I have nothing much to contribute so far because I haven't read much Hegel, but I'm hoping for a comfy thread.
one article that really helped me to understand Hegel as a STEM student was Hegel's Critique of Common Logic. if you understand normal logic then in my opinion it's a good resource for beginning to gain an understand of what Hegel's "Logic" is really about. I imagine it wouldn't help much if you don't have that kind of education though.https://www.jstor.org/stable/20128453?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
also Zizek has a really good chapter on Hegel in Sex and the Failed Absolute, which covers Hegel's critique of Kant. I had to read it like 3 times but once I finally understood it, it was pretty beneficial to the beginning of my reading too. you need to know some of Kant to understand it though, at the very least have a summary of Critique of Pure Reason planted in your brain.
right know I'm trying to get through History of Philosophy, which isn't particularly difficult but can get very dry at times. I honestly haven't picked up the book in months because of schoolwork, but as somebody with zero official philosophy education it's been beneficial to read so far, he covers everything from the Greeks all the way to Kant and Fichte.
I got the PDF here. 34 pages.
I'll try to read it later. I have also stopped my studies of Hegel for similar reasons. I'll try to pick it up again and hopefully bring some life to this thread.
Thank you, anon. This is very helpful.
A book I've been trying to get back to reading is Hegel's Science of Logic, pdf attached.
It's a series of lectures that have been made into book form. I've been liking it so far. I've found all of this very difficult, and I have yet to find simple explanations of the main concepts, especially of the hegelian method. All of them have been very esoteric without saying so.
One thing I've grown to appreciate is simplified and basically wrong understandings of marxism. I've come to slowly understand the immense value these concepts have in bridging knowledge in the mind of the learner. For example, conflating price and value is entirely fine at first. The next step is to explain why that conflation is not correct, and present a more nuanced and concrete form.
I realize marxism is much more read than hegel, and it is also much more easier to understand than hegel. I mean, ffs, for a beginner, all the prefaces to Capital are like a nice stroll in the park, while the preface to Phenomenology is like snorting glass.
It also doesn't help that marxists usually ignore Hegel, despite being such an important part of marxism. Marx famously states that he put Hegel's system on its feet, but more recent readings of Hegel argue that perhaps Marx was putting 18th century Hegel on its feet, and that the differences between the two are not immensely significant (besides their areas of research).
In my brief studies of Hegel, I genuinely feel that a new toolset has been unlocked, and I can now follow marxist arguments much more easily because I can now think in new ways. This is coming from a person who is not a scholar, nor a theory chad. I am a beginner and a *borderline illiterate*. I contend that my ignorance of Hegel (made worse by Cockshott's naive recommendation of staying ignorant by disregarding Hegel) has been a serious handicap in understanding marxist thought beyond the details of the economic theory. In other words, by not understanding Hegelianism, I have been limiting myself to understanding the results of economic research done by Marx, without really understanding how things fit together, or how I might use this myself as everyday tools for thinking.
Because of this, I believe part of our duty to other leftists on /leftypol/ is to make Hegelianism digestible and encourage others to broaden their horizons beyond pure economic matters and cybernetic world building.
>be in a conformist protestant society with no internet
>have likely extremely irrational and stringent requirements to get into university
>all anti-german imperialists btfo
>have one guy get kinda famous
>>4372> Marx famously states that he put Hegel's system on its feet, but more recent readings of Hegel argue that perhaps Marx was putting 18th century Hegel on its feet, and that the differences between the two are not immensely significant (besides their areas of research).
well firstly Marx said “on its head”, not feet, but I agree. it’s not just the area of research though. the thing is that Hegel was already writing in a time where Adam Smith was already well known, he just never thought to apply his method of analyzing substance (in this case capitalism) as a subject. the main difference between Hegel and Marx is that Marx ‘’did’’ think of it. So many Marxists seem to want to outright ignore or treat as a juvenile error that Marx openly “avowed” himself as a student of the “mighty thinker”, because they’re too lazy to engage with Hegel seriously.
Just wanted to bump this thread with the following clarification regarding the "on its head" quote:>The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell
And wanted to clarify that what I meant by "Hegel of the 18th century" should read: "Hegel as it was being taught in the 19th century" which it could be argued was a more idealist reading of Hegel than more contemporary readings, and that Marx might have had that reading. I heard it from a Hegel scholar, lol I personally have no idea.
