Where do I even begin to understand Hegel? I got filtered just reading his Wikipedia page.
I grasp on some level the Hegellian arguments made by dudes like picrel or Fukuyama, but I have no idea what Hegel actually thought, how to apply his way of thinking, or if it’s even worthwhile. Specifically, how these guys go from whatever Hegel said to a monistic history unfolding according to contradictions regarding class interests, thymos, or whatever else.
Fukuyama sort of throws down the gauntlet at the beginning of The Last Man section of that book, basically saying that liberalism is fundamentally stable if we can’t identify further contradictions in it. I could probably think of some, but they don’t square with Marx or Fukuyama’s ideas so I’m curious what the actual nuts and bolts of these arguments are. I realize a lot of people will say “Hegel’s not worth reading haha crazy schizo xD” but I feel like that’s a cope from those such as myself who were filtered.
It sounds like you don't know much about philosophy. Marx and Fukuyama are more political theorists than philosophers. Whereas Hegel is an objective idealist. You need to know a bit about Kant and why the thing in itself is a problem to other idealists to understand Hegel.
Isaiah Edwards
>It sounds like you don't know much about philosophy
Correct
>Marx and Fukuyama are more political theorists than philosophers
I feel like this is a false dichotomy. Political philosophy exists. Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, and so on were all philosophers. I do know my shit with political theory and philosophy, but I would agree that Hegel filters me because I’ve never really bothered to read philosophy more broadly.
Landon Thompson
you don't need Hegel to understand Marx's arguments. just like read what he wrote lmao. but if you want to understand Hegel himself, then you could start with this re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version-9780980544015-Reading_Hegel.pdf what's a true dichotomy though is philosopher—communist. Marx was strictly the latter. he means it when he writes in the Manifesto: >The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Colton Campbell
Start with Lectures on the Philosophy of History.
Robert Torres
Pertinent to your interests, many find Hegel’s Outlines on the Philosophy of Right (perhaps better translated as Philosophy of Law) more legible than his earlier works. It was one of his last, and presents his full theory of the developed liberal state. It’s helpful, though, to grasp the overall outline of Hegel’s thought, and where Objective Spirit fits into the System. Objective Spirit is the dimension or moment of human reality estranged from inner Subjective Spirit, which Philosophy of Law defines. Its development terminates in the notion of the rational State, which then becomes the essential substance of History, providing a medium in which subjects can develop their spirituality as Art, Religion, and in an ultimate moment of self-penetrating clarity, Philosophy as such. So Hegel conceives the political realm as 1. The sequence of states and their interactions that make up human history and 2. As an alienated world Man makes for himself, a Second Nature in which he discovers the freedom to develop Arts and learning. I would advise memorizing, at least in broad outline, the Triangles on Hegel.net before trying to read any of his books. Being a teleological thinker, Hegel is easiest to understand when you already have an idea of where he’s going.
Samuel Clark
Thanks for the links user.
>you don't need Hegel to understand Marx's arguments. just like read what he wrote lmao.
You kind of do, though, because Marx makes assumptions based on Hegel. Marx believes that history proceeds according to a rational process. But does it? Why? Marx never addresses this basic question himself, instead suggesting that Hegel already settled the matter. Hence why his rejoinder to liberal critics was often something to the effect of “read Hegel”.
Aaron Ramirez
thanks bros
Daniel Ramirez
I've heard that Marcuse's Reason and Revolution is a good introduction to Hegel. Any hegelfags here who can confirm this?
Eli Rogers
>You kind of do, though, because Marx makes assumptions based on Hegel. Marx believes that history proceeds according to a rational process. But does it? Why? because it is a product of human activity and the mode of human activity is dictated by the objective natural requirements of social reproduction. this is based on based on the actual study of history, not on Hegel >Marx never addresses this basic question himself marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2
Caleb Stewart
Charles Taylor's Hegel is a good read and will make a lot of post-Hegelian philosophy make sense too. Beiser's Hegel is much shorter and also a necessary read but may be harder without at least a little familiarity with Kant and his importance etc.
Another really good intro to Hegel and his impact is the first parts of Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism, which goes over the Left Hegelians and their thought, its impact on Marx etc., before turning to Marx.
