is this good?

Yes, but don't try to discuss it here, waste of time.

>>9325197
If you want to justify why the state can kill people just fucking say it, or better yet do it without saying it, don't write 8 gorillion words in several volumes about it. We get it, you're a totalitarian.

File: tmp_17960-C8UjzTaXcAAV_mN82254936.jpg (44KB, 702x405px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 702x405px

>>9325197

>>9325251
is >>9325266 why i shouldn't try to discuss it here?

>>9325274
Yes.

>>9325197
I started reading it recently, op, and so far I've been enjoying it a lot. If you want a nice sample of the book and Hegel's dialectical method, give the introduction a shot. I really mean the introduction and not the famous preface. In this introduction Hegel sketches a devastating argument against Kantian epistemology (which he'll work out in the beginning chapters), while giving the reader a first praxis with the dialectical way of thinking. I was sold right away.

Here's the text. It was the first link I found, so I'm not sure about the translation quality.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phintro.htm
enjoy

Cover aesthetics on point though

INCOMPREHENSIBLE PSYCHOSIS BABBLE.

FUCKING CUNT

>>9325578
yeah its difficult to read.

this is good. a professor has been reading it aloud and explaining it since 2014. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

>>9325567
correct

i decided to go to the library and read it for a few hours, didnt get through enough of it in the time to fully grasp his ideas or anything but i found it very enjoyable to read.

i found it easier to read than Sartre weirdly but maybe i just started at an easy part

File: 1483955954545.jpg (140KB, 500x387px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x387px

>>9325197
yes pic related
>the call that ended philosophy

>>9326650
What part did you read?

File: 1449543749281.jpg (440KB, 1928x2832px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1928x2832px

>>9327098
Can I get a /quickrundown/ on the German idealists? Who are they?

>>9327120
quick rundown:

>Rothschilds & Schopenhauer bow to Hegel
>In contact with aliens
>Possess psychic like dialectics
>Control the Absolute with an iron but fair fist
>Own weltgeist globally
>Direct descendant of Socrates
>Will bankroll the first cities on Thule (Hegelgrad will be be the first city)
>Own 99% of dialectics research facilities on Earth
>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Hegel babies
>said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51
>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of an angel who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress
>You likely have the phenomenology of geist inside you right now
>in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to philosophy. Who do you think set up the meeting between the analytic & the continental high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years)
>learned fluent Kant in under a week
>Nation states entrust their reason with Hegel. There’s no reason in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Hegel
>Hegel is about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
>In reality, he is a timeless being existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don’t know his ultimate plans yet. We hope he is a benevolent being.

>>9327165

Schopenhauer hated Hegel, he called him a charlatan and claimed most of his philosophy was elaborate smoke and mirrors to disguise empty ideas.

File: continental philosophy.jpg (122KB, 625x818px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 625x818px

>reading continental philosophy

a dark path

>>9327731
this is a joke righ?

File: 1491094494966.gif (198KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 800x1000px

Is geist mind or spirit?
mind makes it sound like the mind of the mind-body problem
spirit has religious connotations

can it be called: 'phenomenology of ghost'?

>>9327120
it's the montenegrins that put their penis in the ground though

>>9328426
'Phänomenologie des Geistes' (1) has been translated as both 'Phenomenology of Spirit' and 'Phenomenology of Mind'.

'Phenomenology of Ghost' sounds a bit too.... spooky, I guess.

(1) Mind the capital letter. It's german, so nouns ought to be capitalized.

>>9327109
the first bit on consciousness

Schopenhauer>>>>Poo poo pants Hegel

>>9327731
really made my neurons fire

>>9325197
I'll be honest, I thought I could start with Hegel by reading the phenomenology of spirit and I couldn't understand anything. So I decided to start with his easier works - I've finished his aesthetics and am working my way through the history of philosophy. I'll give the phenomenology another shot together with Kojeve's guide soon.

>>9331180
Forget Kojeve, he's a hack that oversimplifies and misreads everything. Read Jean Hyppolite.

>>9331231
Thanks for the recommendation. Why do you think Kojeve is a hack though?

>>9331269
I said it already.

>>9331289
I was hoping for an argument though.

>>9331296
It will be hard for you to see without reading the PoS, but, briefly, he makes Hegel seem too formulaic, 'X happens then Y which result in Z', without going through the intricacies of the argument, it makes the dialectic look artificial.