As for "the rational kernel within the mystical shell", I read this article that was really nice. It helped me get a sense about what Marx meant by the rational interpretation of hegelianism.
Hegel is often compared to Heraclitus, something I'd assumed was primarily based in their most obvious similarities (an emphasis on contradiction and change.) However, as I've been reading through the presocratics it seems clear to me that Heraclitus and Hegel are similar in at least five important respects:
1) That the world operates according to a paraconsistent sort of logic that embraces useful or productive contradictions,
2) That this world operates according to change,
3) That it is nevertheless an intelligible, rational, order,
4) And objectively so,
5) Though few people operate with an understanding of it as such
Which seems more robust than just one or two. How much did Hegel use Heraclitus as a direct influence? Or is it that taking on one or two of these assumptions leads to the rest as well?
I slightly remember reading somewhere that Understanding is what Hegel considers to contain the set of all common logic, math and science (the practice) while Reason is the working of transcendental dialectics, or Hegel’s dialectical method. I don’t remember where I read it so it could be completely inaccurate. you should let me know whether that makes things more or less confusing on your end, because I’d like to know how true it is myself.
what exactly does Heraclitus say about paraconsistent logic in relation to the world, word for word?
The world operates according to general rules:> This logos holds but humans always prove unable to understand it… For though all things come to be in accordance with this logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out>The cosmos, the same for all, none of the gods nor of humans has made, but it was always and is and shall be: an ever-living fire being kindled in measures and being extinguished in measures.
General statements suggesting the paraconsistency of the logos:>They do not understand how, though at variance with itself, it agrees with itself. It is a backwards-tuning (palintropic) attunement like that of the bow and the lyre.>What is opposed brings together; the finest harmony is composed of things at variance, and everything comes to be in accordance with strife.
Alongside many "X is Y and ~Y" type statements:>The track of [writing? carting wheels?] is straight and crooked.>The road up and the road down are one and the same.>Changing, it rests.>The sea is the purest and most polluted water: to fishes and drinkable and bringing safety, to humans undrinkable and destructive.>Fire is want and sateity.
Obviously to be really word for word here you should go to the Greek. I'm quoting from Curd and McKirahan's "A Presocratics Reader" but have uploaded the loeb library version so you can look at the original fragments/testimonia if you have the Greek chops to do it (which, to be clear, I don't!)
well I just opened my ebook with Hegel’s history of philosophy and he pretty much says it right here as clear as day:
“there is no proposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my Logic.”
— Delphi Collected Works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Illustrated) by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegelhttps://a.co/dKW2w8R
Hegel was usefull in early 19th century, but Marx made him useless and extinct .
By puting hegel from his head on his feet. And today we have much beter logics anyhoo
You will never fully understand marxism unless you understand Hegelianism.
Let that sink in.
Why would you want to indoctrinate yourself with obvious bullshit? To understand Marx you only need to read Marx.
>>4555>Why would you want to indoctrinate yourself with obvious bullshit?
What are you talking about?
You don't have to "let" something so obviously false "sink in".
how has Marx made Hegel useless and extinct
I found these lectures on youtube about Hegel's Science of Logic:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmbhVUHjLgQ&t=1587s
It's 18 parts. It's audio only and the audio fucking sucks. It's easier to listen if you have an equalizer and silence the lower frequencies.
Either way, the lectures so far have been interesting. I'm accompanying it with the book attached here >>4372
. I see no reason to read Hegel first hand yet, since I still struggle to read secondary sources.
After I finish the lectures and the book, I *might* listen to AW's reading group's recording on science of logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjTZoMyF_Ak&list=PLRUSi_5LZI1lpoKkSZ-vlTUWTvPz_Ybg_
Or I might start doing the half hour hegel by Dr Gregory Sadler.Or I might go back to reading Marx, still don't know.
Lenin seems to have wrote alot about Hegel
Can anyone tell me if the texts are any good and worth reading?
I don't think he would be the best resource on reading Hegel. I'd get something more contemporary and aimed at beginners. >>4555>>4563
I find it really sad that Hegel is so deplored here by so called "marxist" "leninists".
I've quoted multiple times Marx saying how important Hegel is for his thought.
Here is Lenin on Hegel and the Cockshott types that have a shit and mechanistic understanding of marxism.