I believe Fukuyama is drawing more on a mid-century half-understanding of Hegel (you'd be surprised how forgotten and unstudied he was between 1850 and the 1930s) and especially drawing heavily on Kojeve's VERY idiosyncratic reading of Hegel, in conjunction with Straussian ideology. For a sense of that, read the short chapter on Kojeve in Reckless Minds, and ideally read Gottfried's book on the Straussians.
Dylan Barnes
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. You must be retarded. No such dichotomisation of philosopher—communist is being inferred by this.
Josiah Bailey
There is, you are just autistic or in denial.
Jonathan Green
OP, this dude who can't into basic literary comprehension is trying to give you advice on Hegel
Luis Rodriguez
based thank you
Aiden Kelly
probably neither, most likely he's one of many victims who have been made retarded by going to university
Brandon Long
If you choose to read beyond the hegel chapters just keep in mind that Kolakowski is a pro-NATO liberal stooge so you're going to find endless amounts of cherry picking with respect to marxism and marxist figures of the stalin era. It's pretty much /r/sandersforpresident the book.
Camden Allen
Bitter because you were too retarded for university? Literacy scores too low for entry?
Sebastian Torres
Jesus zoomers are hopeless
You can not like that he was post-Marxist without reducing him to some Congress for Cultural Freedom literal CIA puppet Ben Shapiro of cultural marxism takedowns. Not everything has to conform to rigid culture war dichotomies.
Joseph Thompson
libs mad
Chase Price
Get your understanding of Marxism from something other than your parasocial discord "friends" and youtube videos.
Chase Ramirez
Not that guy but aren’t you the guy that suggests kolakowski when people ask where to start with marx? Kek a but ironic don’t you think? Credit’s where credit’s due, you’re a dedicated shill
Nathan Powell
Possibly? I also recommend Taylor and Beiser for Hegel.. They are standard intros. Are you the schizo guy who gets upset about Kolakowski
It's not like it's a good idea to start with Kojeve for Hegel (for reasons stated above) or Postone for Marx, even though Postone is valuable to read in his own right and Kojeve is at least worth knowing about. I try to recommend stuff that is as broad as possible on the assumption that you eventually want to read for yourself and kick the ladder out from under you. Nobody can read Hegel for you, the best they can do is familiarize you with the basic ideas surrounding Hegel. I don't recommend Jean Hippolyte either because he's too idiosyncratic, I don't even recommend Marcuse because Marcuse tends to Heideggerize Hegel.
Would you be mad that someone recommends Isaiah Berlin as a decent introduction to Vico (a very difficult author to figure out and place intellectually) because Berlin was some kind of vaguely centrist classical liberal, whose family also fled the Bolsheviks? Berlin writes good essays, you can get into a lot of figures that are hard to get a handle on otherwise by reading them. That's why I told the above poster to stop filtering his learning through parameters he gets from the most knowledgeable tranny in the discord channel.
Jaxson Sullivan
Radio Free Poland!
Alexander Butler
I have a STEM degree lmao. I'm merely stating the fact that the people who present a comical inability to understand straightforward sentences from Marx always turn out to be humanities students. which can be perfectly explained by the role humanities (broadly understood) departments play in the ideological edifice of bourgeois society. and that's why it's not the fault of autism or self-deception, but of genuine induced retardation.
Brody Jackson
So tell me about the ideologue-communist dichotomisation that marx would also be inferring. Does it make sense to you? And that's a cute little hypothesis you've got going there but I'm doing a PhD in a STEM field.
Brayden Cooper
>So tell me about the ideologue-communist dichotomisation that marx would also be inferring. Does it make sense to you? to be an ideologue you must work from the premise that ideology stands above historical forms of social organization and that those forms are downstream from ideology. while Marx, in the paragraphs immediately following the one I cited, affirms the exact reverse: >Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life? >What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. the reason why philosophy is in opposition to communism is because it is an _ideal_ reflection of the _prevailing_ social form, whereas communism is the _real_ movement for the _abolition of the prevailing_ social form. ideological affirmation/condemnation of something only means that that thing is either in accordance or in contradiction with the prevailing social form, which forms the basis of ideology. therefore: 1) ideological charges against communism ("it's unjust", "it's not morally justified", "it infringes on universal human rights", etc.) can only ever express the fact communism is opposed to the current form of society. but this is a simple statement of fact and can never rise to the level of an actual charge against communism, therefore it's "not deserving of serious examination". 2) conversely, communism itself can't be founded on ideology, and a communist can't be an ideologist, a philosopher, and so on, because something can't at the same time be in accordance (because ideological, as explained above) and in contradiction (because revolutionary) with the prevailing social form. >And that's a cute little hypothesis you've got going there but I'm doing a PhD in a STEM field. I was stating a general rule, but maybe I hit on an exception this time and you were actually just born selectively retarded as opposed to the people who are turned selectively retarded later on in life. either that or you classify economics as STEM. or maybe you just spent too much time listening to sociologists or economists. I won't deny that the exceptions can be diverse.
