/edu/ - Education

>>8444
more(I am not good at small quotes)
>Thus, for Bergson, and Deleuze after him, the obstacles which present themselves to our understanding of the structure of reality are no longer rendered as absolute limits of human consciousness. Rather, the obstacles which stand between consciousness and the world itself are merely the bad habits of thought which have served useful and important functions in the evolution of the human species but come back to haunt, and plague, how we approach the question of determining Being itself.

>It is precisely this question – of a continuum of relation (Duration) that yields discontinuity as the condition for discrete objects (Matter) – that lies at the heart of Bergson’s project. That is, what brings Bergson into close proximity to Hegel is their shared commitment to the idea that it is not the subject which provides the transcendental guarantee between representation and the world. Rather, it is the world itself which is constituted by continuity and discontinuity; that is, it is because Nature is structured in this way, and because Nature produces Thought itself, that we can subsequently articulate why it is the case that we can posit the idea that human consciousness has something fundamental in common with the reality of Nature. The important addition here being that consciousness mirrors Nature in such a way that what guarantees the objectivity of our experience isn’t so much space, time, and the categories; rather, it is the common structure of ‘self relating negativity’ in Hegel, or ‘real duration’ in Bergson, which Nature engenders within human consciousness that now replaces the guarantee of objectivity via the transcendental subject. This is something that we see explicitly in Bergson:
<“Evolution implies a real persistence of the past in the present, a duration which is, as it were, a hyphen, a connecting link. In other words, to know a living being or natural system is to get at the very interval of duration, while the knowledge of an artificial or mathematical system applies only to the extremity. Continuity of change, preservation of the past in the present, real duration – the living being seems, then, to share these attributes with consciousness. Can we go further and say that life, like conscious activity, is invention, is unceasing creation?” (CE, 22-23).

and
https://philarchive.org/archive/PEZBIT
>But this is also why, paradoxically, Deleuze ends up being radically against Hegel – as if he himself could not resist to that movement of becoming where there could not be a Deleuze-becoming of Hegel without a Hegel-becoming of Deleuze. In the end, this ambiguity may indicate that, on the one side, Hegel and Deleuze do, at all effects, pose different problems, but, on the other side, they also share a field of coordinates within which these problems are posed and developed. In other words, Hegel asks how a process starts and ends, while Deleuze asks what happens in the middle of a process; but both of them are nonetheless asking if and how it is possible to think the process.

>>5348
Thanks m8

>>8443
Sweet. Thanks, anon.

Posting this video, and referencing this thread with related discussion: https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/561707.html

actually i don't think it's stated enough
Marx took way more from Hegel than just dialectic, and people thinking they can just read The German Ideology and be finished with Marx's philosophical groundings is a huge cause of theoretical misunderstanding

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1837-pre/letters/37_11_10.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm

To understand Marx's reasoning, to understand how he developed his ideas you need Hegel. No, you don't need Hegel to understand what the definitions of "surplus value" or "variable capital" are. Depends on what your goals.

Short video by the comrades over on Midwestern Marx regarding Hegel to Marx.

The presenter argues that Hegel is much more materialist than we give him credit for, and the presenter connects the philosophical movement from Hegel to Marx.

Can this thread be merged into >>4337 please?
This thread has good resources and is already dying without any discussion. It would be a good addition to the thread above. Many thanks.

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