>It is impossible fully to grasp Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, if you have not studied through and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists for the past 1/2 century have understood Marx!!”>t. Vladimir Lenin
Well reading (and understanding!) hegel is extremely difficult you can spend a life time on studying Marx and Engels alone so the easiest solution is deflecting and saying no I don't need hegel
I think it's also a way to damage Marxism by misrepresenting it like trying to seperate engels from Marx and then saying Marx just did economics while ignoring the most important part of marxism diamat
Diamat is the most important tool for any Marxist without it Marxism becomes a dead dogma that is not usabel to make analysis of your own and actually change shit
He wrote a conspect of Hegels science of logic
(I think he wrote conspect of almost all of Hegels important works but I am not sure)
I thought they may be helpful to understand hegel
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. I want to encourage other marxists on /leftypol/ to take Hegel seriously like Marx, Engels, and Lenin did.
I know Hegel is really hard to read, but it is also a real pleasure to follow Hegel's thought. Marx isn't easy either (although obviously not nearly as hard). There are many beginner marxist books, youtube videos, articles, etc. I haven't found many good Hegel for beginners yet. Most have atrocious takes on Hegel that are better left unread and unseen.
>>4730>I want to encourage other marxists on /leftypol/ to take Hegel seriously like Marx, Engels, and Lenin did.
How do we start?
I mean how do we start to read Hegel?
The Philosophy of History and the History of Philosophy are probably the easiest to get intohttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/li_hegel.htm
I can only recommend what works for me. I try to soak in a little from short videos, articles, longer video or audio lectures, and secondary literature about Hegel. I don't see the point in reading Hegel right off the bat. I'd rather have at least an OK understanding of what I'm heading into before actually doing it.
The thing with understanding Marxism or Hegelianism is that you can't really start with the whole picture. You, ironically, have to develop the thought in a dialectical manner. You first need to have a poor, unnuanced, and in many ways a wrong understanding of the subject matter. You then go on to further make the ideas more complex, more correct, and more encompassing.
Prof Taimur Rahman (the ultra based Pakistani professor) has some videos that are accessible for beginners:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhxw51cdHTEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwsZwtdFu3k
Unfortunately, he only has two. I watched a portion and I didn't like his reading, so I stopped watching, but getting a "good read" is not that important at the beginning
Prof Gregory Sadler has some very accessible lectures on Hegel for example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hh8OGEsmqA
He also has the 30 minute Hegel, but I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner.
Rick Roderick has a talk that is labeled "Hegel" but he doesn't really get deep into the subject. Rick Roderick's lectures are always entertaining:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsNyR-epBM
Which translation of Phenomenology of Spirit
should I get: Oxford or Cambridge?
I believe Dr. Sadler's course uses the Oxford translation (If I recall correctly). Most lectures that mention translations that I've seen are from before 2018, which is seemingly the publication date of the Cambridge one. I heard an italian sounding author's version was not really an improvement (forgot the name, bortolini?).
Found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wfg10UzdAk
I have a suspicion that the Cambridge translation is mentioned positively in the first lecture of these series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmbhVUHjLgQ
But I can't quite remember.
I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9FISEBdChk
It's about why marx was wrong. The video has a logo for the "Institutul de Investigare a Crimelor Comunismului și Memoria Exilului Românesc" which according to google translate means "Institute for the Investigation of the Crimes of Communism and the Memory of the Romanian Exile". I don't know if he gave the talk there, or if it was uploaded by those people. Just passing on the information. The talk itself was kind of boring, it has low quality audio, and he unloads some pretty bad takes on Marxism.
Idk, doesn't mean his translation is necessarily bad.
>>4932>which according to google translate means "Institute for the Investigation of the Crimes of Communism and the Memory of the Romanian Exile"
😬 lol it's always the Romanians, isn't it? Looks like that talk was given in 2011, but it also appears Pinkard was working on his translation for just as long. Based on amazon reviews it looks like the more readable option, but at the expense of minor interpretations being injected into the text.
Upon further research it looks like Oxford put out a new translation by Michael Inwood the same year Cambridge published Pinkard's. It looks even better, but hasn't received a paperback release and is therefore subject to ridiculous academic pricing. I'm intimidated by the original AV MIller translation, but that's probably what I'm gonna end up going with for now.
I had this in my browser history for some reason.https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-phenomenology-of-spirit/
Book 1: The Phenomenology of Spirit, Michael Inwood (ed. and trans.)
