Greetings
What is /lit/'s opinion on G.W.F. Hegel's philosophy?
/lit/ has long since overcome Hegel.
total nonsense
>>7402349
>'overcome'
That's a peculiar view, I mean I could see how some pubescent prick could 'overcome' Stirner or nihilism or something, but Hegel isn't some meme philosopher to 'overcome' or grow out of. I don't claim to understand him yet, but I've read portions of Philosophy of History and History of Philosophy and Philosophy of Right, and there's a depth and systematic force there that I want to try to grasp.
>>7402356
Tell me what you do understand so far.
I would advise you to not have any critical opinions of people who actually do understand him before you do.
>>7402355
Thanks for your contribution, Arthur.
>>7402364
You wish.
It's mostly anglo-autists who think MUH RUSSEL has somehow moved past Hegel
Hegel is making a return yo. In the weirdest of places: analytic philosophy. See: Paul Reddings work. And there is always Zizek and the meme-'ish' team. Hegel is their boy.
>>7402347
dank
Would it be correct to say that, after Kant, Hegel is the most important modern philosopher? (In general, not just in terms of having influence on other philosophers.)
>>7402448
Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche andKierkegaardare BY FAR the most important modern philosophers.
>>7402448
He's extremely important to be sure because of influance. In general it's hard to pinpoint. I don't feel like he is actually well known or read by many, only a select few, so he's not as much 'alive' as perhaps he should be. But same can be said of many philosophers.
>>7402347
I have a love/hate relationship with Hegel, but a simple hate relationship with people who like Hegel. While I take Hegel as a serious philosopher, and his writing style belonging to the time he lived (writing in a similar fashion that Fichte for example), Hegelian nowadays seem to rely on the obscurity to pretend saying something deep.
>>7402347
Pretty much this.
>>7402455
Hegel is now more popular than in any time from the 1850s to the 1920s.
>>7402347
To be honest i'm just parroting Schopenhauer's opinion of him. I have read parts of Schopenhauer though and like him a lot.
Charlatans and philosophy is pretty old though and they never seem to lack idiots that follow them so i wouldn't be surprised if Schopenhauer's critique is correct.
Once in these threads there were a dude claiming that Hegel was just lucky to have good interpreters and maybe that is true. Even if his core message is 80% shit and 20% "something"; a good prof that has dedicated his life to him might be able to read things into his works and make him into something tenable. I'm just wary of wasting time on someone that might just be an asshole and not a genuine philosopher even if it's possible to read something profound out of his careening and obfuscation.
>>7402356
>"meme philosopher"
>calls others pubescent pricks
>>7402610
I guess my point is. If it takes more time than reasonable to understand a philosopher; it could just be that the philosopher is shit. Like Einstein says: "If you can't explain something simply then you don't know it well enough yourself".
>>7402623
But you can break down Hegel in some simpler terms, it is just that a lot of him is lost then. That Einstein quote is not univerally appliable, as some things simply are more complicated.
>>7402347
Dated and incomprehensible.
>>7402347
>Kierkegaard
Hegel definitely looks like the comfiest philosopher. Something to read with some coffee
>>7402632
Maybe you are right. Like i said i haven't read him. And with metaphysics one must be wary of falling into idiocy. A lot of stuff can seem profound and when investigated can end up being a lot of nonsense. I know, since iv'e read everyone from nisargadatta maharaj, eckhart tolle, bhagavad gita, upanishads, a lot of mystic literature.
Imagine my suprise when the most sensible metaphysics was propounded by a guy called the Buddha hundreds of years before these guys, and it was presented coherently, in simple language...
Deep is not equal to "complex".
>>7402634
If it's incomprehensible how can you judge it to be dated?
>>7402637
Unless you're trying to read the Science of Logic, which goes better with tranquilizers.
>>7402634
>Dated
Hegel himself admits he's 'dated', but then, so are you.
>>7402610
Schopenhauer's critique was mostly directed at Hegel use of language rather than his philosophical point. It was Nietzsche who actually criticized Hegelian philosophy attacking its rationalist core.
>>7402623
How do you explain modular forms in simple terms? How do you explain the Ricci flow and its relation to the poincare conjecture easily?
Being able to explain something in simple terms says more about the person who explain that about the listener. It means the person who explains knows the key concepts involved and the general idea - it's a common thought that you don't understand a theorem until you're able to see it as a single unity -, to put it in other words, it means is false that "you can't see the forest for the trees".
This doesn't mean the listener knows and understand the idea and all that's involved. Pretty much everything was lost in the explanation.
There are two things I'd point out at last:
1. Contrary to the very popular belief, Hegel is not VERY had to understand, if you're acquainted with philosophy at Hegel's time.
There is a popular belief as well that you can pick up any philosophical book and read it as a self-contained piece. Hegel will not explain anything (in the Phenomenology) about the German idealism, or about Kantian noumena or on Leibniz monads. He assumes a reader that has the Phenomenology knows them by heart since it's not a book to teach (like Lessons), instead it's on the level on what we now would call a paper (a very long one).