>>9331325
Fair enough, thanks

>>9327165
9/10, should've had Marx in there.

File: 1459375000025.jpg (75KB, 719x662px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 719x662px

>>9327731

I want to into Hegel, and the right-Hegelians, how do I achieve this?

>>9331425
Start with the Greeks.

>>9327165
>Schopenhauer bow to Hegel
I'm sure he did that when Hegel was dying of the cholera he avoided.

>>9325197
Yes it is, but you should not attempt it until reading that which proceeded it. I know this is a meme (i.e. start with the Greeks), but it is true for this book. You need to have a solid understanding of pre-Hegelian metaphysics (Plato, Aristotel, Scotus, Abelard, Liebniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Fichte, Schelling and especially Kant!), and this is the same with any of Hegel's works.

>>9331502
what exactly are hume's and locke's metaphysics?

>>9331502
how the fuck is anyone supposed to accomplish this unless you're an academic?

>>9331676
read the summary parts of.philosobers.in plato Stanford thats what i.dolidlll

>>9331502 this name-dropping dickhead is mostly right. I'd say you don't need a solid understanding, but if you go into it raw it's either going to go over your head or chew you up and spit you out

>>9331502
>Plato, Aristotel, Scotus, Abelard, Liebniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Fichte, Schelling and especially Kant!
how about divide that list by 2 and maybe

>>9331676
NEET or night shift security guard.

Hegel is highly concentrated Brain AIDS, consume at your own risk

>>9325563
>>9326144
This is a sign that something is wrong.

People can explain cosmology or evolution or the germ theory of disease or general relativity in a couple of clear sentences.

If it takes all this to explain Hegel what he claims to know is either a) far more profound than those things, or b) complete bullshit. I'll give it a go:

>i can move ideas forward in my head to more complex ideas and 'final' ideas simply by considering an alternative (not necessarily opposite) position to the idea and then synthesizing those two positions to reach a new idea, and then repeat that process until i can't anymore
>by the way this isn't just some bullshit i came up with i think it's an actual logic because once you have the two alternate premises their synthesis seems necessary and necessity of moving from one position to another is a hallmark of logics so mine must be one too
>thinking about irl things using the method is a science because it's based on logic as i said
>p.s. by doing this with terms like family and society i conclude scientifically that prussian autocracy is the supreme and final form of social organization

>>9332262
t. STEM autist.

>>9332262
>People can explain cosmology or evolution or the germ theory of disease or general relativity in a couple of clear sentences.
I actually don't think that this is true.

>>9332655
>you can explain germ theory and and cosmology in a couple of sentences (faithfully)
its not true, its a blatant lie

>>9332655
>>9332685
About 13.7 billion years ago the universe was a singularity of infinite density when quantum fluctuations caused it to enter a period of rapid inflation (called "the big bang") which then caused the laws of physics as we know them to operate. After only a fraction of a second of this inflation the universe had neared its current size and the inflation slowed dramatically (still continuing at a very slow rate even today), allowing stars and galaxies and planets and eventually life to form over billions of years.

The diversity of life on Earth is explained by survival of the fittest by means of natural selection, whereby the genes (the coding blocks of living things) of more successfully adapted organisms are propagated while the genes of less successfully adapted organisms fail to be propagated, leading to a constant state of change called evolution. By mapping this change and dividing similar organisms into species, through genetic and fossil evidence, we can see evolution working to change one species into another species.

Disease is caused by microorganisms ("germs") who reproduce and/or grow within a host. The effect of this reproduction are effects on the body that we cause "disease", and can sometimes be overcome with medicine, surgery, or via the body's natural defense mechanism (the immune system).

Something about the speed of light being constant and gravity and relativity.

>>9332924
Philosophy isn't merely a description of information such as this, the dialectic method developed by Socrates and Plato can't be subjected to such travesty.

>>9332962
Neither is science. It's called a summary.

>>9325197
Don't bother. Just listen to Alex Jones's channel about Hegel's evil dialectics that serves as a basis for NWO globalist thoughts.