Book 2: The Phenomenology of Spirit, Terry Pinkard (ed. and trans.)>We now have two new translations by noted Hegel scholars Michael Inwood and Terry Pinkard, both accomplished. They improve on, but are not vastly superior to, Miller.>In any case, Inwood and Pinkard, each in their own way, make for the most tuneful English-language Hegel yet.
What are your all's thoughts on Evald Ilyenkov?
Because hegel is hard to read
Something I have advised since the old Leftypol around 2015: understand that Hegel's dialectics, and Marx's by extension, are not useful in the way people tell you and that many want to believe. It is a method for grasping concepts and the thinking of them (arguments) as one singular concept. This allows you to see the epistemological, ontological, and semantic problems of concepts which are used to organize our experience of the world as knowledge. Dialectics has no purpose beyond this.
Also, the method is not detailed because in many ways telling you before you go through the concretion process will rob you of the very thing which certifies for you the proof of the method's truth.>>4488
Hegel makes contradiction intelligible, and explains becoming in a very different way to Heraclitus.
Honestly, if you want to know dialectic, you need look no further than the first chapter of Capital. Unless you are interested in Hegel for himself, you waste your time chasing after an illusion called the dialectical method to an equal illusion of it being for anything other than concept thinking.
I don't know if you know Lacan, but if you wanted to put it in those could you say that dialectics is a way of relegating master-signifiers to the status of mere signifiers? that's my understanding based on the introduction of the Phenomenology where he discusses "inert determinations" and how breaking them and turning the familiar into concepts rather than "points for starting and stopping"
I don't know anything about Lacan, but I can say that the purpose is not to dethrone any concept in any sense. Part of the purpose is a test of 'absoluteness' of a thought in revealing its immanent conditionality.
All thought has this conditional character except for one: the process of thought thinking itself, i.e. reason or logic. Every possible concept drives itself to the recognition that it is only a concept, and that it is only a finite form of the infinite universal concept of thinking itself.
Ok, that makes sense. thanks
I have yet to find a better pedagogue than this professor. Unfortunately for many, these are only available in Spanish
- Good graphics.
- Not babby-tier pop-hegel takes
- Ridiculously concise (not sure if it's a plus per se, means you'll have to watch them several times)
- Has segway videos to Feuerbach and Marx (making dialectical materialism, or the passage from Hegelian idealism to marx's dialectical materialism, more understandable).
- Clear speaker.
- Many examples.
Someone else had previously recommended it on leftypol, and I'm seconding that recommendation here.
Playlist on Hegel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn8ie2dalD8&list=PLsfeQP0TZ5kh1XtV7tIsPl4EBRlzMjvZE
Kind of a shitty option but it's the only one there is unless someone makes their own subtitles, but…
On desktop, you can turn on auto-generated Spanish subs, then select "translate".
What should I read as preparation for Hegel. I fell for the halfchan meme of "start with the greeks" so I feel I should read Aristotle or whatever.>>4339
How do I come to understand this "Common Logic" What should I read?read_a_fucking_bookRead a Fucking Book
I'd read something that explains Kant's noumena vs phenomena. Hegel will subvert these, but if you don't get intuitively what the "thing-in-itself" etc means, it'll be harder to follow.
Apart from that, secondary reading before Hegel is probably a good idea. What do you plan to read?
I don't know. I'm currently reading theory. Haven't really read much philosophy other than some Socratic dialogues and plotinus for uni once. I'd like to get into it with the specific goals of getting to Hegel.
IMO you only need Kant (deep knowledge isn't necessary), but I'm not a well read Hegelian, so take it with a grain of salt. You can read any philosopher you want without "starting with the greeks". There is so much philosophy that to engage with all philosophers would be a fool's errand and an interminable task.
You could read Heraclitus, but there's not a lot to gain there as it might seem.
For Marx maybe Aristotle would be interesting, but I don't think it will inform your reading much.
But, if it happens I have the time and interest to work to get some level of that deep knowledge, what should I do? I just picked up Bertrand Russell's history of Western philosophy. Is it a meme book or is it actually good? I know Russell is considered a pseud in many respects, but in this book he seems to have his shit together more or less. I don't mean to read all of it religiously. But, if I was to pick out some names in the index of this book, besides Kant which ones should I pick??