2. It's commonly thought by many scholars that Hegel's use of technical language was due to political tensions (keep in mind that when the Phenomenology was published the battle of Jena took place) and because of the implications of the Hegelian system. Hegel's early writings are brilliant and crystal clear.
>>7402347
Hegel explained simply.
God was infinite. God became finite. Now there's us. And we will remember we were and still are infinite God. But now in our remembrance we'll use the term Spirit instead of God and replace religion with philosophy and create a harmonious balance between state, individual and universal.
What's the one thing an infinite God can't know? Finitude, claims Hegel. So God, in order to transcend its own infinitude, becomes finite, which ends up becoming more than infinite. So God, paradoxically can transcend its own infinitude.
Hence Hegel thinks Christianity is the best religion because it has the best combination of the finite and the infinite. God became Man and Man was resurrected and joined God. The God-Man of Jesus is a symbol for his whole philosophy.
History is the process of this remembrance. Christianity was a key event in western because history realized and accepted the combination of finite and infinite. But again, philosophy, specifically Hegel's philosophy will be crucial in the completion of what Christianity started out to do.
This is Hegel's philosophy.
To put it cheekily, Hegel thinks history was leading up to him saying history is leading up to Hegel.
For Marx, this "remembrance" will actually be the communist state happening all over the world.
Hope that makes sense.
>>7402753
This is so full of bullshit
>>7402766
Actually it's not bullshit. It's Reason coming back to itself through itself.
Good day.
>>7402753
It doesn't actually. I mean, it does make a kind of morose sense but not the kinda enlightened sense i'd spend aeons deciphering.
>>7402729
Thanks for that, I wanted to say this but wouldn't have put it so well.
>>7402776
Just smoke weed and tell yourself you're seeing the world all coming together to agree on one big idea.
I'm not Hegelian though. I actually don't touch any modern philosophy. It's gross.
>>7402753
which hegel book is that from?
The hardest thing about Hegel is that you forget him very easily without a serious study.
Peter Singer wrote a very accessible introduction to Hegel that isn't bad at all I think.
>>7402450
>Nietzsche
Why?
He's not relevant at all when compared to those.
>>7402796
That which is not important is forgotten.
>>7402839
>>>/facebook/
>>7402843
>>pleb, /b/, etc
>>7402578
Yeah but there being many more people on earth now than there was a century ago doesn't really count..
>>7403364
Plus more of them can read than ever before.
>>7402753
>>7402753
>state, individual and universal
yo daddy, oedio the pedo andyo mamma
Hegel wants to fuck the infinite so bad because it look to him like a butthole at the centre of a perfectly round booty
na man Hegel he mah nigga nahmsaiyn, I play baseball with that dude on weekends when he aint such a ballbuster
>>7402347
Two students were watching a man walk around the yard. One said to the other, “The subject is moving.”
The other replied, “The object is moving.”
Master He overheard this. He said, “Not the subject, not the object; Geist is moving.”
>>7402753
So did he just steal this shit from Plato but turn it into some retarded holism.
pseudo-intellectual trash
>>7402450
And Heidegger
>>7402347
hegel, get down from there.
>>7402810
Surely you jest? Just within the philosophy tradition, every single continental thinker since (notice I said 'thinker' and not 'philosopher' because this includes those closer to psychologists, social critics, etc. than just philosophers) and some analytic ones too have been either Nietzschean or 'post-Nietzschean' (in the same way we have post-Marxists).
And then you have the massive list of artists and political figures who were influenced by him, much less worshiped the guy.
Sure, Marx may have more numbers, but that's not even the goal for Neetchee because he has more Great Men.
"Great things remain for the great." etc.
vital in development (!) of evolutionist paradigm that runs through all subsequent thought forcing a response even if it's a negative one
can be meaningfully said that virtually any thought concerned with change over time, whether in humanities social sciences philosophy whatever, since hegel has had to come to terms with hegel
such an unbelievably strong undercurrent that its depth is unfathomable except semi-esoterically and by functionary academics who accidentally grok that they are supposed to acknowledge it, but for the most part you can work your entire life in or against an essentially hegelian paradigm and it's just so deep you don't even realise it's there
german
bald
tight
thick
>>7403837
i don't think i'd say he stole it from plato, i'd more say that christianity relies heavily on platonism.
>>7404280
Basicaly this. It's impossible to do modern philosophy while ignoring Nietzsche and Marx. Everything you write will either be siding with one of them or trying to discredit one of them.
>>7404310
>grok
I've seen this word twice in my life, and I'm convinced both times were you.
>>7404524
You grok that it was him twice?
>>7404310
>grok
I think this is the first time I searched for a word I read on 4chan on the dictionary.
>>7404586
>It's still common on some Linux boards
Which means it is not common everywhere else.
>>7403827
>>7403827
Nice.
