What groundwork is necessary to be read before I can properly understand this book? I've tried to get into it a couple of times but it's like wading through mud; incredibly dense and hard to comprehend clearly. My translation is pic related -- maybe there is an easier translation to grasp?
>>7355379
Don't bother. Start with Philosophy of History.
As far as PoS goes, you need to have a basic understanding of almost every philosophical concept in the book up untill the 19th century. I recomment to start with Boehme.
gotta read kant m8
i had a passing understanding of kant so i tried hegel and got a less and than passing understanding of him
studying kant closer now i'm already starting to understand hegel better without even reading him again yet
kant is not nearly as interesting, at least on the surface, but you've gotta do the work
the first two critique at the very least, family
>>7355385
what to read before kant? does anything worth reading bridge the gap between the greeks?
>>7355394
leibniz and hume at the most imo
kant is something like a response to hume in the mode of leibniz
he combines them into something completely unheard of up to that point
i think that's what makes him a safe starting point he cuts the history of philosophy into two
the move from kant to hegel is pretty subtle compared to the move that kant himself made with all of his predecessors
strikes me as the first completely non-greek thinker
>>7355406
Thank you, this is really helpful. I guess it's time to take another shot at Kant.
>>7355390
>Philosophy of History
It's Hegel's most popular lecture. As far as Boehme goes, he is the closest to the way Hegel writes and articulates if we count out Schelling and Fiche. Enjoy getting bored by Kant though if you are reading the 3 Critiques.
>>7355429
>Enjoy getting bored by Kant
I already got bored of him the last few times I tried. It's a shame they couldn't be shorter.
>>7355429
>Philosophy of History
>It's Hegel's most popular lecture
Ok, I'll pick this up. Thanks
>>7355429
>>7355433
all you have to do is feel like you really understand him
namely, you have to understand what "idealism" means for him, because hegel's idealism is a way of historicizing it
if you can accomplish this without reading the critique, then by all means
they are without a doubt some of the worst reads in all of philosophy
i just know personally i didn't really get (or feel like i got) what kant meant until i read his own words (which is weird, since he writes and argues like shit)
>>7355433
But Kant already considered your impulse ; Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, published for the lay person; a "synthetic" realization of the conclusions of the first critique versus the "analytic" expression of the Critique itself, according to Kant. Frankly I felt I got the picture from the Prolegomena (and it really is a fucking heavy picture, read this shit it's amazing, and read the critique if you have the time too, or read it first if you have the time, fuck, Kant can be pretty fucking harsh in the best way) and I suspect that if I were to read the first Critique now, which I admit I haven't, I would consider most of his supposedly "analytic" conclusions just as "synthetic" as the Prolegomena supposedly is. Definitely had to skip the bits about the categories in the Prolegomena.
>>7355446
Do you really feel like he writes poorly? I feel like he's actually quite clear. My sense is he's trying to say something very specific that hasn't been said before, and he wants to make sure his words are not mis-interpreted to mean something that *has* been said before. So he kind of winds his way through a maze of words that *could* be interpreted as cliche, asking readers to follow him in order to avoid the potential of misinterpretation.
>>7355479
Ignore him, you are spot on on how Kant writes, which is why continentals like the poster you replied to hates him, because Continental Phil is nothing but mysticism garbage which intends to do nothing but confuse and aid pseuds at spouting garbage.
>>7355476
>Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
Good advice. Having read the reviews, this seems like the right step forward. Going to read this first to get some overview.
>>7355491
Lol, this is a bit ironic because I, who posted >>7355479, am deep deep into "continental" philosophy and generally consider that Kant's first critique initiated whatever subsequent projects could be considered as part of the 'genre'. But I think Kant is a sharp motherfucker for the most part, and that his writing is cogent, precise, and sometimes rather beautiful.
>>7355390
>Every one of his works seems to be regarding Christian theology. I'll pass.
?
Kant is the most boring philosopher ever.
>>7355495
/
,==. |~~~
/ 66\ |
\c -_) |~~~
`) ( |
/ \ |~~~
/ \ \ |
(( /\ \_ |~~~
\ \ `--`|
/ / / |~~~
___ (_(___)_| jgs
>>7355516
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_B%C3%B6hme#Works
Is this the wrong Bohme? This is the only one that comes up.
>>7355512
like i said it took finally reading him to finally understanding him
couldn't really make heads or tails of the summaries i read online or companions and such for some reason
for me it was a matter of tackling the vocab head on and seeing it used in sentence after sentence that i was finally able to think "in" kantianese
but any way you look at it the book is a mess, despite how over-archingly designed it seems to be
the arguments aren't really arguments and most of the secondary literature appreciates this i think
the lack of examples is a big thing too
a book like the critique should have a zillion examples for every term introduced, but examples are few and far between and those that are there are infamously unclear
but maybe i agree with you that if someone was to rewrite the critique in a better way it would have been done already
>>7355534
Examples are for plebs, you're literally a pleb akin to an idiot complaining that a textbook is too hard to read because it doesn't have any pretty pictures.
Examples only lead to ambiguity, deal with it, pseud.
>>7355542
Are you serious? Examples are fundamental to all non-fiction. Language is too ambiguous (Especially translated) to fully appreciate each point without demonstration. You're just an elitist fuckwit.
>>7355547
he's anything but elite m8
spit it out before he reels ya in
>>7355542
please be bait...
>>7355379
>tfw I want to read all the material required to understand PoS but I have to devote my time to schoolwork instead
>>7355379
The problem with approaching the PoS by means of necessary groundwork is that pretty much the entire history of philosophy is groundwork for it, and emphasis on any one figure while disregarding others gives you only a partial understanding of the whole thing.
If you *had* to have something like a groundwork, Plato's Parmenides and Aristotle's Metaphysics can be helpful (while difficult in themselves). Kant's important too, but all the same, Hegel isn't merely reacting to Kant, and Kant's relevance is greatest in the much later "Spirit" section.
To see what Hegel's project is, look at the passages in Aristotle's Metaphysics about the science of first principles, and of what it would seem is necessary for there to be one. In Plato's Parmenides, consider how contradiction functions throughout the second half of the book.
As far as translations, Miller's is very good, though I'd quibble with his choice of "Notion" to translate Begriff ("Concept" is better). There's a ewer one that I think you can download online for free, but I forget who it's by, and Miller's translation is largely perfectly fine for use.
>>7356355
Terry Pinkard's.
>>7356355
What editions/translations of those two works do you suggest?