I already know to skip Russell on Marxism or Leninism. He just unironically equated the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany, yikes
If anyone's interested, here are the notes I took from reading the section on the Master-Servant dialectic in Hegel's Phenomenology. I'll paste the simplified summary I developed at the end:
<The project is to develop a concept of a process of self-cognition, and this is done by allegory. Suppose two beings come into contact each other, and enter into a struggle to prove each others' self-existence, since self-recognition is only possible through the other. One is subordinated to the other, one being becomes the master and the other, the servant. The master desires to achieve independent consciousness, and takes from the servant what is necessary to achieve freedom and to live without fear of death. To the master it appears that he is self-sufficient, independent, and essential, and it appears that his servant is not-self-sufficient, dependent, and inessential.
<The trouble is that the master's appearance of independence and self-sufficiency is an illusion, created by the freedom that is generated by the servant's relation of dependence to the master, and the fact that the master does not interact with nature directly, but processed through the servant. The relation of dependence of the master to the servant is present, but obscured, and when it's uncovered the master loses his sense of independent self-existence.
<The servant's notion of self-existence is bound up with his relation to the master, but he comes to realize his own self existence in two ways. First, the servant fears death, which is the ultimate negativity, that is to say death has the power to negate all things; previously the servant associated negativity with the master, and negativity appeared alien. With death, negativity is immediately and completely personal. Second, the servant works on objects in nature for the master, which seems at first to be deeply impersonal: his work is at the whim of the master. But the truth is that work is an expression of the servant's creative or formative activity and capacity, the objects on which he works are left with the imprint of his own conscious activity, and so he realizes his own existence through that work. These two methods: fear and work, are related and inseparable if the servant is to attain a real self-consciousness, or a real mind of his own.
I've heard Copplestone's History of Philosophy is much better and more comprehensive. I started reading it, but the tome was too large and intimidating, plus he sprinkled greek everywhere. Same on the Marxist stuff, you'd need to skip that. It's around 11 volumes total lol.>>5348
Absurdly based, thanks anon.
Yeah, scratch that. Russell is indeed a pseud. His book is not very good. I found this other book coordinated by a French professor guy and each philosopher has a chapter with a different expert on that philosopher giving you the gist
Anyone think we need a /phil/osophy general??
he does not have his shit together. he makes up flat out lies about Hegel saying he supported the prussian state. he is deeply biased considering his school of thought, analytic philosophy, is deeply opposed to everything Hegel stands for on a very fundamental, basic level.
>>5352>Anyone think we need a /phil/osophy general??
Maybe it could serve as a starting point for more discussions.
Good thread on learning dialectical thinking:https://leftypol.org/edu/res/906.html
Bumping for an answer. By the way, does anyone have a good addressing of the whole "Thesis/antithesis/synthesis" thing? Is it a good representation of Hegel's dialectic despite him never using these terms?
No, avoid at all costs. Listen to the Why Theory episode called Contradiction, andmaybe the one on Kojeve
What about the Chart above? Is it accurate?
I wonder if there is anyone who could remember something they were thinking about in a Hegelian way? Or could the expound on a real life situation/phenomenon with dialectic? Sorry if these are bad questions, but I couldn't find any examples and I'd feel like I'd be able to better understand it through something tangible.thinkThink
maybe but from what I know, nobody really cares about the encyclopedia compared to the big logic/phenomenology
>>6117>maybe but from what I know, nobody really cares about the encyclopedia compared to the big logic/phenomenology
Thats not true atleast in germany >>6113
For example a thing or more its identity doesnt exist in a vacuum but in its development
if you look at a seed it is not a seed trough itself now but through its capabilitie to become a plant and make many more seeds when the plant grows the seed negates itself the new seeds that the plant grows are the negation of the plant so they are the negation of the negation of the first seed these seeds wont be identitcal to the first one but slightly different that is called the negation on a higher step
Why is some old mans writing that don't even translate directly to politics matter?
What does hegel have to offer that will be of use to me, body or mind?
Its his methology
dialectics is a extremely powerful tool for understanding the world and changing it
Marx and Engels were only capable to do what they did through an understanding of Dialectics and Hegel is by far the most important Dialectical Philosopher in the modern western world
depends what ideology do you follow?
What did you already read?
