How does Hegel's "Lectures on History of Philosophy" differ from Russell's "Hisory of Western Philosophy" in terms of biases and understandings? I just started reading the first in the three set volume published by Bison Books.
>>7313764
/his/ is thataway friendo
this is not the philosophy board anymore
>>7313864
I'm asking what the differences are between two books. /his/ is shit.
>>>/his/ is for philosophy discussion
/lit/ is for literature
>>7313873
are we no longer allowed to discuss nonfiction books? I'm not asking about Hegel's philosophy, I would like to discuss two books.
You ask /biz/ about business books, you ask /sci/ about science books, and you ask /his/ about philosophy books.
>>7313878
ask /his/
>>7313889
I have seen great discussions here about, say, GEB, or Chomsky, or many other topics which there are boards here to satisfy. Why can't books be discussed on /lit/?
Lit is so dogshit now jesus his ruined this place.
>>7313923
The threads about literature are doing just fine. Its the philosophy threads that get shit up because they dont belong here anymore, thats all.
>>7313934
Stop trying to change /lit/, metafag. Your precious Hiro never changed the rules here.
>>7313933
>>>/his/
you've been warned
>>7313934
So you are saying that there is nothing of a philosophical nature in the works of Pynchon, DFW, Joyce, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, Melville, Faulkner, Hemingway, Wilde, Proust and other authors of fiction? I was not aware of this.
Also, what sort of chemical compounds do I need to ingest to become as stupid as you?
>>7314003
5 bags of popcorn
>>7314003
Distinction: philosophy and literary art. There's science in Pynchon. Doesn't mean this is /sci/.
>>7313764
Hegel's analyses are probably more nuanced and detailed
>>7314029
Science is objective, philosophy is a literary art-form, you big stupid fuck.
>>7313764
go to /his/
>>7314070
Do you really think so? He doesn't do any analysis he just wraps them in his own narrative.
The thing about Russel is he might be an idiot with regard to some philosophers but his treatment of the subject is dedicated, he assess claims that philosophers make and then he counters them with claims of his own showing the relevant logical interplays then for the reader points out that this would not be the end of the debate and that philosophy is all about this debate.
Hegel has good works but his history is fucking silly, especially when dealing with Hume.
>>7314074
Science tries to be objective but ultimately it is not and will never be
>>7314089
Wait, you're saying there's no alalysis in his history lectures?
>>7314089
Thats rather the point, you don't read Hegal's history for a dry account of different philosophers chronologically you read it for his narrative
>>7314093
So you are looking for a philosophical debate then?
>>7314603
There's really no point then, you'd have to be familiar with his work beforehand to even know what he means.
>>7313864
please fuck off and die desu senpai
>>7313864
die ficscum
>>7313764
They both have a historicist tendency (it's all the more surprising in Russell, since that doesn't seem to fit the mode of analytic philosophizing; he takes it as obvious that all of the philosophers were completely determined by their time and place, which, if applied to Russell's beloved analytic mode, doesn't bode well for it).
Hegel was much more devoted to the study of the figures he read than Russell, who, for all of his brilliance in formal logic and mathematics, was always sort of half-hearted about the philosophers before him, excepting Leibniz.
Both of them have biases in their account, for largely similar reasons. For Hegel, human history moves in accordance with the dialectic of spirit: every figure necessarily results in the next dialectically. The relations between thinkers are definite. Hegel's system makes a kind of claim to have moved beyond love of wisdom to wisdom itself, and so the figures in the history of that movement are all viewed in retrospect to how they helped that movement along. Understanding of them is necessary to understand wisdom itself. For Russell, all of the figures are to largely be evaluated primarily by the logic and math of his day, which he takes to not be differences in understanding, but as definite progress that refutes the older thinkers, and they're evaluated secondarily by the kind of British liberalism of his day, both politically and ethically.
Having read both of them, for my part I really do prefer Hegel's history, since his treatments are much more careful and full and interesting insights you'd otherwise miss on these thinkers, while Russell kinda dismisses most of them. Russell's book is meant to be entertaining and to bring in some money and show off the results of analytic philosophy when compared to the other great figures. Hegel takes the more complicated route of saying that they're wrong, but only because their stances are partial, and that they aren't wrong in some wholesale way; they all show *something* of the truth, even in their partiality, and those partial moves were necessary for philosophy.
