What are the best translations? Also general Hegel thread anons. Just finished the Phenomenology and want to see what the board thinks. Personally it was more interesting and comprehensible than i thought it was going to be. My take away is - it seems as if spirit will not fully realise itself until every consciousness recognises itself as such.
Also thoughts about the idea that Hegel is a major part of the genesis of scientism?
>Also thoughts about the idea that Hegel is a major part of the genesis of scientism?
Why, because he uses the word “science” in his book titles?
Just get the A.V. Miller translation like everybody else. Different translations are mostly a meme as long as you don't get a dover thrift book or penguin and you can supplement your reading with secondary sources.
Also: the fact that you thought it was comprehensible at first reading tells me you didn't understand it. Read it again with the guiding hand of a professor or secondary source(s).
Should add that I don't think Hegel has dover thrift translations but there are some for other philosophers and they're notoriously bad, late 19th to early 20th century translations done in like a month.
bump
Can we stop with these pepes
So far all of my philo, logic and discrete mathematics professors have expressed hatred for Hegel. Is he worth reading?
Remember that science (in the english and modern sense) is not the same as Wissenschaft
The common critique of what you mentioned regarding 'that every consciousness has to realise itself as such'(/hegel system) is usually that it's just another way to say that everyone must subscribe to hegel's system and thought. It's not really a 'defeater' tho
Wait, have your logic and math profs even read hegel? and if so, why?
Bump
Yes, they hate him because they don't understand him and therefore think he's a pseud. They're all dumbasses. (I mean I'm a dumbass too but for different reasons)
technically it's a groyper
Not really. He's "interesting", but he's not actually saying anything that is true or proving any point philosophically, it's just a weird interpretive painting of existence. Sense-data is sublimed into consciousness, etc., we understand this stuff better with neurological research than he did, but he said it "poetically" so it's "interesting" regardless of whether it actually tells you anything. It's like reading a religious text.
Philosophy doesn't have to be falsifiable to be true or good
But if you're gonna call it "The Science of Logic" it damn well better be falsifiable or what the fuck are you doing
If he called it "The Art of Connecting Historical and Psychological Concepts Through Illustration" it would've been less embarrassing
Next question is, should i read the science of logic? Or anymore hegel for that matter.
If you have read the important writers that influenced him (Kant and Hegel's contemporaries) or have good secondary literature on his work, yes.
If not: No, there is no use other than enjoyment to read Hegel in the 21st century despite what Zizek might let you believe. Might as well just get straight to Marx if you want to know how Hegel influenced the contemporary world.
>professor of discrete math
lol
>Also thoughts about the idea that Hegel is a major part of the genesis of scientism?
Definitely not. Did you read the Phenomenology?
You don't understand it better, you understand it quantitatively
Wissenschaft is better understood as Knowledge first and then Science proper. 'Wissenschaft' has a double meaning in German and Hegel exploits that ambiguity. Science as we know it didn't even exist when Hegel wrote the Science of Logic around 1816, so lol
/thread lmao