I'm already well acquainted with Marx, as well as other Marxists like Lenin, Mao, Frankfurt School, etc. But in terms of philosophy in general I've barely dipped my toes and I'm currently working my way through the Greeks. I tried to read Phenomenology of Spirit a while back and gave up after I realized everything I read is complete nonsense to me and I probably need to do some prior reading before diving into Hegel lmao.
I know every important Marxist has stressed how essential it is to read and understand Hegel, so how would I go about doing that if I don't have a background in philosophy? Is it even something I can achieve in reasonable time if I only read philosophy as a hobby?
I would add Lenins conspect of hegel
it is also helpful to read marx engels and lenins works on philosophy to get an understanding
a great work for starters on Hegl is Dietmar Darths Hegel on 100 pages but im not sure which languages it got translated in
AW is a massive cunt.
Since Hegel is in vogue, here's the dedicated Hegel thread.
You will never fully understand Hegelianism unless you understand Leibnizism and Kantianism.
Let that sink in.
Thats not that bad, you learn Kantianism in regular philosophy anyway and having that foundation will let you study anyone.
This guy's youtube channel is very good. I've enjoyed every video I've seen.
This particular one is longer than usual, but absolutely great. Goes over some basic hegelian ideas, offhandedly dismisses people like Cockshott that claim that Hegel is not necessary to understand Marxism (that is bait)
, in general it's a very good video of a broad view of Hegelianism, highly recommended.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X34lB3kW14k
Thanks to the anon who pointed out this recent release in the /ITG/ thread. I've been watching it in segments for the entire week lmao.
I'm unsure wheter if there's a /philosophy general/ (or if this is the one), but i have a doubt that i believe can be asked here.
Is idealism and materialism impossible to reconcile? At a fundamental level, i'm pretty sure they are. But can they be warped enough to somewhat fit into each other?
As much as i find materialism to based as fuck, i'm unsure how it can explain thing like qualia as a result of material experience in a convincing manner.
you have to have organic matter, neuron connection and electric signals to get "qualia"
Its called dialectical materialism. In your last sentence you are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
which Lenin explained as a type of idealism. This type of materialism does not distinguish between absolute and relative truth because it takes concepts, which are culturally derived, as a given, and proceeds from there without taking subjective bias into account. This idealism is why liberal economists take things like capitalism as objective natural phenomena.
has anyone actually finished reading the phenomenology? i feel a bit a little weird about what has transpired in the unhappy consciousness. from the looks of things, it seems to be grounded in the structure of justification. however, im unsure how the concept of the true and good arises for the stoic then of the unchangeable for the unhappy consciousness. mayhaps for the latter merely comes from recognizing the universality of thought, but idk why we would posit this unchangeable consciousness. like sure i know why it's necessary in the hegelian sense since the skeptics seemed to show that true practical universality is untenable by us finite beings so we need something bigger and better than us to do the work. however, how is it possible for humans to *think of that something*? this is is a lacuna that hegel fails to really fill out. im guessing psychologically God is really meant to be derived from the ego ideal if we take the continuity between skepticism and the unhappy consciousness seriously. does that make sense?>>8144>As much as i find materialism to based as fuck, i'm unsure how it can explain thing like qualia as a result of material experience in a convincing manner.
has nothing to do with hegelian nor marxist notions of idealism/materialism. if you want a reconciliation however read bergson. he is a genius and if i could just establish a continuity between bergson's and hegel's systems i would solve all philosophical psychology
>>8294>mayhaps for the latter merely comes from recognizing the universality of thought
*mayhaps for the former merely comes from recognizing the universality of thought
idk if deleuze answers the particular questions i have in mind because it seems like he doesn't care as much about what bergson and hegel can do for philosophical psychology (including topics like language, perception, memory, etc). correct me if im wrong though
Well shit, it seems i'm totally clueless about this subject. I'm not even sure what to ask now.>dialectical materialism.
I'm aware of it (though, admittedly more familiar with hismat), but – not trying to sound rude – how exactly does it answer with what i've asked? Is it the syncretization i was thinking of? Because if so, i'm not entirely sure how that happens. >In your last sentence you are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism which Lenin explained as a type of idealism.
Sounds interesting. In which of his works does he talk about? So i can take a look at it.>This type of materialism does not distinguish between absolute and relative truth because it takes concepts, which are culturally derived, as a given, and proceeds from there without taking subjective bias into account. This idealism is why liberal economists take things like capitalism as objective natural phenomena.