NIGHT

>>9333134
SHIFT

>>9333119
wait hol up
did alex jones actually rant about hegel?

actually just googled it, i dont think alex jones actually wrote the article but he hosts it lol
https://www.infowars.com/the-hegelian-dialectic-and-its-use-in-controlling-modern-society/

>>9333119
Hegel's dialectic applied to historical idealism lead to Marx applying it to historical materialism which lead to the Frankfurt school applying it to culture, so it's factually correct to associate it with the left trying to change society away from its traditional form. What's crazy is thinking it's a conspiracy.

>>9325197
Is this for or against God? Does it reject materialism or embrace it fully at the exclusion if metaphysics? Want to know before I waste my time. Thanks.

>>9332262
>>9332924
Is your complaint really that he can't be summed up in a few lines? That's pretty ironic since the FIRST thing he does in the Phenomenology is complaining about people who try to summarize philosophy and Science.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm

Do keep in mind that Wissenschaft (the word Hegel uses) has a different meaning and connotation than the translation 'science'.
Just appreciate for a moment how ambitious Hegel is. He's trying to ground all of human science into one big Science. No wonder it can't be summerized in a few lines. Also, by summarzing it, it would stop being that Science, because this Science is all about getting a real understanding and not some vague intuition.

>>9332924
That's also why something like this fails. It only facilitates mere pretention of understanding.

I can't comment yet on his views on cultural & social development, but so far his epistemology has been quite thorought. I'm more sceptical about a Science (Wissenschaft) of cultural & social development too, but I'll found out what Hegel got cooking up.

If you want the more autistic version of Hegel's logic, here's someones attempt to formulize it into higher category theory & modal type theory.
It's by no means a finished project or textbook thought.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic#FormalizationText

I hope you'll give Hegel another chance. Do not mistake him for an anti-scientific thinker.

>>9332924
>buying into the quantum fluctuations meme
>implying that nothing can create anything
And you call theists crazy?

>>9333600

When we discover that some common impulse drives certain actors towards a certain goal, a conspiracy as you say, it is not necessary that the participants in this conspiracy know that they are part of a conspiracy or answer to some command structure which deliberately and actively conspires. For the forces that move us without our knowledge or consent need not have agency per say, it is sufficient that they cause peoples behavior to synchronize and spiral towards some con-sequence.

>>9333605
>That's pretty ironic since the FIRST thing he does in the Phenomenology is complaining about people who try to summarize philosophy and Science.
Yes, that's not at all suspicious.

>>9333605
>I hope you'll give Hegel another chance. Do not mistake him for an anti-scientific thinker.
My understanding is that he rejected classical logic based on rejecting its law of noncontradiction, which would situated him apart from science by definition. My understanding is that he substituted his own dialectical method in order to apparently resolve contradictions and come to his own conclusions, conclusions that wouldn't be accepted as scientific due to he using his own method. Like you said he wasn't interested in science he was more 'ambitious' than that.

>>9333631
>Yes, that's not at all suspicious.
Why this sarcasm?
As I've said, Science stops being Science when it's not fully grasped.
This idea that Science can't be dumbed down, is actually the closest I can get to a summary.

I think you're still fundamentally misunderstanding Hegel's project.
He's not rejecting classical logic at all. He just thinks it's way too limited.
In fact, he's not rejecting anything. The whole point of his project is that everything has to fit in the whole. All dead-ends and errors have to be included.
He's indeed more ambitious than just regular science. He wants Science. But he still needs science, in his Science.
Just as Kantian epistemology is a part of his system, so is science and pseudoscience.

For "the True is the whole."

Read the introduction & preface if you really want to know his aims.

>>9333586
That's an absolutely nonsensical view of Hegel.

>>9327726
>>9331450

you dips

>>9331325
He also perpetuates the myth that Hegel was an atheist

>>9334060
It's also the most common one you'll find on the Internet.

>>9333631
>Yes, that's not at all suspicious.
What Hegel is saying is that philosophy isn't easy, and can't just be ~done~ after skimming through a preface in five minutes, you dingus. It takes work and effort to truly develop a systematic philosophy.
>Like you said he wasn't interested in science he was more 'ambitious' than that.
"Science" as we know it today, as distinct from "natural philosophy" hadn't yet arisen, so that's arguing Hegel was against "science" would be an anachronism at best. Wissenshaft means any systematic body of knowledge, and what Hegel desired was a thorough philosophical system. Unless of course, you're opposed to thoroughness and the hard work required in proper philosophical investigation, I doubt you'd disagree.