Ultimately, Russell's take depends on unconscious Hegelian assumptions about historical progress that he seems unaware of; I'm not sure that's so surprising, since he was a British Idealist for a decade (something like third-hand experience with Hegelian ideas). His take on Hegel is pretty dumb.
>>731557
Not op but thanks.
>>7315576
awesome, this is exactly what I wanted. I did try to make a thread on /his/ but it only got one reply saying that /his/ was shit and then the thread died. So there you have it.
Do you remember if some Hegelian vocabulary was necessary for his lectures on the history? For example stuff like being-in-itself and being-for-itself, etc
>>7316171
Cheers man.
As far as his vocab is concerned, it's in there, and I expect that he still has a technical use for those terms, but the text is absolutely not flooded with them, and the lectures (students notes and transcripts, I believe?) are incredibly accessible. Like, a quick look through the text I just did presented me with a few appearances of Notion (or Concept), I saw the line "Man is Mind (or Spirit)" somewhere around the beginning, and stuff like that will be helped by knowing his vocab, but Id say it's not really necessary, or anything to worry about. Again, the lectures are very accessible.
>>7313923
/his/ is only for political philosophy tho
>>7315576
Great post anon.
>>7315576
/lit/ proving supremacy, right here
>>7316187
>>7315576
I'm going through the introduction and it's mostly easy but some of it is difficult. Here's a part where I am having difficulty,
He is explaining what the meaning of the word "reason" is,
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpintroa.htm
"What is the real meaning of this word? That which is in itself must become an object, to mankind, must arrive at consciousness, thus becoming for man. What has become an object to him is the same as what he is in himself through the becoming objective of this implicit being, man first becomes for himself; he is made double, is retained and not changed into another."
In the link above there is more context. I think I need to get a hang of his terminology here. So he's saying that reason as a potential must become an object, to arrive at consciousness, and become actualized. Reason becoming actualized is what he is in himself (what his implicit potential or capacity is to become manifest), and in that becoming manifest, he is made double - both his implicit nature remains and his actual, aka being-in-itself and being-for-itself? I'm just trying to sub when he says "in itself" or "for itself" for potential/actualization respectfully.
It does seem like this kind of talk is more in the introduction than in the rest of the work but I would like to understand this. I tried looking in some Hegelian dictionaries which cleared up some of the terms but I am still not sure what he's trying to say about reason.
>>7317320
I'm also not sure when "in itself" just means "in itself" and when it means "in its potential/capacity but not actualized form". So he could be saying something as simple as, when something becomes an object, it must become an object in your mind through reason, and this capacity of reasoning is what makes you yourself.
>>7317320
I think this is similar (in term of the dialectic) of the awareness that the unhappy consciousness has of the 'Unchangeable' in the PoS: the self has two ways, who are not rigid in themselves but move, to relate to the truth: first as a flux of concrete and passing happening with no stability whose fate is to be sublimated by the Ego, which will create a mirror-image, a fixed and stable essence that will be a moving force that at the same time destroys the objective and vanishing world.
Reason here I think is just that conceptual significance we inherently attribute to the vanishing and confusing medium of external 'happenings', in the second place, that presupposed reason, to not be an abstract and unreal reality, will put itself to test against that otherness, know itself there, and return as a new 'reason'.
>>7317347
I think is both, something can be 'in-itself' by a continuous alienation, or self-emptying of that thing into a medium of otherness, stops being merely in-itself and is now a being-for-another, ONLY after this movement of being-for-another can a thing be in-itself.
>>7317371
>>7317376
See, I can infer some meaning if I think about Hegel's other works and ideas. But I can't make sense from his sentences there alone what it is supposed to be. He's doing a lecture, right, and he's just gotten done explaining to these kids what he means by for-itself and in-itself, about a paragraph up. What are they supposed to make of what he's saying right here?
>>7317432
I think he assumes they are familiar with that terminology from Kant, Schelling and other philosophers.
