Hegel

[dad]

Has anyone read Hegel?

 

[Sinny91]

Bits and bobs in the conspiracy sector. Never fully.
But thanks for the reminder.

 

[Yellow]

In highschool. We had to learn about every single major Western philosopher from the pre-Socratics to about Foucault. It was about 15 years ago.

Hegel stood out because he was so frustrating. I'd totally be with him at first, and then he'd always end up in crazytown.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

No, I've not. Someone give me the basics, please, in abridged form if possible.

Ending up in crazytown seems interesting, whether correct or not.

 

[emmabobary]

Niet. Only for academic porpuses, not complete.
T_T
But I´ve read Schiellig quoting Hegel, and Zizek, and Lacan.

 

[Yellow]

No, I've not. Someone give me the basics, please, in abridged form if possible.

Ending up in crazytown seems interesting, whether correct or not.

Yay for sparknotes!

Thinking about it now, the dude was probably INTPish.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Hegel stood out because he was so frustrating. I'd totally be with him at first, and then he'd always end up in crazytown.

"nobody understands me " cries hegel on his death bed...little did he know that a century later, a Slovenian dude will interpret his philosophy through a series of anal jokes

 

[dad]

@cheeseumpuffs Hegel in a nutshell: haklajdk kllajjsl jeiowkndk

 

[QuickTwist]

I plan to though!

 

[onesteptwostep]

From how I understand Hegel, he just took Kant's ideas on political life/development and developed them further, within the realm of his era. His Phenomenology of Spirit to me seems only accessible as a Christian, hence why I think there's such a huge fuss on diverging interpretations and comments on its obtuseness and complexity. I think the under/overtone of 'spirit' or 'geist' is pretty... "religious", or "Christian", to put it bluntly. It seemed to be easier to digest when I thought of it in that narrative.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

As little as I read of his works didn't encourage me to spend any more time on them.

Embodiment of traditionalism, focus on classics, society and hammering down the nails of disapproval it seems.

 

[Brontosaurie]

As little as I read of his works didn't encourage me to spend any more time on them.

Embodiment of traditionalism, focus on classics, society and hammering down the nails of disapproval it seems.

But he has dem transcendentals! Lookie yummie!

 

[kora]

Beats off mystically to the number 3.

I like the zeitgeist stuff. And dialectic stuff. And uhmmm... That's it. Lots of bullshit, especially about art, although sometimes interesting bullshit. Also quite often unreadable.

Why d'you want to know Dad?

 

[Tannhauser]

Mom said I didn't have to read Hegel today.

 

[QuickTwist]

Oh God, is this going to be one of those jokes that never dies?

Spoiler

Save me.........

Spoiler

Dad

 

[ZenRaiden]

Philosophers usually write more than one book. So what book you have in mind. Did I read all of his works nO> not even one. But then why would I. Out dated philosophers are boring. The only reason to read them is to make sure you dont end up reinventing the wheel.

 

[doncarlzone]

I like his critique of Kant's categorical imperative in which he illustrates how Kant operates with implicit premises without which his imperative falls short.

For example, according to the categorical imperative it is wrong to steal. Because if everybody stole then that would undermine the idea of ownership altogether. So therefore it is, a priori, wrong to steal. Hegel points out that this argument relies on the implicit premise that there is something wrong with undermining the idea of ownership in the first place. If we suppose that undermining the idea of ownership is fine then the premise, upon which the argument stands, is gone.

Likewise with lying, if everyone lies then that would undermine the idea of telling the truth and we thus we couldn't possibly trust each other. You should get the idea from here...

Now Hegel is not saying that we ought to steal or lie, he is just saying that Kant's way of thinking is too limited, or formalistic as he puts it. He outlines this critique in 'Elements of the Philosophy of Right'.

 

[gilliatt]

Hegel: collectivism, state-worship. He says the purpose of the State is not the protection of the citizens; the State is an absolute unmoved end in itself, has supreme right against the individual. Hitler, Germany is saturated with the ideas of Hegel. The outline is Plato-Kant-Hegel. Hegel would not have been possible without Kant, who would not have been possible without Plato. They were the intellectual builders of Auschwitz, Hitler's ideas, hatred, blood and all the rest. These philosophers were anti-man, anti-life, anti-mind, anti-reason. Philosophy is a factor that moves a nation, their values, psychology, headlines in the newspaper. Philosophy without reason is impossible, reason is what makes philosophy possible. The sources are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics. Philosophy creators the creators among men, with their achievements and all or unleashes the destroyer, who wrecks it all. Philosophy explains why one country has a good constitution or a bad one, why one country is bankrupt, another prosperous, why one has concentration camps or the rights of man. "Nobody can help anything he does." We got that from Hegel. Hegel says that the state is not an association of autonomous individuals. It is itself an individual, a mystic person. That the individual's supreme duty is to be a member of the state. That is Hegel, 'man is nothing, the state is everything.'

 

[nanook]

most or all classic philosophers made the mistake of thinking that they can win people for their philosophy by arguing about every corner their mind took in getting there. even those who went beyond reason didn't seem to realize that doing so implies going beyond arguments or didn't realize what it means to go beyond arguments. what it means is that the brain is organically outgrowing older philosophies and arguments come after the fact of growth, they don't constitute or precede it. certainly there are always arguments going on, during the process of growth, but what precedes a step of growth is an insight, not an argument and the insight can't be shared through language, it's made out of brain stuff, it's a perception of sorts. so anyone who reads hegel will simply completely misunderstand what hegel is saying, because the reader is filtering the words through his own stage of cognitive growth, it's like a lossy compression from higher to lower complexity. unless the reader has already grown as much as hegel or even outgrown hegel, in which case reading him is of secondary value to him: what is taught then by the philosopher is not so much the philosophy itself but a language framework, that allows different people at the same stage to communicate about this stage. the main job of a philosopher is not to bring other people to reason or beyond, but to invent jargon for those who are like him, jargon which can extend from simple words to classic analogies, such as the well know mythologies of the lowest oldest stage of philosophy: religion.