When it comes to the Hegelian notion of contradiction, Hegel wasn't saying that one minus one does not equal zero (that said, Hegel was horrible at math). In the mind you can have 'contradictory' thoughts - ie thoughts that are not fully developed or are internally inconsistent, and through a "dialectical" process Hegel seeks to "unravel", resolve themselves into higher forms. Hegel, being an idealist, saw existence as an alienation of reality, wherein reality as purely ideal. Just as ideas that are not fully formed need to undergo a process of resolution, so to does existence. Basically, if existence didn't conform to the "reality" of their idealized selves, reality would have to change in accordance to the ideal. "Contradiction" as Hegel uses it is not a category of formal logic, but rather an intense opposition. The "dialectical" notion of "contradiction" comes moreso from Heraclitus's perception of the world containing inherent oppositions, rather than Aristotle's notion of contradiction.

Also Karl Popper was a charlatan who's accusations against Hegel are laughable, who's only remembered because of his popularity due to his politics. People using obtuse metaphysics to justify their stupid politics isn't limited to Hegel, but extends to any political philosopher whatsoever.

>>9334361
>Also Karl Popper was a charlatan who's accusations against Hegel are laughable, who's only remembered because of his popularity due to his politics. People using obtuse metaphysics to justify their stupid politics isn't limited to Hegel, but extends to any political philosopher whatsoever.
Not only that but the mechanisms designed to suppress the supposedly protofascist inclinations of German idealism in the post-WWII world order have completely broken down and their failure is the greatest possible indication that the people in Popper's camp were morons for treating Hegel the way they did.

>>9334060
>In order to avoid falling victim to the Hegelian Dialectic from now on you must remember the process involved. Anytime a major problem or issue arises in society think about who will gain or profit from it. Then remove yourself from the equation and take a step back to look at it from a third party perspective. See the so-called “problem”, look at who is reacting, why and in what way. Then look for who is offering up the solution.
When you do this from now on you’ll quickly see the real truth instead of the false truth they wanted you to see.

Its like he skims a Wikipedia article and takes a stab in the dark at what it means thinking he understands it. Hegel never even used Thesis-Antithesis

>>9334421
The best part is that, if Jones read Hegel, he'd realize that they both base their worldviews around the idea that human nature, in its essence, is freedom.

>>9334361
>if existence didn't conform to the "reality" of their idealized selves, reality would have to change in accordance to the ideal.

That's a incomplete statement, because the other way around also happens. Hegel isn't a pure idealist like that.

>>9331676
>>9332156
Just read a few intro texts that cover the basics, ideally one organized thematically, then one organized chronologically. Then do selections from the most important thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant (I'm sorry, you can't cut it down further than that). You don't need to read the entire canon of each of them, just selections from from their most important texts.

File: 47558490.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>>9327165

>>9331676
Maybe reading? Fucking lazy ass.

>>9331676
You're not. Anon is memeing you. Most of the people who recommend massive lists haven't read a tenth of the shit.

>>9335119
>unless you're an academic?
In all fairness, only academics should be studying Hegel, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect an academic to have studied at least the majority of the thinkers on that list. Getting a B.A. in philosophy is easier than you think.

>>9334824
>Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant
i think that's doable i can be enjoying hegel next year

>>9335207
>Getting a B.A. in philosophy is easier than you think.
i should switch my major then
im pretty sure Phenomenology of Spirit is in the 3rd year philosophy class

>>9325197

Arguably the worst book ever written

File: 1474739397147.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>9325563

Shit like this is why I stopped coming here

>>9335351
What's wrong with the post? Are you one of these that get triggered by people indicating texts hosted on "marxists.org" because... well, it has Marx in the name?

>>9333600
>le frang fartskool maymay
>>>/pol/

>>9334824
What are some good intro texts that cover the "basics?"

please respond.

>>9335558
Instead of reading secondary texts on those philosophers, you could read Hegel's own history of philosophy.

Hegel did not know how to write, nor did he care about writing. At least that is the impression I have from the translation I read. Which was the worst read of last year for me. Like it's a fucking book that doesn't want to be read and actively tries to fuck with the reader.

>>9325197
Arguably the biggest pleb filter ever written.

