father he had read Hegel but later admitted he didn't. Besides, it is clear he did not if we are to read his earlier works. There are various sources about Marx's life that you can find on YouTube. Here is one: youtube.com/watch?v=kIlEkbU4rx0

marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_01_16.htm
I guess what A. W. refers to as "positive" is the mysticism that Hegel added and Marx rightfully wanted to get rid of.

Can you cite the specific letters you are talking about?

Are you talking about how Young Marx was actually really an Feurbachian/Aristotelian? How should we treat Marx's mentions of Hegel pre-1855?

Also have you read Marx’s Discourse with Hegel? I haven't yet but I think it might be relevant to this discussion

marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/727

Is Rosenkranz's biography of Hegel worth reading? Isn't his book still taken seriously by Hegel scholars today?

GUESS WHO FUCKER
jk it's Foucault

Reddit Obesity?

IT'S YA BOI
IT'S YA BOI
IT'S YA BOI
IT'S YA BOI
IT'S YA BOI

Schopenhauer went in wanting to hate pretty much everyone established in German philosophy. He purposely put his lectures at the same time as Hegel as an insult and it backfired on him.

Dialectics is a spook

If it backfired so badly, why can't we have Hegel threads without him.

Because we can all (except for Hegel-fags) sympathize with Schopenhauer's dislike of Hegel.

...

HAVE A DRINK ON ME COMRADES

What website is that taken from? REALLY hoping it's the onion.

birthday is a spook tho

canadafreepress.com/article/socialisms-god-karl-marx-was-he-stupid-insane...or-possessed

who?

...

TOP KEK

...

...

...

As Hegel himself once put:

"I, through investigation […] of the […] philosophical logic of […] the Spirit, concluded […] that every single […] human in […] existence is to be […] wiped from the continuous process of […] history (here the manuscript cuts off).
…

Napoleon is to be the […] carry of (the thing itself) […] nuclear anihilation of this […] wretched World ."

- Hegel, Collected Works vol.4 page 534.

I actually found that a thorough reading of the late Marx, value form theory stuff, classic critical theory, and Kant made my eventual reading of the Phenomenology that much more fruitful. Both Marx and Hegel are working with the same excellent, though Hegel extended it into the logic of all human development in its historical movement rather than see the entire movement as contained within bourgeois society (though he is ambivalent about this at least in the Phenomenology).

Hegel is really just working through the strangeness of objectivity as it presents itself within modern society–as something whose essence is continually reproduced by social activity but also standing apart and above that social activity. Hegel transforms that into an objectivity in general that appears in various ways throughout society. Marx determines that objectivity to be value and Capital traces out the specificity of this bourgeois object.

This, Yui has blood on his hands.

shame all that pancake batter went to waste

The positivity isn't mysticism, it's a built up theory of everything. The Logic is the theory of logical thoughts in general, Nature is the theory of what it even coherently means to speak of the natural, the theory of Spirit is the theory of what it coherently means to talk about social thinking beings.

Hegel builds up an incredible conceptual aparatus that takes the fundamental aspects of these conceptions and puts them together such that we know how they connect. In this Hegel is supremely materialist as opposed to Marx's crude pseudo-empiricism where you thinks he can just refer to alienation and run a negative dialectic on history to arrive at communism, the reality of freedom. I use to believe that was sensible, but thinking on it I realized Marx's idea of communism really is a whole bunch of nothing reiterating the same idea of freedom as the bourgeois have: freedom is freedom from others. Marx never was able to articulate what a social freedom really would be, he merely states somehow social alienation would magically vanish with economic alienation.

that pdf is where Hyperion gets the claim that Marx didn't really read Hegel, he merely read him through the lens of others.

I've missed you.

...

bump

I had a giggle over this

"Stirner is the truth of Hegel" t. yui

What pdf are you talking about, I don't see a pdf in this thread.

Also is Hegel's Philosophy of History another good place to start with Hegel? doesn't Hegel himself recommend it?

Fucking awful.

Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche.
Maybe Jon Stewart

How do we know Marx ignored Science of Logic? I did not read Phenomenology but I read plenty of the abbreviated Logic and the intro to Logic where we get

and I think my God it is clear as day that this was what Marx had in mind…but you say no?

It's not what Marx had in mind.

Marx likes the dialectic of the Phenom, a negative dialectic. Marx thought that communism results not of a sublation of capitalism, but of the complete anullment of it.

marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm

After all my years dealing with Marxism I'm very much in favor with Cyril Smith's reading of Marx as anti-philosophical. In that Marx really had such a view, quite frankly I consider him a fool who thinks that action is an argument despite not ever understanding the action.

One of the things Hegel rightly states is that the Greeks had problems which we now think silly, but in truth were not silly at all. Zeno's paradoxes of motion are important in showing us that we indeed did not understand how our basic reality could be as it was, only that it was, and that we had no idea how to make it intelligible to ourselves what our reality really is.

Basically, Smith argues that, rather than the critique of capitalism, Marx's essential aim was to discover just how humans could live in a way "worthy of their human nature''.

Basically, you can just ignore the trotskyist.

Uh, no. Cyril just tries to make Marx coherent with the often contradictory statements he made throughout his life. I'm pretty open to the idea that Marx was just changing ideas throughout his whole life and never really settled, meaning there would only be a core set of ideas that likely stayed the same. I have read interpretations which make a good case for that as well, but Marx's staunch anti-philosophical statements and attitudes strike me as more properly understood in the way Smith positions them and Marx's notion of humanity, a notion which Marx has no real ultimate justification for thinking it was true (unless he wanted to give into Hegel, who did show why it was true in his system).

Did Marx ever read the Phenomenology and when did he? Was it under Bruno Bauer?

You know one thing I really hate is that the majority of the Marxist tradition from Plekhanov onwards hardly talks about these things with this tradition reaches it's highpoint with the suppression of all interpretations of Marx deviating from "DiaMat" under Stalin.

What do you make of Cyril Smith's claim about the Hermetic/Romantic tradition in connection to Hegel & Marx? Should we as Marxists start reading this tradition?

marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/magic.htm

Yes. It's still worth reading, if you know German.

palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9780230360426.0005

This, an extract from chpt. 3 of Marx's discourse with Hegel. Overall though, this author seems to ignore Hegel's concepts and apparently makes the same old tired judgments Marxists make of Hegel and how much better Marx is at the end. Worth a read though, it's a very detailed book.

Marx did read Hegel here and there, he did read the Phenom, thing is that he did not read him systematically until very late in his life into the time of Capital. Prior to that he read him in abstraction and through the lens of others, he didn't engage Hegel directly on his own accounts, hence his criticisms of Hegel aren't convincing regarding Hegel's own philosophy, only regarding popular interpretations of his philosophy around in those days amongst Marx's intellectual milieu.

Hermeticism is really interesting, it is the West's most original esoteric tradition. Not a necessity to read, but interesting if you're into that stuff. pdf of first two chapters attached

What would Hegel think of Stalin if he knew him?

What does excellent mean in this context?

"You're damn right"
t. Stirner

He got cucked by a wordfillter

For those knowledgeable in Hegel what does Zizek mean by a Materialist reversal of Marx?

How is Marx not Materialist enough? Is zizek correct here?

Marx is idealist because he thinks he can predict the future in saying that all class struggle is leading up to communism.