I think I'm ready to read POS. I've been putting it off because Peirce warned me that it should only be attempted by people who really know what they are doing. I recently came to dialectics on my own so I think it's about time. Any tips to help me avoid falling into the brainlet-traps Peirce warned me about? Peirce is the only philosopher I've really been up close and personal with, but I've done cursory readings for the rest. What are the most important things I need to know going in? I'm ready to give myself up to Hegel, but my poor little ADHD mind isn't fit to closely engage with others just so I can read Hegel. After all, I didn't have many problems reading Peirce without being intimately familiar with his influences. That's just not how I learn. I don't want a reading list, fuck no, I just want a list of concepts and associated thinkers to make sure I familiarize myself with.
Triad gang forever.
Hegel
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
Bump
I'm not expertise in it, but I have questions to you
- are you familiar with the historical context of Hegel's writing?
- what's your motivation?
Read the preface and his introductory material to lectures on the history of philosophy. If you can manage it you'll be ok
what is the point of this post? you don't want suggestions for reading, you want concepts? why don't you start reading the phenomenology, then study the concepts he talks about. no one is going to sit here and explain being to you just so you can go read Hegel explain being to you
>Historical context
Sorta, I get the background from scholastic philosophy to the moderns broadly but I'm weak on German idealism beyond Kant.
>What's my motivation
Hard to say, I see cosmos as animated and see semiosis as an inward-directed process that flows from the innate aliveness of phenomena. I can not make heads or tails of that believe at this point, but it seems to be the typical Peirceian view with a more explicitly radical embodied mind and stronger cosmological animism. I don't have the chops to tell where and if I depart from Peirce but I have the suspicion that I do. What got me interested in reading POS are thoughts I am having about the dialetical nature of semiosis, where meaning-making is the result of active dialectic communication between phenomena mediated through signs. It started with an acid thought where it feels that everything I feel is feeling me back and that semiosis is the dialectical result of these co-commutative feelings.
Obviously I'm pretty spun and have no idea what I am doing, but I'm just going to hope I am not crazy and look for anything that might help me.
I don't know what I'm looking for.
lol what a waste of time. Don't read Hegel.
>POS
yes, he is a massive POS
Absolutely nobody here has read that book, much less understood the point of it.
read science of logic first
And philosophy of history before that
I started with the smaller logic and it didn't help at all
Hop
Honestly it's fairly self contained it's just that the world is full of autistic brainlets. Same thing with Kant you can read it and if you can't understand it then you'r a brainlet who needs other people to slowly build you up to it. I read Kant at 17 and it was pretty self explanatory and then Schopenhauer at 19 and Hegel and 20. A year later I went to college and wrote an essay on Hegel so much so my professor got angry because he didn't understand him. I then left college since even though I was prepared for cultural Marxist bullshit I thought the philosophy professor would be somewhat intelligent. After I dropped out I decided to just paint for a living which was something I started enjoying in my late teens. After travelling Europe I went back and found myself in Venice, I then began selling my paintings and sculpts there which gave me enough to rent out a small apartment for a time. Although I was rejected from art school because I primarily had an interest in Classicism and over all pre modern art. I would write poems and fiction/non fiction to pass the time, either that or I read read those poems and fiction/non fiction. Now I find myself in Vienna still selling my paintings on the street but I have at least found some friends who aren't incels and yet are still intelligent to have coffee and talk about my theories with. Point being I got side tracked and that you should be able to understand Hegel.
too bad yougot rejected from art school. I bet it really grinds your gears. Fucking jews baka amirite?
too tedious/whiny, won't be copypasta
>too bad yougot rejected from art school. I bet it really grinds your gears. Fucking jews baka amirite?
I'm not sure if they were Jewish but more so infected by the same disease which threatens every man, cultural Marxism.
It wasn't meant to be a copy pasta.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Cultural Marxism is, in fact, Cultural Deleuzianism-Guattarianism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Deleuzianism AND Guattarianism. Idpol is not a political philosophy unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning philosophical non-system made useful by Guattari's schizoanalysis, rhizomes and vital deterritorializing components comprising a full philosophy as defined in "What Is Philosophy?"
Many left identitarians use a modified version of Deleuzianism every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Deleuzianism which is widely used today is often called 'Cultural Marxism' and credit is given to the Frankfurt School, but many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Deleuzian non-system of difference, developed by the Liberal identitarians.
There really is a 'Cultural Marxism', developed by Adorno, Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, but these people aren't using it; it isn't a part of the system they use. Deleuze's repetition is the philosophy of liberals: the difference in the plateaus that allocates the machinic desires against the oppressive totalities and identities that you know. Deleuze is an essential part of Guanttarianist identitarianism, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete liberal college campus. Deleuze is normally used against Frankfurters: Cultural Marxism is actually the whole system of Deleuze and Guattari with the name of Marx added. All the so-called Cultural Marxists are really Cultural Deleuzeans!