>>9332262
this guy gets it

>>9333119
>>9333586
>>9334060
>>9334421
read a good biography of Hegel

>>9332262
>People can explain cosmology or evolution or the germ theory of disease or general relativity in a couple of clear sentences.
But that's fucking wrong, you dipshit.

>>9332924
nice effort but those aren't explanations in that they don't provide us with the means to apply the theories or methods in question or even necessarily understand any particular application of them.

>>9335700
im not sure of what pleb filter means still
does it mean that anyone who likes it is a pleb or that anyone who doesn't like it is a pleb?

>>9336009
its not a "likes hegel" vs "doesn't like hegel" thing

>>9325563
>dialectical method
Stopped reading there. There is no such thing as the dialectical method, according to Hegel dialectics is the nature of things. Fuck off, pseud

File: 41T753JHA5L.jpg (25KB, 311x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 311x500px

will this thoroughly prep me for big man Hegel?

>>9334824
LOL! What is wrong with you, you cosmic pseud!

You don't need any of your fucking "selections", stuff it!

Some of the works of Plato and Aristotle will be handy to read, but aren't necessary to read Phenomenology. Leibniz, Descartes, aren't needed. Spinoza's Ethics is a nice short read and OP could have a look into that, but not necessary. Locke is wholly superfluous for Hegel, Hegel also literally says that Hume is overrated and wouldn't be remembered if Kant didn't make him famous. Kant is the only one you could do with a good grasp of, and even then isn't entirely necessary.

You History of Philosophy 101 pseuds are such liars. You just don't understand Hegel yourself and assume you have to understand the entire history of philosophy to get it. The philosophical canon is basically shit anyways, there's so much more to it historically than the dumb timeline/pantheon of names you just dropped like your ego integrity depended on it.

File: lacan polar bear.jpg (21KB, 236x376px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 236x376px

>>9336253
It'll prep you for an even bigger bull.

>>9336253
Kojeve is a hack.

>>9336087
You're right, he does think that. Thanks for the correction, I should've been more carefull with my choice of words there. I should've said something like 'way of analysing the dialectic'. Would you agree with that formulation?

I never claimed to he a Hegel scholar. I already said "I started reading it recently". I'm just trying to make the most helpful post I can. Can't we just try to learn from each other?

>>9335351
what did he mean by this?

>>9336291
I'm reading this right now, I don't feel like it's the best explanation of Hegel but I do feel like I can better see where Zizek is coming from when he talks about Lacan now.

>>9332924
>About 13.7 billion years ago

13.8

>the universe was a singularity of infinite density

No

>when quantum fluctuations caused it to enter a period of rapid inflation

No

>which then caused the laws of physics as we know them to operate

lol

>After only a fraction of a second of this inflation the universe had neared its current size

wrong

Why do you speak of things that you have nothing more than a superficial and mostly wrongheaded familiarity with?

>>9331676

people devote their lives to these philosophers. you arent supposed to be able to "master" all of this in a few months, it takes a lifetime. all of those thinkers are way smarter than anyone on this board will ever be

>>9337490
>>About 13.7 billion years ago
>13.8

That showed him.

>>9338028
One hundred million years makes a difference

>>9327726

Hegel has THE worst salience/word ratio in mainstream Philosophy regardless.

>>9327731
>>9328412
>>9329818
>>9331419

That's a perfect example of the antagonistic dichotomy between Utilitarian Teleology and Archonic Ontology. More revelation in a few dozen words than in all of Zizek's/Peterson's/Land's nonsense.

>>9327731
There's nothing particularly wrong with Irigaray's argument, in a neutral manner (i.e. not as symptomatic of a greater 'societal ill'). I find it funny though that the writer says that phallo-logocentrism is 'supposedly suppressive' immediately after saying (in parenthesis, so it seems quite sincerely) that social constructiveness of natural science 'castrates' its claim to truth, and that castration is a reduction (of power, as in it is subsumed into a more powerful 'History of Ideas'). Women, am I right fellas?

>>9338042
not for you (subtext: because you'll never evolve a brain)

>>9334060
It's the centrist hegelian view actually. Fukuyama and the gang.

>>9333586
Holy fuck I need to buy some Nascent Iodine

>>9338786
Fukuyama didn't understand Hegel at all and adopted his "version" (bastardization) of "Hegel" from Kojeve and Marx.