Grayson Hernandez
Am sticking my dick itt with an unrelated question but are there *actual* marxists on this board
Nathaniel Brown
this is probably the most marxist board on this website. really it seems theres an even split of far right/left types but they maintain civility via a common disdain for liberals.
Jace Richardson
He's right though, communism is explicitly presented here as dogma, not philosophy.
Jason Johnson
no, it's presented as a class movement based on real premises, not as contemplation of abstractions based on elevating the ideal reflection of bourgeois society into universal principles. dogma was once the clergy and the aristocracy clinging to their old truths in the face of sweeping bourgeois revolution. now dogma is the entire bourgeois ideological edifice, philosophy departments included, clinging to its old truths in the face of sweeping proletarian revolution. the revolutionary class always represents the merciless crushing of dogma. itself it's always on the side of newly discovered truth, because it represents the future form of society.
Xavier Walker
I'm so glad this isn't a subject that can be grasped by bitches who just want to skim Wikipedia articles. Start with the greeks.
Leo Thompson
>Where do I even begin to understand Hegel? Hegel is literal nonsense and therefor CANNOT be understood
Aaron Diaz
Cringe.
Tyler Anderson
This thread fucking sucks Illiterate
Xavier Richardson
holy shit i am NOT read all this cope
Jacob Garcia
Yes, but you're not gonna get them to debate you.
Thomas Hall
Caesar unironically gives a pretty good rundown of it in FNV.
Leo Carter
>Hurr Hurr! If you don't understand my verbal diarrhea, it's cause I'm enlightened and your not. Yeah, that's exactly the attitude the charlatan himself had. Please take your Hegelian mystical quackery the fuck out of here and go ruin another nation with his shitty ideas.
Benjamin Peterson
nations will be abolished by communism
Nolan Williams
In reality the literally opposite has happened time and time again
David Lewis
and aristocracy would quash peasant revolts again and again, until it couldn't
Connor Bailey
Hegel is incredibly difficult to understand, and what makes it even harder is that his reception has been plagued by a huge amount of misreadings to the point that most of continental philosophy is defined by they way they resist a very specific misreading of Hegel. (Nietzsche and Kierkegaard reacted against a vulgair rationalist reading of Hegel, Husserl reacted against a vulgair historicist reading of Hegel, and pretty much all of french philosophy is a reaction against Kojeve's equally historicist reading).
Phenomenology of Spirit is supposed to be the work where his philosophy kind of proves itself by developping itself through all earlier philosophies. Its therefore probably the best work to start with compared with his later logic. Its also the work im most familiar with so i will be giving the most reccomendations on that. One of the most faithful commentaries is Hyppolite's Genesis and Structure of Hegel's Phenomenology. Although it is not neccesarily very faithful, a very useful kind of 'analytic' reading is given by Robert Brandom's Spirit of Trust The Oxford Handbook to Hegel has some really great articles in there, definitely worth it to look up some articles related to whatever chapter youre reading at the moment.
It is also useful to remember that the haha funny ziz man is actually primarily a Hegel scholar. and quite a good one. He has some great lectures that are less meant for a general public and more for actual philosophers. youtu.be/2rzMkvf1Ess
Not the user you're asking, but having read it, I think the initial thesis is strongly overstated. That is, he does show that Hegel had read some hermetic writings with some interest, but, for example, when you check the context of many of Hegel's references to hermeticism, you'll find that the context supplies Hegel claiming hermeticism is either irrational or insufficiently rational. Now that doesn't mean he dismisses it per se, since, after all, a good number of philosophers he respects interpreted from his system have faults according to that system. But if you're going in expecting to see the strong influence of hermetic ideas on his own, you'll wind up disappointed.
