Does anyone want to do a group reading of Phenomenology of Mind?*

>>9681097
Not unless everyone involved has started with the Greeks first

>>9681146
I've never read the greeks.

How about this. I read the first chapter, a poster that's read the greeks reads the first chapter, and we write a post about what we got out of it.

>>9681097
>I've never read the greeks.

Here we go again

>>9681153
Then the people that think what I write is better then the other poster's can group read the rest with me.

Not unless everyone involved has had their penis inspection test.

I can distribute out my own tests if need be.

>>9681153
START

>>9681158
Cool. Okay.

https://www.scribd.com/document/49157331/Phenomenology-of-Spirit-Entire-Text-of-T-Pinkard-Translation
Page 89

>>9681146
Okay but what if we've started with the Greeks but read nothing else?

https://www.scribd.com/document/49157331/Phenomenology-of-Spirit-Entire-Text-of-T-Pinkard-Translation

Page 90

-Consciousness-
90. Immediate perception, untainted of bias, is the object of knowledge we must analyze.

>note: this goes against the notion of needing to read the Greeks

We must step outside of ourselves into pure (or as pure as possible) reception of the objects of knowledge as we come into contact with them.

91. Sense-certainty (which I understand to be the immediate perception of knowledge) is the richest knowledge

>note: I disagree. I think that a true bias - or an ego with a capital E - is the richest perception of knowledge. Meat for men, milk for babes.

We can either go to physical places where this knowledge abounds or - in any physical location - find enter knowledge through the holographic microcosm.

cont....

>>9681227
Cont.

I'd say that the holographic microcosm can be attained by sense-certainty itself.

I do think there is a place for Ego with a capital E, but I think that it's built upon the first principals of sense-certainty.

>edit: (the end) we can enter true knowledge through the holographic microcosm.

... 91. The sense-certainty object is the most true because the scales weigh equally for all of its contents.
>note: How to attune perception toward self-certainty?

Okay this important:
>However, this certainty in fact yields the most abstract and the very poorest truth. It articulates what it knows as this: It is; and its truth merely contains the being of the item. For its part, consciousness only exists in this certainty as the pure I; or, within that certainty, the I exists merely as a pure this, and the object likewise exists merely as a pure
this

This implies an importance on consciousness itself. Hegel is saying that sense-perception is a poor form of knowledge in that it views both itself and the self indifferently.

The one thing immutable from existence is existing; the one thing immutable from consciousness is itself. This is The Self.

>>9681281
I'll stop making such short posts.

Honestly I think we should just move a number a day. and discuss it, but I'll keep moving until the end of the chapter. I'm going to summarize each [number] and include a few in each post.

>>9681281
92.
Actual Self-Certainty is both Immediate Knowledge and a Holographic Microcosm of knowledge itself.
The differences in each Holographic-Microcosm exist because it's attained via a biased consciousness.

This book is not the most thrilling read.
I'm curious what the Greek guy has so far?

Are there any good reviews? I can't find anything.

Get Findlay

>>9681426
Do you think I could gain any kind of notoriety by doing my own analysis - one that is as readable as possible while adding in my own language.

For example
>when we take a piece out of this plenitude, divide it, and thereby enter into it
Is Holographic Microcosm

>>9681491

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Spirit comes from the latin "spiritus" which means "breath."

"Spirit" originates from the latin "spiritus" which means "breath."

Geist doesnt mean mind in most contexts within the phenomenology you oaf.

>>9681660
>>9681686
>>9681691
>>9681707
>read one post ITT

Like I said I consider 'spirit' to be mind. After reading some of the book, I'd call it Phenomenology of Existence.

>>9681794
>I'm smarter than the scholars who translated it.

>>9681806
That's not saying much. Clearly Hegel himself could barely grasp the thing.

It remains to be seen if this is even a good philosophy or not.

Do you want to make an actual argument?

>>9681818

what the fuck are you talking about? i don't understand what you're trying to communicate

>>9681845
Then work on your reading comprehension.

someone post a download for this translation you don't have to sign up to scribd to access holy fuck

The original German is 'Phänomenologie des Geistes'
Geist can be translated to mind I suppose, but it would be an odd translation. Geist is better understood as an unenbodied living force. I.e., a spirit. Something that lives without living. Sein ohne Sein. There are a good number of better German translations for 'mind' than Geist.
Just call it the Phenomenology of Spirit. One already loses much through translation. I would read English, then German, if my German weren't trash and I actually cared for Hegel. I suggest you do the same if you intend to be serious (then again, there are serious Hegel scholars that know less German than I do.)

>>9681898

all you've told me is you think hegel is talking about holograms without any instantiation of what you mean by this or what value or insight it could bring into our understanding of hegel.

Not even 30 posts in, and there's already shitposting about semantics.

>>9682313
>Geist can be translated to mind I suppose, but it would be an odd translation.
"Mind" is a pretty common and good translation of the German "Geist", as long as "Geist" actually means "mind". For example, the "philosophy of mind" is called "Philosophie des Geistes" in German speaking countries.
The problem with translating Hegel is the ambiguity of the German "Geist": it can mean "mind" but it might as well mean a spiritual entity, a "ghost" or "spirit" (for example Hegel's "Weltgeist" is normally translated with "world spirit"). Hegel oftentimes plays with ambiguities, for example his famous quote about the "dialektische Aufhebung" ("Aufhebung" can mean negation, conservation and also lifting, and he uses all those meanings at once).
Therefore, if you translate the term "Geist" in Hegels work, you have to make a decision - is it mind, is it a ghost, is it spirit? - and this decision is already an interpretation which might influence readers in their understanding of Hegel's thinking and make them biased towards the translator's understanding of the book.