I'm usually skeptical of monistical explanations of reality (if dialectics can even be considered anything like it), but diamat being described like that does sound very enticing, even if i still think i have some criticisms of it. >>8294>has nothing to do with hegelian nor marxist notions of idealism/materialism.
Yeah, that has become apparent to me by now. What are some good materials for me to despook myself (preferably for newbies)? Things like the video posted by >>6878
? >if you want a reconciliation however read bergson. he is a genius and if i could just establish a continuity between bergson's and hegel's systems i would solve all philosophical psychology
Thanks for the input. Will make sure to read him whenever i become less of a theorylet in this regard.
idk either but he likes bergson lol. I kind of feel like deleuze taught me hegel.
I was reading this last night.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(Bergson)>Bergson introduces two ways in which an object can be known: absolutely and relatively. Pertaining to each mode of knowledge is a method through which it can be gained. The latter’s method is what Bergson calls analysis, while the method of intuition belongs to the former. Intuition is an experience of sorts, which allows us to in a sense enter into the things in themselves. Thus he calls his philosophy the true empiricism.
>Within philosophy, however, problems arise when the symbols are treated as the objects they represent and when, through composition, the original is expected to be found within the simulacrum. An example of this is the substance theory of rationalists and the bundle theory of empiricists. Empiricists, searching for the substance within the gaps of the composition, fill them in within even more symbols. Unwilling to continue filling in the gaps ad infinitum, they renounce that there is a substance and maintain the properties, or symbols, which are not to be confused with parts, are all that there are. The rationalists, on the other hand, are unwilling to relinquish substance. Thus they transform it into an unknowable container in which properties reside.https://thetragiccommunity.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/correlationism-and-vitalism-comments-on-henri-bergson/>Bringing Bergson and Hegel into conversation with one another will help us clarify how Bergson approaches the problems addressed by Kant and how Bergson himself differs from the traditional of German Idealism itself. Here it is useful to quote Ray Brassier’s commentary on this shift at length since it gets right to the heart of the dispute: “So…famously, in Hegel’s objective idealism, the relational synthesis which Kant takes to be constitutive of objectivity is simply transplanted from its localization in the subject and construed rather as the relation between subject and object, which Hegel recodes as the ‘self-relating negativity’ that yields the structure of reality” (Brassier, et. al., ‘Speculative Realism’).
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).
andhttps://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.
Sweet. Thanks, anon.
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?
>[…]May I remind the reader that in 1894 Lenin had not read Hegel, but he had read Marx’s Capital very closely, and understood it better than anyone else ever had – he was twenty-four – so much so that the best introduction to Marx’s Capital is to be found in Lenin. Which would seem to prove that the best way to understand Hegel and the relation between Marx and Hegel is above all to have read and understood Capital.
>In 1915, in his notes on the Great Logic, Lenin wrote a statement which everyone knows by heart, and which I quote: ‘Aphorism: 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!!’ (Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 180 – Lenin’s exclamation marks).
>For any superficial reader, this statement obviously contradicts the statements of 1894, since instead of radical anti-Hegelian declarations, here we seem to have a radical pro-Hegelian declaration. Indeed, it goes so far that, if it were applied to Lenin himself, as the author of remarkable texts on Capital written between 1893 and 1905, he would appear as not having ‘understood Marx’, since before 1914-1915, Lenin had not ‘thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic’![…]
>[…]This brings us directly to my central thesis on Lenin’s reading of Hegel: i.e. that in his notes on Hegel, Lenin maintains precisely the position he had adopted previously in ‘What the “Friends of the People” Are’ and ‘Materialism and Empirio-criticism’, i.e. at a moment when he had not read Hegel, which leads us to a ‘shocking’ but correct conclusion: basically, Lenin did not need to read Hegel in order to understand him, because he had already understood Hegel, having closely read and understood Marx. Bearing this in mind, I shall hazard a peremptory aphorism of my own: ‘A century and a half later no one has understood Hegel because it is impossible to understand Hegel without having thoroughly studied and understood “Capital"!’ Provocation for provocation; I hope I shall be forgiven this one, at least in the Marxist camp.
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.
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?
How human society and understanding actually evolves, but only coupled with a materialist understanding as well.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We have a thread specifically for that >>10452
„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.
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.
Unique IPs: 22