Elijah Morris
I agree. But it did convince me that most European philosophers prior to the 20th century were obsessed with the esoteric, and that mysticism exists on a higher plane than philosophy. I used to think that philosophy was the "king of the sciences", but no longer. Maybe it's a queen or a prince, something which orders but doesn't produce nor find resolution.
Jose Phillips
>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. What a fucking retard. Fuck Karl Marx.
Carson White
>>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. >Oh shit they're right >Uhhh just don't listen to them, goys! It's a waste of time, communism is irrefutable, trust me goys
Oliver Gonzalez
Karl Marx was an antichrist and he is burning in hell.
Bentley Carter
largely true though - bearing in mind it was the eastern europeans who made communismsm bad, just like the germans destroyed national socialism.
you can't give sophisticated tools to monkey-creatures and expect them to do it properly.
I always thought, to be honest, a religious argument from the pre-communism french commune - largely religious parish council government - would've reinforced communism and given it a little more of a veneer of parochial self-respect among the lower middle class.
meh, you wouldn't say this in 1900 when you were more obviously exploited, classed and abused by industrialists.
>Where do I even begin to understand Hegel? I got filtered just reading his Wikipedia page. Why bother lol
He's chiefly known for mentioning the obvious polarism in human socio-political sciences which is inherently obvious to anybody.
Marxisms biggest crime, imo, is the theft and shitting-up of the concept of dialectic. Then again, they were germans and east europeans so what was to be expected.
Eli Richardson
>I used to think that philosophy was the "king of the sciences", but no longer. Maybe it's a queen or a prince, something which orders but doesn't produce nor find resolution. it is, yo just need to go back to pre-christian times and ignore socrates, plato and aristotle, and you'll find the DISCIPLINE OF CAUSE AND PROOF (i.e. metrics of discerning, proving and thus knowing reality for sure) in Chrysippus of Soli, and the Roman Stoic School.
"Happy is he who has discovered the Causes of Things, happy is he who has cast beneath his feet all fear (of doubt) and the noise (the clamor) of the all-devouring underworld (the baseless opinions of people)" Virgil.
Oliver Lee
>commie poster is some gay Frenchman Of course.
Adam Watson
Communism is dated and therefore reactionary.
Owen Flores
lol 'gay frenchman'
Yeah you guys seem to always fucking fall apart when anyone mentions the actual history of the Commune as christian parish council government centuries before Karl Marx was even born - the idea of human collectivism and centralized resource allocation is older even than that; not sure what red scare propagandist thought that ignoring this was going to be mentally healthy for later americans.
Lucas Butler
well why don't you explain it..? /illiterate
Liam Cook
>>commie poster ed. I'll go you one further:
East European resentment of Communism, or anybodies resentmnt ofCommunism comes down, fundamentally to this:
DOLE. SCUM.
The resented being forced to work a job, and 'fled' to the west. This is true when you talk to any expats.
Cameron Ross
Marxism is Satanic. Marxists are servants of the devil. It doesn't matter if they think they are just """rational atheists""" (LOL). Whether they realize it or not, they are acting by demonic principles. Also Lenin was a Jew and Trotsky (Bronstein) was a gay Jew.
Justin Collins
brugh, if your argument is going to begin and end with "they were Jews" that's only going to convince incels and milksops. Also your position is obviously brainwashed christian fundamentalism where you get to throw the baby out with the bathwater w/re: practical sciences, which does you no good.
Also, as I mentioned above, how do you rationalize 'human collectivism' in 'secular government' with the revolutionary constitution of the United States, the enlightenment in general (at a time when the catholic church was the equivalent of taliban / twitter censor / SJW fake-egalitarian) and with knowing the history of the actual parish council commune - communism, in all effect, through the church?
There are no doubt good arguments against Marxist-Communism but these easily debunked claims aren't good arguments.
serious reply.
Grayson Turner
When did I ever defend "Enlightenment" liberalism? I did not. That is a false dialectic, and in fact, Marxism was largely just the next step of the Masonic "Enlightenment" project.