Background: Plato, Wittgenstein, Foucault
Start: Locke
Next: Berkeley, Hume intensive study
Kant CPR, Reinhold, Aenesidemus, Fichte review of Aenesidemus, Fichte Science of Knowledge
Now am I ready for Hegel lads? Or do I need Schelling also?
>I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Cultural Marxism is, in fact, Cultural Deleuzianism-Guattarianism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Deleuzianism AND Guattarianism. Idpol is not a political philosophy unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning philosophical non-system made useful by Guattari's schizoanalysis, rhizomes and vital deterritorializing components comprising a full philosophy as defined in "What Is Philosophy?"
>Many left identitarians use a modified version of Deleuzianism every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Deleuzianism which is widely used today is often called 'Cultural Marxism' and credit is given to the Frankfurt School, but many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Deleuzian non-system of difference, developed by the Liberal identitarians.
>There really is a 'Cultural Marxism', developed by Adorno, Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, but these people aren't using it; it isn't a part of the system they use. Deleuze's repetition is the philosophy of liberals: the difference in the plateaus that allocates the machinic desires against the oppressive totalities and identities that you know. Deleuze is an essential part of Guanttarianist identitarianism, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete liberal college campus. Deleuze is normally used against Frankfurters: Cultural Marxism is actually the whole system of Deleuze and Guattari with the name of Marx added. All the so-called Cultural Marxists are really Cultural Deleuzeans!
You'r fucking forgetting that Cultural Marxism exists in and of itself by and of itself as is by definition, one may call philosophy by deluzianmetaphyscs or whitehead but you forget that nothing does not come from nothing and so all and all cannot be so for nothing equats to all and vice versa.
>CPR
Is that CD Project Red?
>CD Project Red
Critique of pure reason :P
Oh haha my mistake it's just their games have some pretty heavy/complex and difficult ideas to understand that take direct inspiration from philosophy.
To the original question: I've been where you're at, friend, and I have a few thoughts that might be helpful. The first is, don't read Hegel, read Kant. Both are very difficult, but with Kant you will eventually be able to excavate a relatively clear argument, and you'll glean some of the foundations of liberal modernism. With Hegel, you're in a very strange mushy place between Spinoza and Marx: you're going to find things that don't feel fully thought out, argued in a very unintuitive logical framework, in highly artificial language.
My second piece of advice, since, obviously, you won't listen to my first piece, and neither would I, is that you not read Hegel himself, but read around him. Read Marx on Hegel, read Marxists on Hegel, read British Idealists, especially Bradley, on Hegel. I can especially recommend Bradley's book on the Hegel's Logic, the compendium of all his thought: it goes almost line by line delivering comprehensible interpretations.
If you really want to read Hegel himself, I would say read either some of the essays on history, which hold the attention rather better than the more abstract works, or perhaps the Logic. It is, after all, a larger work than the POS, and covers some of the same ground in a simplified form.
All that being said, a couple years ago, when I was transfixed by the idea of reading a huge, difficult text, and took it into my head to read Hegel as one of the hugest and difficultest, I also started with the Phenomenology. I dunno. It's hard. The introduction contains a lot of the most interesting stuff. Good luck.
bro... holee FUCKING SHIT *hits bong*
PotS will be right up your alley, then. Ignore the brainlets complaining that Hegel is "hard" - it's pretty easy to figure out what he's saying, if you don't speedread and genuinely care about the subject.
based
I've already read a bunch of Peirce's hot takes on Hegel. They are to be found here.
marxists.org
I'm not interested in reading interpretations of Hegel, not until I read Hegel anyways. I just want to take whatever Hegel proposes to give me ex vi termini. To be clear I am not looking for literature suggestions, I can figure out what I should read. Though I will keep these suggestions in mind if I need help way finding after I'm oreriented and on my way. I'm looking for practical measures I should take to ensure a sober reading of Hegel.
noted. I'm all for architectonic study. What is it exactly I should be looking for in these works to lay the foundation for a proper systematic reading of POS?
if you have not studied kant, do not bother. do not fall for the memes. if you can read it with a professor, however, do.
>What is it exactly I should be looking for in these works to lay the foundation for a proper systematic reading of POS?
the ideas of development, circularity, retroactivity (the actual phenomenology of spirit is the phenomenology itself, its dialectical retelling/exposition)
ugggggh, everyone tells me to study Kant. I'm so immersed in Kant's ghastly influence that actually reading him feels banal. The intellectual tedium, I can't even.