/edu/ - Education

Thank you, I will have a look at them some time.

>>6346
>>6347
>>6348
>>6349
>>6350
>>6351
>>6352
>>6353
>>6354
>>6355
>>6356
>>6357
>Bengals fan
Lmao dropped

On our wiki (https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel) it says Lenin wrote:
>It is impossible completely to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!
Is this true? What kinds of important things would we miss out by not reading Hegel?

There are 2 periods of interest in Hegelianism in Soviet academia: the 20s/30s and the 60s/70s
The 20s/30s period was part of the fascination with dialectics among Bolshevik intellectuals stemming from Lenin and Trotsky's works and as a way to intellectually justify the new Soviet state and bureaucracy. It was eventually curbed by WWII and the post-war era when more practical, scientific academic studies systematically replaced it.
The 60s/70s period was prompted by the coming of age of the post-war generation under Brezhnev and unprecedented economic prosperity and social welfare, as well as talks of a New Order spurred on by New Left activism. It collapsed in the 80s with economic decline, the war in Afghanistan and increasingly explosive angst against the Soviet state.

Any people here familiar with Hegel read by Japanese philosophers, like that of Nishida Kitaro of the Kyoto School? How do you think they compare to Western readings you like, would you suggest them for a newcomer to Hegel?

>>4337
Hello everyone.
I am here to ask you one thing.
As you may know, hegel takes a lot to be understood, not only because of quantity, but also because of quality: he uses criptic language in huge books.
So a person that would want to read him and comprehend him, would need a lot of time and effort.
As a person that doesnt hold opinions that came from his theories (in other words, im not a communist, nor a fascist), what is the reason as to why i should read him? In other words, is there something useful in his words, except for further understand XX century political extremism? If yes, what?

>>10509
How human society and understanding actually evolves, but only coupled with a materialist understanding as well.

>>8144
Well, Evald Ilyenkov resolves Hegel's idealism by mapping "God" onto the material world, therefore giving human thought a material origin, whose previous origin was simply "the divine" under Hegel's idealism.

>>10516
>>8144
im philosophy noob so please dont bully for stupid question, but is what you're saying similar to spinoza's god=nature/reality and the general deterministic, pseudo-materialist universe that has a both a physical attribute of extension and a mental/idealistic attribute of thought?

>>10524
Ilyenkov's approach to resolving Hegel's idealism by mapping God onto the natural world is insofar comparable to Spinoza's pantheism in that it treats God and nature as one and the same. The only difference is that Ilyenkov is an atheist and doesn't believe God exists. Nonetheless, it constitutes the bridge from Hegel's idealistic dialectics to Marxist's material dialectics by giving human thought a material origin, as opposed to Hegel stating it comes from God.

>>10516
yooo i just found out about this guy today and came to /edu/ and here ppl are talking about him… Can you tell me what he's all about, besides a history and enunciation of dialectics? Whats his shit with the Universal/Ideal? I think i'll buy some shit of his and read it cause he seems cool as fuck.

>>10527
We have a thread specifically for that >>10452

>>10528
woah thanks

„Contradiction“ makes little sense to me. In a material sense it just seems like „opposing forces“. Be it in classical physics of material bodies colliding or the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat being opposed to one another. Other than that there aren‘t in a literal sense „contradictions“ in the material world. The more I read about it in political literature the more it seems like some odd fetishization of a term that serves as a reoccurring metaphor. A bad one, because it seems like a needless obfuscation to me. I haven‘t read Hegel in German yet, but „contradiction“ could be translated into „Widersprüche“ or „Gegensätze“. Intuitively, I understand „Widerspruch“ to be a logical impossibility. Hence why „contradiction“ made so little sense to me the way I read it in political literature. „Gegensätze“ on the other hand, or „gegensätzlich“, can be understood as „contradiction“ as well, but rather in a sense of „antithetical“ or „antagonistic“ or „oppositional“. This on the other hand makes much more sense. I still wouldn‘t have gone for calling it „contradiction“ in English. „Oppositional“, „antithetical“ perhaps.

>>10536
This is a good point and is pertinent to the problem of commensurability within translational efforts, but I do think that there is some incidental and thus intuitive meaning registered within the process of assuming the term 'contradiction' through the english-speaking mind's encounter with the to-be-translated Germanic text. Keep in mind the insights of Hegel rocked the anglosphere, and if we historicize the context in which this reception occurred, we might better understand how the psyche was operating in reaction to the newfound insights of Hegel–Hegel marks the formalized introduction to dialectical thought for the anglosphere upon his introduction, and, knowing that, we can therefore infer that for the translators of the time, the word contradiction was what manifested itself in the immediacy of their psyches because, having come from a pre-dialectical background prior to their encounter with Hegel's logic, the concept of resolute oppositions would have been relatively arcane, so instead of the consequential comprehension of the process (which we would then, through dialectics, come to understand as 'oppositional' or 'antithetical'), you have this impression of shock which is subconsciously causing the registration of the german term to appear as 'contradiction' in the translator's understanding, because this relates to how they would have grasped the material in their nascent involvement with it. This is to say, to the angloid, since this is the first encounter with dialectics, coming from their pre-dialectical background, that which is latently understood as oppositional in dialectical terms must therefore instead be assumed as a 'contradiction' insofar as one is burdened or hamstrung with the lack of initial dialectical thought, aka a pre-dialectical background, because without dialectics, the transformative process of the 'synthesized resolution of oppositional forces' would instead seem a contradiction.

How does the Marxist even interpret his works? Just replace every time he mentions spirit or god with matter? His logic seems to be the primary focus of marxists but what of his phenomenology?

No, don't waste your time with it.

>>10989
really? dialectical materialism is seen as a core component of marxism yet neither Marx or Lenin wrote a comprehensive treatise on it, so one is forced to return to Hegel it would seem.

