So I tried reading Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit because of all the memes on Yea Forums and all I've gotten so far...

So I tried reading Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit because of all the memes on Yea Forums and all I've gotten so far from it is that to reach absolute truth you have to find the middle ground (synthesis) between two supposedly contradictory positions (thesis & antithesis). Wow, how profound! Honestly, it's getting quite repetitive. People meme about how difficult it is to summarize him, but this is literally all he talks about.

Attached: 1471744199474.png (647x656, 779K)

His absolute spirit is becoming which is arrived at by thesis being and antithesis not being. It's a claim to efficient or final cause

that’s interesting because LITERALLY NOT ONE TIME IN ANY OF HIS FUCKING WORKS DOES HEGEL EVER USE THE WORDS THESIS, ANTITHESIS AND ANTITHESIS. KEEP TRYING FUCKING SHIT JEWSTER

Yeah, but the concept is still there and never shuts the fuck up about it.

But OP's right

The term you’re referring to is “sublation.” And I bet you serious cash that hardly anyone on lit has read that shit so good on you

No it’s not he doesn’t even come close to saying anything like that. You can’t read, no it’s not he doesn’t even come close to saying anything like that. You can’t read Hegel, you can barely read lmao

>I read an article that projects Marx’s misattribution of Fitches idea onto Hegel

U guys are fucking worthless

>all I've gotten so far from it is that to reach absolute truth you have to find the middle ground (synthesis) between two supposedly contradictory positions (thesis & antithesis)
He doesn't suggest that, he just describes phenomenology. The fact is just that we tend to get ahead of ourselves upon first discovering something, then we adjust our perspective upon experience or careful examination

Literally says it in the second paragraph, and he just keeps going on and on about it later on but under different guises.

Attached: 2.jpg (720x348, 192K)

abstract / negative / concrete
is the more accurate description

It emphasizes that you're dealing with a theoretical and using the negative case to probe the reality. You're not just after some ho-hum middle ground (why the middle?) 'synthesis' which may still be entirely theoretical.

That said, a lot of philosphical writing is unecessarily exhaustive. I suppose people take you more seriously if you publish a laborious volume on a subject, even if a shorter logical demonstration would suffice? If you're really concerned about functional knowledge and not just Yea Forumscred, then learn what you need about the concept from the most cogent source and move on.

>the middle ground (synthesis) between two supposedly contradictory positions (thesis & antithesis).

This is LITERALLY what he does NOT say.

>While the doctrine of Heraclitus, that all things are and are not, seems to make everything true, that of Anaxagoras, that there is an intermediate between the terms of a contradiction, seems to make everything false; for when things are mixed, the mixture is neither good nor not-good, so that one cannot say anything that is true. - Aristotle

Hegel means the former, not the latter.

Retard, Hegel is saying here that false positions are necessary to go through on the road towards the truth, which makes them inherent to the truth’s unfolding. He doesn’t say here that we must found a “middle ground” between opposing views.

OP wasn't saying be a centrist
I'm guessing you weren't, you recognize synthesis is above the particulars right?

good bait desu

true position == thesis
false position == antithesis
progressive unfolding of truth == synthesis

pshh, the thesis and the antithesis are both true in some respect

Hegel writes 'Gegensatz', and while it's not a shit translation, it's far from satisfying either. Gegensatz is not strictly an antithesis, it's a contrast (not necessarily stark), or a counterpart, a compliment.

And this is why you shouldn't rely on translations. Hegels use German is very subtle and I find him much easier to read in the original than in an English translations. The subtleties are something you cannot convey in English without losing a lot of meaning and context.

>low iq anglo tries to read hegel
>being a retarded mongoloid, doesn't understand anything
>tries to cope by using cliche buzzwords "thesis antithesis synthesis" that hegel doesnt use

"to reach absolute truth you have to find the middle ground (synthesis) between two supposedly contradictory positions" if thats all you go out of the book, you should really consider not reading philosophy ever again

No he's not talking about arguments

He says 'it does NOT comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive unfolding of truth,' literally the opposite of what you're claiming. Reread the quote.

Gegensatz means contradiction sentence, contradiction being like against, and tbf hegel used being and not being as thesis and antithesis

honestly op is not so far from the truth this is the reason why there have been left and right hegelians or just people who have taken him as a champion for whatever they support when in fact he's just a centrist who is unsure of what position to take

Very, Very good bait

Hegel was specifically against simplifications like thesis/antithesis, he even compared them to jars with labels you see behind the counter in a shop. And says so literally in the preface lol

I highly doubt that "he's a centrist". Hegel wasn't rejecting authority like the young Hegelians.

Today, left and right are mostly divided by the border/no border question, which ties to nationalism. A second common reading of the divide is to take left and right to mean pro or contra communism. Which is even more blurry, since national socialists can be autoritarian, and thus right winged pro Marxist - unlike covert crypto-Bolshevist but fake anti-authority signaling American progressives.

If you take the notion of left and right by its dictionary definition, though, it's a matter of authority and people like Hegel and Humboldt were definitely pro state, pro institution and pro authority - independent of how progressive their call for self-actualizations were.
The young Hegelians like Marx, Stirner, Feuerbach, wrote down propositions that Hegel never ever would have

Attached: 1555533700685.jpg (437x651, 57K)