any blatant requirements before reading hegel besides greeks?
Kant
>>7535454
...
fuck me i forgot about that
>>7535446
no need for kant imo
I did most of the greeks, Then existentialism, Popper, Frege, Wittgenstein
Then you start Hegel and boom you're the man now
Will I become smart after I'm done studying Hegel?
>>7537432
>after I'm done studying
You are never 'done' studying something, Padawan. By that statement alone I know you have a lot to learn about philosophy yet.
>>7537455
S-senpai, stop being so demotivational, now I have to become the best hegelian in the world
>>7537455
False. You are 'done' studying something when you have a full grasp on whatever it is you are studying. It turns out that it is you, who are the Padawan.
>>7537529
#rekt
>>7535446
Lots and lots and lots of secondary sources.
>>7537529
And you can fly when you grow wings; settle yourself, padawan.
>>7537529
In the Hegelian context at least, any kind of knowledge can only be fully grasped in practical and concrete circumstances, which by their very nature alter and mold the original knowledge into a different presupposition, and so forth.
Any kind of formal fixed knowing is either useless and abstract, or is merely a beginning who has to be developed.
>>7537588
which has*
>>7536855
Wow it's a good thing you didn't skip over 1500 years of philosophy or anything.
>>7535446
Yeah, everyone who came before Hegel.
>>7535446
/r/ing the Hegel prereq chart
>>7537865
Is there such a thing? Requesting as well.
You really don't have to read anything before you start with a philosopher. If the philosopher is specifically responding to the idea of a previous thinker, he or she will explain that and briefly summarize the ideas to which the philosopher is responding.
In terms of Hegel, it's almost more important to be familiar with what came AFTER him (eg. Marx, Lenin, Adorno) to get a sense of just how important the dialectic is and how his thought has been take up and interpreted.
>>7535446
Well Hegel didn't consider someone a philosopher who wasn't a Spinozist. So, read Spinoza.
>not reading Kant and the Idealists before reading Hegel
>not reading all of early modern philosophy before reading those
>not reading Plato and Aristotle before reading that
>>7537979
>not getting acquainted with Parmenides
>>7537920
Not only wrong, exactly wrong.
While studying those who came after a particular thinker can tell you the effect he had, it will also lead you astray if you ascribe the views of his followers to him. Certainly you can't trust that those who followed a thinker properly interpreted that thinker, as you claimed.
On the other hand, it is almost always necessary to understand the thinkers who preceded a thinker in order to understand the context and ideas that philosopher was dealing with, whether or not he was right or wrong. That's why you can't understand Descartes without understanding the scholastics, you can understand Hume without understanding Descartes, you can't understand Kant without understanding Hume, and you can't understand Hegel without understanding Kant.
Let me put it another way: Hegel didn't study Hegel, Hegel studied the people that came before Hegel. So why would you assume you can make the same mental moves as Hegel if you lack the education he had?
