Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: hegel[1].jpg (39KB, 309x400px) Image search:
[Google]
![hegel[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/srKrctd.jpg "hegel[1]")
39KB, 309x400px
I just started reading the Phenomenology of Spirit (literally just started - 4rth page of the Preface), and I was wondering whether I'm supposed to understand it as a philosophical system (which for now seems to be: the unfolding of all knowledge is the Notion of the Absolute?/knowledge is both the bud and blossoming flower) or as one of the many buds and go full autist with it (and create my own system out of my incomprehension of his mind in its pure unfolding, and instead discover my own unfolding of truth)?
When he says "If, namely, the True exists only in what, or better as what, is sometimes called intuition, sometimes immediate knowledge of the Absolute, religion or being --not at the centre of divine love but the being of the divine love itself -- then what is required in the exposition of philosophy is, from this view-point, rather the opposite of the form of the Notion.", is he alluding to the truths a priori of Kant and it's quality of being an intuition and the fact that that is actually not the Concept (Notion?) of Truth but only the blossoming flower of the moment? Does he mean that Truth is unattainable? Doesn't that break a little bit with Aristotle's A is A? Is he the kind of philosopher Ayn Rand is against (there can be no actual Truth therefore everything could be justified blabla...)
When he says "to show that now is the time for philosophy to be raised to the status of a Science would therefore be the only true justification of any effort that has this aim, for to do so would demonstrate the necessity of the aim, would indeed at the same time be the accomplishing of it." Does he mean that doing something expresses the necessity of that something being done at that moment?
Is his Truth the understanding of every single thing that ever happened (included every single thought and intuition)?
Could someone give me some kind of base with which to look at his philosophy? If not I feel like I'm inventing all of his idea due to the obscurity of his words (or my inability to make out a single idea of his phrases but many and contradictory)
>>
File: 1487376799843.jpg (64KB, 657x527px) Image search:
[Google]
64KB, 657x527px
ñ
>>
>>9322639
Oh shit somebody actually reads Hegel and makes a valid thread about it?
STOP THIS MADMAN.
DIDN'T EVEN READ THE POST FULLY.
>>
>>9322647
Anon please, share the light.
>>
>>9322639
No one knows how Hegel must be interpreted, including Hegel. The man did not give a fuck (and it shows) and neither should you.
>>
>>9322661
Is then Hegel just a guy whom the Church gave fame to in order to dull the people with confusing ideas and not kill God with the synthetic a priori truths?
If so, are there any actual records on this or any way in which to convince one not to read the book for sure? Because this guy has that kind of feeling (like Nietzsche or Kierkegaard) that he only says the 10% and hides the 90% on the understanding of his person and nature, and it'd be annoying to loose the amazing experience of discovering another of this guys just because I've been wrongly convinced that he is a hack.
>>
Actually, did Kierkegaard feel like that only because he talks in Hegel jargon?
>>
>>9322661
What if it is the fact of him not giving a fuck that makes his work greater? Unfolding his personal truth and part of the Notion of True by the subconscious usage of his most personal words/ideas?
>>
>>9322639
>Could someone give me some kind of base with which to look at his philosophy?
Try secondary lit, Kojeve is pretty good at making his shit at least intelligible.
>>
>>9322706
Kojeve is a hack.
>>
>>9322639
To understand Hegel, start with an intro book. I suggest WT Jones "Kant and the 19th Century" You first read Kant, and then learn of Hegel. It appears you know Kant's Philosophy so you can just skip to Hegel part of the book. Also I suggest starting with Philosophy of Right and then Phenomenology of Spirit. Read Stanford Encyclopedia for more info on Hegel. You can't learn Hegel without learning intro to Hegel
>>
>>9322661
I imagine Hegel felt that the way he expressed his ideas was fundamental to the ideas themselves. If that's the case, then he likely did give a fuck.
>>
>>9322639
I don't know anything about Hegel, but try searching Youtube the "Half hour Hegel" series by Gregory B. Sadler, where he goes through the entire text, line by line.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2