Hegel learns

I'm "leading" a Phenomenology reading group on discord. You guys hate theory, I know, but it's Hegel and you may learn something if you tried. You're invited.

Other urls found in this thread:

goodreads.com/review/list/57217101-a-w?shelf=read
empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Are you really that impressed with Hegel?
When do you think you'll get over him?

I'm not insulting you; I don't even know anything real about Hegel

As impressed as I was by Marx. I like rational explanations, Hegel just goes further than Marx on that for me.

The fact that capitalism's general structure can be theorized to a fucking T with pure Hegelian a priori conceptual development is near unbelievable.

I'll never get over Hegel.

we hate your shitty blog

So you admit to hating (intro) theory. Good to reaffirm that. I posted one article that I think you all should read, I've never posted anything from my blog since then. Don't be so butthurt just because you can't dialectics.

we don't hate theory, we hate your shitty blog

You don't have to pretend you know. It was non sequitur the first time, it's no more relevant the second.

Why didn't I spend my childhood catching up with this shit. ;_;

Jesus christ user. That's a false thing. No one actually starts with the Greeks in academia these days.

Do you actually have a plan on the course of action that should be taken?

What "is your socialism"?

What do you think of the right-Hegelians and wasn't Hegel a liberal conservative? If so, why is Hegel so influencing on socialist theorists?

...

Nope. And I've given up the idea that anyone can before the moment arrives. I'm becoming of the opinion that >Marxian< communism may not even be properly coherent as a concept like I used to believe.

My socialism is the desire to see freedom realized.

Garbage.

Hegel was not a liberal or conservative. He was…Hegelian ;). One could say he was a socdem of a sort.

So then what does Hegel have to do with socialism?
As in, why is he so used by socialists?

Because Marxists think Hegel's own logic points to socialism via capitalism and the concept of alienation.

Hegel offers a systematic vision of a world of freedom where individual and society are in a harmony, one that is held together by pure human social will, he is very easy to appropriate for the left.

Marx thought that with Capital he had one upped Hegel and been even more Hegelian than Hegel was, but I don't think Capital's development actually works towards the conclusion Marx derived since Marx broke the logical chain with the LTV and thinking he could theorize empirical history (which theory cannot do).

Thank you for the info.
And what about the rest of the Young Hegelians like Proudhon
Lastly, how do you get into Hegel?
Is it truly a good idea to just start on him without having a certain reading background?

No it is not,you will understand nothing.You must,prior to Hegel read Kant,Fichte and Schelling because they are very influental to his whole system of philosophy.One should also read Aristotle's Organon,Eriugena,Boehme and Meister Eckhart.

I've only ever considered myself a communist in the sense of freedom the concept seemed to have. Now I think the freedom offered by such concept is impossible to theorize precisely because it has no real conceptual coherence to begin with.


Don't bother. If you care about pol-econ, Marx, or if you're really curious, David P. Levine (Hegelian "correction" to Marx's Capital).

You have to really see something that catches your eye in Hegel. You don't need much background, but you need a desire to see it. There is little point to learning Hegel if you don't actually see anything you want in Hegel.

False: proof is me, who had little background beyond 100 levels and my excessive autism for reason.

Hegel is hard, yes, but not utterly unintelligible. He gets better the more you know, not just of philosophy, but literally anything. You can see layers in Hegel forever.

Will this reading group be recorded like last time with the SoL?

We don't need some 18 year old kid in his first year of uni to explain theory to us.

AS philosophy student detected

Drop the discord invite link.

hegel is a fucking cult. We need to ban this shit before it gets too out of hand

please stop

...

Email me and I'll send the link. I don't want to make it public wince other people joining aren't Chinese board artists who will.appreciate morons looking to crash things.


Yes.


Well good, I'm neither of those.

People here assume that just because I know more than they do most of the time that I have somehow claimed to know things far beyond what I do. I've read enough to know when people who really know nothing are talking bs, and I call that out, that's about it.

...

No? How old are you and what do you do?

Why don't you ask for my address while you're at it?

So? Why not start with the Greeks? I geus from your experience from reading the greeks you can make a reasonable warning on why we shouldnt do it right?

Because if your intent is getting to anyone but the Greeks, why would you? It helps, but so does actually reading who you want to read and just reading backwards towards the Greeks if you need to.

If you're reading the Greeks because you actually care about the Greeks, go for it. It's easy to "read" any philosopher and move on, that requires very little in the way of the dedication that real study requires. You can easily just "read" Plato, but you'll often learn fuck all of what makes Plato so goddam monumental besides being the "first" western systematic philosopher and metaphysician.

the leftypol discord?

But going from the perspective of philosophical virginity (Knowing Nothing) wouldnt it be the best to start with the folk who invented concepts/structures wich most philosophers cling to? The source of what is metaphysics or idealism and where it all started from to actually understand the langauge and system that other philosophers use?

>read
What about Study the big 3 guys and then find whatever interests you?

Where can I email you? I'd like to listen to your reading group

I just finished the Parmenides (more like the Parmenides finished me given it's supposed to be the most difficult dialogue), which Hegel called it the masterwork of ancient dialectics.

Turns out Hegel threw away Parmenidean ontology, which is what Žižek was referring to with a certan joke ("A cup of coffee without cream, please." "We don't have cream, would you like a coffee without milk instead?") #NonBeingLivesMatter

There is no way around it, I want a training montage with muh Greeks before Hegel can kick my ass.

Besides, I live in Italy, I can't get away with not knowing my Plato and Aristotle, it's the third most Catholic country after the Vatican and Poland, and their influence is omnipresent also because of that.