>>10990
By reading Marxists you will pick it up anyway (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao).
I'd recommend On Contradiction if you really need something more focused.

Hegel can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, some are brilliant and others are awful mysticism. But even the valuable parts don't justify specifically learning Hegel's philosophy just to be a good Marxist boy. Also, please don't waste time directly reading Hegel if you aren't already deep into philosophy, just study Hegel autists like Zizek or A.W. instead.

>>10992
study AW? did i miss something? last i checked he was some clown pseud from d*scord

>>10988
100%, you have to understand Hegel

>>10990
>dialectical materialism is seen as a core component of marxism
by whom? lukacs and the now-dead comintern?

>>10993
He is but he's also a huge Hegel autist who doesn't do the thesis antithesis synthesis bullshit.

I find a lot of enjoyment in reading Hegel and trying to understand what he's saying. I don't know how a Marxist is supposed to interpret his works. I find it difficult enough to just try to understand him without adding extra layers. You can probably read him materially, his idealism always has a concrete actualization. It's not like Plato's forms. Spirit is ultimately the actions of humans, nations, reason.

He has a whole system and his recommendation was to start with the Phenomenology.

Don't do this >>10992

>>10990
Hegel has very little to do with dialectical materialism, there's no point in studying him if that's what you are interested in. Marx did describe his method at multiple places, you could read those and then compare it with what he actually does in his book. Plus you could always just read Engels…

read Ilyenkov, fr

also marx has some writings on (against) hegel's dialectic, and i think you can find lenin's notes on hegel or something

>>11001
Directly he doesn't, yes, but it's important to understand the process of philosophical developments and their relations throughout history in order to fully holistically grasp the philosophy itself; it will embellish one's self with a deeper range of angles and conceptuality. As a random example, imagine trying to read someone like Quentin Meillassoux (weird philosopher, relevant in the sense that he poses a 'challenge' to materialism, albeit not a rigorously formidable one) without first having read Kant. You theoretically could, in that you could ascertain his novel framework independently, but you'd be deprived of the very important partial context which informed Meillassoux's basis.

>>10994
these guys won the russian civil war because they knew their hegel

>>11020
No but they listened to someone who understood Hegel

>>11020
>>11021
Those guys won the Russian civil war because they listened to people that followed a materialist dialectical critique of all that is Hegelianism. This is called Marxism.

>>10990
There was an active split of Marxism right after the Russian Civil War between Deborinists and Mechanists. The former won out and attributed dialectics as the foundation of Marxism. The Mechanists rejected dialectics and wanted to make Marxism purepy empyrical, and distance it from the idealist Hagelian roots. Ir is also important to mention that the Deborian school found its origins from German idealists of the 19th century that were oppossed to "anglo" empyricism as it was applied to the sciences. It is also worth to mention that these idealist notions about science can be thoroughly considered bogus by todays standarts. Sadly the same can't be said about Marxist doctorines.

hello i just finished reading the phenomenology yesterday so i am thinking of making a reading group for intelligence and spirit. im not posting this in /read/ because while negarestani is probably a marxist, this isn't really a marxist text. anyways, if you find it interesting please join! i am planning that we read one chapter a week (starting next week)!
https://matrix.to/#/#efafawfa:halogen.city

>>11153
oh sorry i only posted the space not the room
https://matrix.to/#/%23iasreadinggroupzaai:halogen.city

>>11153
>>11155
i wrote a summary that you guys can check out here:
https://alogs.space/robowaifu/res/11102.html#16839

Thoughts on recent readings placing Hegel in a revolutionary and nonconservative light?

>>21398
What took them so long?

A nice lecture on Hegel's Philosophy of History.
>>21399
Well, arguably Marx's and Marxist reading of Hegel got in the way, as well as the conservatives that took on Hegel and tried to make it theirs.

Good secondary sources on Science of Logic?

>>22334
>pic
this is literally what zizek believes

<on who's shadow we walk
Incredible fucking thread. You don't need to understand Hegelian categories to be a Marxist. You don't even really need Hegel. Marx only used dialectics as a method of presenting changes and development in historical phenomena, not as a means of understanding. You can't dialectically understanding anything.

>inb4 muh Lenin
Lenin was already finished with retards like you by 1905.

>>22750
It is not just Lenin that disagree with you but Engels, too.
In his writings, Engels make it pretty clear that he seens Dialetics as something important in order to understand the world. He differentiate between a metaphysical and a Dialektical approach to understand the world. The main difference, as I can tell, is the idea of fixed substances or essences.

You claim that you do not need Hegel in order to understand Marx, depends deep on your interpretation. Marx makes some comments that sounds in a way that justify the hypothesis that he never dropped Hegelian philosophy.

The theory of consciousness, the Widerspiegelungstheorie der Wahrheit (mirrortheory of truth) and all that can not be explained without some philosophy. And this philosophy has to be Hegelian in nature.

Someone posted this else where, map of science of logic:
https://autio.github.io/projects/scienceoflogic/

>>22750
Hard disagree. Dialectical thinking is a very powerful tool to understand systems and change. I personally use it all the time in my life for mundane reasoning and tasks.

Bump for interest

what do I need to understand Hegel? should i start with the greeks? should I start with Marx and move backwards and end with ababobabu of the gray cave? can you word it in a way that an ant that is now human would understand.

>>25093
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar
- ASPCA Ultimate Cat Care Manual
- Max Stirner's Art and Religion
- Marx's stuff
- The rest of Max Stirner's stuff
- Main story in arknights
- Hegel's stuff
- Side stories in arknights
- The Very Hungry Caterpillar (again)

>>25094
What if I want to learn League of Legends lore?

>>25094
ok now could you be kind and sincere with me? where do I start, where do I go?