>>9327731
>>9338461

I also like how the moron that wrote the "retort" is sarcastically and pointlessly deconstructing her argument and sarcastically agreeing with it as if to hint at a refutation so implicit to all levels of discourse that it doesn't even have to be mentioned.

>how are speeds "vitally necessary"?

The speed of Societal cogs, the speed of reasonable travel, the speed of information perpetuation, the speed of you going back to /r/eddit.

File: 1485830412920.png (17KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 882x758px

>>9334824
>>9336279
what the fuck am I supposed to read?

>>9339119
Do you understand what Kant was about? Even reading the summary pages for his books in Wikipedia is enough.

Now you can go and read Hegel's book, this is the bare minimum needed for it.

Of course, if you know more, it will be more rewarwding, but that can be done in future.

File: hegels_POS.jpg (21KB, 260x398px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 260x398px

>>9339119
>what the fuck am I supposed to read?

>>9339207
This.

And pic related.

>>9338963
I can't stand how butthurt Hegelians will try to deny certain readings of Hegel when clearly Hegel said all readings of his work will be pre-empted and contained within his work. Schopenhauer is right to say it could mean anything.

Hegel amounts to "Whatever happens in the end of history, it will be a mix of what happened throughout history, so put my name on it."

>>9339276
t. never read Hegel

>>9339280
How am I wrong? Simply look at all the ways people have taken up Hegel. He can be used to justify anything.

>>9339316
He can't justify your shitty understanding of Hegel.

>>9339316
Sophists can use anything to justify anything, stop being so naive.

>>9339322
It's like you never started with the Greeks, or you'd have know that.

>>9339327
But what if he did have know that? What have happen then?

>>9339316
No he can't. Fucking idiot.

>>9339331
>>9339319
Basically Monarchism, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, can all use Hegel.

Are you guys afraid of losing your tenure? Did you write your theses on the sole correct interpretation of Hegel, the interpretation which will not get synthesized and turned on its head???

>>9339391
You're retarded, all ideologies can distort anything to its own uses. Fuck off.

>>9339391
>Basically

Operating term for ass-pullers

File: pinochet_gramsci.jpg (128KB, 599x714px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 599x714px

>>9339457
>>9339479
OK thanks for clarifying that you havn't read Hegel and know nothing of his interpretors and can't formulate a single argument against me.

>>9339640
You're just a baiter.

>>9339649
> OK thanks for clarifying that you havn't read Hegel and know nothing of his interpretors and can't formulate a single argument against me.

>>9328494
no it's just a better translation than ghost because that's the word they use when talking about the soul. that's what it means.

>ctrl + f: nitrous
>0 results
do you guys even William James?

>>9341090
No who's that? Why is he important in this context? Genuinely curious

>>9339714
Ok, here's an argument of the same calibre as yours:

Basically Monarchism, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, can't all use Hegel.

If you disagree you havn't read Hegel and know nothing of his interpretors and can't formulate a single argument against me.

>>9342229
>who's William James
reeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>9342278
I mean that's one way to respond I guess

>>9342278
Hey anon, most of us have probably atleast heard of him, but could you expand on his relation to Hegel?

>>9342278
>>9341090

pseud characteristic #14891:

>"Has anyone mentioned x yet? I can't believe no one has mentioned x. I can't believe no one has mentioned every single philosophical response to the OP philosopher. Have you guys mentioned Brandom or Sellars yet?"

>>9342239
But he has been used by all the parties I cited.

>>9331269
KOJEVE WAS A KGB AGENT

do not believe anything he writes

I'm guessing fukuyama got paid to write end of history as well, otherwise hes a dumbcunt for being misled

http://www.nationalobserver.net/2003_spring_109.htm

The guy who said read Plato Aristotle Descartes Liebniz Spinoza Hume and Kant was actually right.

If you don't see how the phenomenology begins half way through the Meditations for Self-Certainty and moves on to a discussion of Aristotle and Hume for Perception through to Leibniz for Force and the Understanding you are a massively dishonest brainlet.

Most of the Phenomenology is impossible to understand without these thinkers, I mean even the very introduction - why did he start at Sense-Certainty?

Questions that can't be answered without being intimately familiar with the preceding content and intellectual tradition.

Just kill yourself if you disagree.

>>9344252
Nope.