I don't get it

>250 hours of explanation for a 900-page book about nonsense with no application to life
what kind of life would you have to live where such a waste of time would be appealing

>900-page
what shit translation did you buy user?

>The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
>Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death.

You don’t have to, just by opening it this is what you want to happen

Attached: E48726DF-C210-4ECF-91CF-7B603DC263C9.jpg (720x494, 119K)

what is it, 600? it felt like 900 pages when I read it

I have no background in academic philosophy which would help to read difficult books. My approach would be to read several secondary sources first while watching videos like sadlers. Then maybe I would start reading it. I am always afraid I wont get it right when I open philosophy and it makes me feel like there is no point in even trying if I cant know if I understand it or if I just think I do. It was one of few major problems I had to stop agonizing myself over to get things done.

The first of the two are that you are just mentally masturbating because you dont have time, intellectual capacity and other things to contribute to philosophical debate that matters. So you have to be content with never being in the present time and just see a reason for your own readings that has no special purpose outside or to anyone else. I solved this by accepting that being curious and interested is good enough. I dont need to invent or change anything in the world. The only way to get those ideas is to read them as my experience cant be otherwise moved by those ideas. The logical conclusion from this is to be a seeker of knowledge, not a sage, producer, writer, philosopher or anyone who creates or is in the heated debate of the century.

The second problem is how to know if you understand it correctly. The only way I was able to deal with this is to accept that I wont. I simply accepted the hermeneutic idea that every interpretation is different and a creation of a new truth and by long study of authors works from different angles I may get the picture that is a bit closer than I had before but I would still not get it right. Then I realized I read only for inspiration and getting things done, understanding more, broading horizons, and trying to seek out truth even though it is futile (a realization that makes absurdism easier to understand and feel).

The third problem I have is language limitation. It is better to read in original but I am not great at learning languages and it would take forever for me. My native language is a language of peasants and worker class that never left any philosophy so I have to read in english to be sure the translation is correct. My english is not good though so I have to accept I will miss a lot of important details. The way I solve this problem and feeling is to remind myself that I will still get more than if I did not even try and by accepting it will take longer and that I will require more help in form of more sources and videos.

Attached: 879846546.jpg (800x980, 425K)

This, but instead of reading secondary sources before its better after. For example Deleuze detested 'canon' linear routes of philosophy and IIRC "the longer my books are the faster you should read them". Anti-Oedipus is a book that meshed Nietzsche,Freud,Lacan,Marxist thoughts,Non philosophical fiction i.e. Proust(and a Sherlock Holmes book?) and it also while doing also this takes Spinoza's ambiguity and Hegel's historical engine and shakes it all up. If anything Deleuze would be fond of the idea of going into his book blind and ascertaining what you think to what you think but this doesent help philosophy students or students of philosophy much so reading secondary literature like Holland,Buchanan and Mussomi after would give you the 'academic' take and place you in the thought of the previous thoughts. Think Nick Land you can understand his thoughts and intentions going in blind and take what you think ,thought or pertain to conclude and conclude with understanding that albeit may not be exact,correct or proper it would still fall in where he would want what you thought to fall in.

Anyways who cares im just a cracked out deleuzian

Attached: 51426719-A5BC-429B-922D-DD9A116DC43F.jpg (750x1099, 112K)

the Miller copy I have is less than 500

k

Whats the point of this book anyways? Of what use is it to anyone? Is it simply a novelty?

Is this Yea Forums's version of install Gentoo?

No that's Infinite Jest

Fichte and Schelling and German Romanticism generally would help. also, secondary texts. if you really want to read Hegel though, just jump in. read slowly, reread, and check with the original text (if you can) as needed. probably better to start with his lectures instead.

this is Yea Forums's version of building your own compiler

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 133K)

It's more like SICP

Hegel wrote a book summarizing the differences between Fichte’s and Schelling’s philosophy (Die Differenz des Fichteschen und Schellingschen Systems der Philosophie). Would that book suffice as a necessary prerequisite understanding of both for Hegel’s work?

That's alright, most people don't.

It has nothing worth reading. Get Kant.

Thanks

Don't go there
not even once

Attached: NotEvenONCE.png (1224x1088, 1.98M)

If I read Philosophy of Right, will I instantly become a red-blooded Marxist against my own will?

Attached: where.jpg (498x441, 41K)

So does anyone here get it or what? Really I don't get it either so I stopped reading my mind was not processing the words in that book that I just moved on.....

Does no-one on Yea Forums understand this book? And you call yourselves elitists. hah

what do you want? someone to explain the whole book for you?

What is it attempting to explain?

it's smoothing the Kantian metaphysics from the bifurcation of noumena and phenomena into a unified system, or the transition from trancendental idealism into absolute idealism. he was also very interesting in solving the contradictions inherent to the notions of free will commonly expressed in contemporary German romanticism.

*sniff*

Attached: slavoj.png (852x674, 31K)

post made no sense, a proper deleuzian

schizo romantic rambling. got it.

Hegel had a penchant for saying a whole lot of nothing. Master-slave dialectics is of note, skip rest of the fluff.

Read Stephen houlgate he explains well

This en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost-Seer

>nonsense with no application to life
Oh child.

>Philosophy scholars even find phenomenology of spirit to be a hard read
I'm sure olympians find the olympics to be hard competition, but if they didnt partake they wouldnt be olympians. If one is going to be a philosophy scholar then one is going to have to read this book.

Philosophy is not a competition to see whose writing can be the most abstruse, inscrutable, and jargon-laden.

Oh? Neither is philosophy the study of only those books which are easy to read.

there is nothing to "get". pure trash
see