Finally, I do happen to like them, though it could be out of entirely cultural or ideological sorcery.


What exactly is it the distinction between Hegelian Marxism and, let's just call it Orthodox Marxism I guess? What's causing this correction?

I mean, I can see 21st Century writers not finding Das Kapital to be complete, perfect or infallible compared to a description of present-day economics and politics, but in what ways did returning to the Hegelian roots of Marx(ism) produce innovation?

And what do you think of Žižek and his interpretation of Hegel?

Your egomania would fascinate a Lacanian.

Tripfag pogrom when?

Holla Forums really needs forced user.

I'm convinced it's a 16-18 year old kid just trying to show off.

The worst part is people will be mislead by him. Fucking shameful.

Actually studying Plato and Aristotle alone is one big undertaking, and when you get to who they influence it is almost more important to see how they were interpreted than it is to see their direct influence.


Hegelian Marxism tries to make Marx more "dialectical" while retaining Marx's particular labor and praxis focus while seeing Marx as an extension beyond Hegel, yet still Hegelian.

There are some Hegelians that make a logical critique of Marx and say he's pre-Hegelian, even pre-Kantian, and make a fair case for why logically Marx's own conclusions don't follow from his analysis of capital.

I don't like Zizek much.


click my name on this post, it has my email.

I've read The Republic and I"m almost done with a a history of Western Phil book. I have a bunch of Plato's dialogues, but I was gonna read Aristotle's the metaphysics yet. Fuckk I really just wanna get to Hume and Kant. I have a copy of Meditations and Treatise an its tempting to just skip Aristotle and go to them since I have a decent grasp of Plato's epistemology and ontology.

As someone coming from Stalinist milieus this is what makes it interesting for me, Stalin's version of Marxism leaves little to no place for human social will, it's literally >muh productive forces, in other words a vulgar determinism. In trying to find where it is that Soviet Marxism erred I (re)discover Hegel, and find it to be more useful than what Marxist-Leninist groups on the Internet claim it is.

My problem is that as far as I am concerned Stalinists are yet to convincingly explain this: If "the manner by which man lives is the manner by which man thinks" as Stalin says is true, then there's no place for dissidence or rebellion, man lives in harmony with his relations of production forever and after, but we know this is not true, thus from where does dissidence arrives? How can consciousness say "no"? From where in the material world does it learn to say no? Vulgar Stalinists would here say: "well the subject rebels because he is "called upon" by the productive forces to carry on with the historical necessity of emancipating them and so on" This is still idealism, you just replaced the Geist with the productive forces, the point is not to fall back into idealism whenever we don't have a compelling explanation but to point out how our materialism is still incomplete, and this is why I think it's still necessary to go back to Hegel and start with him and then work all our way through Hegel into Marx and Lenin all over again, correcting where necessary, expanding and clarifying where necessary, and upholding and reaffirming them where necessary.

This is a titanical task of course, and I am in a position to accomplish it, but it is something to strive for, specially at this historical moment when the left appears to be defeated.

Damn user you expressed what i think exactly. And im a 2nd year philosophy student so idk maybe there is something to these accusations

Why?

pick one

It is hilarious that he states in this thread that starting from the Greeks is a false thing, the guy has not even read any of the Greeks in the first place.
goodreads.com/review/list/57217101-a-w?shelf=read

Also he has not even finished one Hegel work yet

The other reason being a contemporary growing interest in Hegel in general, and even among the analytics and pragmatists in particular.

Oh and I assume that you have? If he's mistaken point out where, if you can't, Let us discover A.W.'s merits on our own, instead of ad homineming all over the place.

you know what forget it, imageboards are innapropiate for serious discussion, I am out of here.

Later A.W. lets both hope you can actually finish a hegel work this time round.

I like how you can never fully explain or argue anything, it really goes to show that you don't really understand anything yourself.


It isn't anyone's job to discover your fucking merits, all you have done till now was show how much you don't know. Also, it is no use in talking seriously to someone that always thinks they're right, so don't act surprised when people only make fun you.

Nice save, way to make yourself look tough whilst running away from honest discourse of any kind, some real fuckin' tasty trash-can-of-ideology I guess.

Instead of a tripfag thread, we should make this a philosophy thread.

Who have you been reading lately? What's your appraisal of them?

Lately I've been reading Disclipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. It's enjoyable to see him tie together the trend of increased surveilance and discipline throughout so many social institutions, especially when I'm going in mostly dry. I'll definitely be reading more of his work after I'm finished!

Makes me laugh every time.

i'd like to attend

I've received zero emails so far. If you want to join, you gotta send one, or send me a message on twitter @AW_Hegel.

just make a new thread for that.

tripfags not allowed

Especially since he had not posted anything notable on it in over a month

Fam what time chu startin?

… it's in the op image.

Saying it again people, I'll add to it I guess: either email me, message me on twitter, or post an email on here so I can email the link to those of you who care. I'm not posting the discord link because I don't want too many morons coming in and ruining it.

Wher ur recc. at?

I followed you my handle is @OnticBot

can you link the Hegel blogpost again that Greggy Sadler liked

What?


Twitter is down right now, as soon as it's up I'll message you.


empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

When are you putting the recording up?

When it's over. It happening tonight.

Nigger why does it say Friday 3 AM GMT.

Because I can't into weekdays :^)

It's Friday for me, but Saturday for GMT.

get in here boys

11 people showed up, discussion was good. We read 17 paragraphs in an hour. Typical Hegel speed tbh. Faster than the Logic, where it was more like 3-4 paragraphs per hour.

Whoever the user from here was, hope you liked it.