I know this is difficult, but is it doable? I've heard people

For the moral consciousness itself, however, its moral attitude does not mean that consciousness therein develops its own proper notion and makes this its object. It has no consciousness of this opposition either as regards the form or the content thereof; the elements composing this opposition it does not relate and compare with one another, but goes forward on its own course of development, without being the connecting principle of those moments. For it is only aware of the essence pure and simple, i.e. the object so far as this is duty, so far as this is an abstract object of its pure consciousness — in other words, it is only aware of this object as pure knowledge or as itself. Its procedure is thus merely that of thinking, not conceiving, is by way of thoughts not notions. Consequently it does not yet find the object of its actual consciousness transparently clear to itself; it is not the absolute notion, which alone grasps otherness as such, its absolute opposite, as its very self. Its own reality, as well as all objective reality, no doubt is held to be something unessential; but its freedom is that of pure thought, in opposition to which, therefore, nature has likewise arisen as something equally free. Because both are found in like manner within it-both the freedom which belongs to [external] being and the inclusion of this existence within consciousness — its object comes to be an existing object, which is at the same time merely a thought-product. In the last phase of its attitude or point of view, the content is essentially so affirmed that its being has the character of something presented, and this union of being and thinking is expressed as what in fact it is, viz.-Imagining (Vorstellen).

I unironically find Plato more difficult and opaque.

If you don't know the german langauge in and out, don't even bother

Honestly, Heidegger is way worse.

>>9016023
Why?

>>9016026
Damn. I know a little but not enough to read this in German.

>>9016037
Plato's dialogues sound casual and easy do follow but it's hard to get what is Socrates or Plato endgame, or big picture (take a work like Sophist, for example), which I guess is understandable since the whole point is the dialectic and construction involved in the path itself; whereas Hegel is quite clear on where he wants to you to go and what he is trying to achieve, even though the middle of it is muddy.

Read his lectures first.

>>9016014
I'll be honest, even a college course didn't help me much with the Phenomenology. I would advise that you wait to read the preface, as it was written after the book was completed. Otherwise, just go for it, bro.

>>9016026
So, should I read Kant and Schoppy et al. only in their own language?

>>9016014

Dr. Gregory Sadler has a YouTube channel and an ongoing series where he reads and analyzes TPOS page by page. I think he's only about halfway through, though.

>>9016300
>reading Kant at all
Fapping for 14 hours straight would be a more productive use of your time.

File: 1481064596590.png (384KB, 1858x1220px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1858x1220px

>>9016040
For me the best way to understand Plato is by revising and comparing each dialogue in light of one another. For example, in Ion Socrates will criticize those who feel divinely inspired to speak, yet in other dialogues he will often refer to his own Daimon during moments of great intellectual inspiration. The Republic may rail against poets, but it does so in a poetic manner (an effect often lost through translation).
Plato wants you to question these issues, he wants you to think for yourself.

>>9016032
Total bullshit. It's easy to misread almost every sentence Hegel writes, Heidegger just invents a lot of vocabulary you have to keep up with.

>>9016014
Speaking of Hegel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOk6HB609po

thoughts?

>>9017317

I don't understand this but it still makes me laugh

>>9017317
It's pretty astonishing how influential Hegel was, politically and academically. A tiny fraction of people understand anything about him, but he may be the most influential individual in the last 200 years.

>>9017397
Also, if Nietzsche wrote his books with reference to Hegel he did it as a reaction, and was nearly the opposite of a Hegelian himself. Carl Schmitt was fired on the charge of being a Hegelian in a country that worshiped Nietzsche.

>>9017354
brilliant