/hegel/ Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:24 No. 4337 [Last 50 Posts]
There are people who spend their entire lives reading Hegel and still manage to come out empty handed. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:24 No. 4339
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.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:24 No. 4344
>>4339 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.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:26 No. 4372
A book I've been trying to get back to reading is Hegel's Science of Logic, pdf attached.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:29 No. 4409
>>4394 Yep.
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.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:38 No. 4508
>>4503 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!)
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:38 No. 4511
>>4508 >>4488 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 Hegel
https://a.co/dKW2w8R Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:41 No. 4554
>>4546 You will never fully understand marxism unless you understand Hegelianism.
Let that sink in.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:52 No. 4713
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. Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:53 No. 4718
>>4714 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.
>t. Vladimir Lenin Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:53 No. 4719
>>4718 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
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:53 No. 4720
>>4715 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
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:54 No. 4730
>>4719 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.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:26:55 No. 4748
>>4739 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=Rhxw51cdHTE https://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 Anonymous 03-02-21 05:51:24 No. 4930
>>4337 Which translation of
Phenomenology of Spirit should I get: Oxford or Cambridge?
Anonymous 03-02-21 06:40:03 No. 4931
>>4930 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.
Anonymous 03-02-21 06:57:16 No. 4932
>>4931 (me)
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.
Anonymous 04-02-21 00:37:49 No. 4935
>>4934 I had this in my browser history for some reason.
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-phenomenology-of-spirit/ Book review:
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. A.W. 16-02-21 07:49:18 No. 5014
>>4372 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.
A.W. 17-02-21 03:30:50 No. 5020
>>5018 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.
Anonymous 29-03-21 08:10:12 No. 5333
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 Anonymous 29-03-21 09:58:54 No. 5334
>>5333 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".
Anonymous 29-03-21 19:49:14 No. 5337
>>4337 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_book Read a Fucking Book Anonymous 29-03-21 22:20:24 No. 5339
>>5337 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?
Anonymous 30-03-21 02:30:24 No. 5342
>>5340 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.
Anonymous 30-03-21 15:48:44 No. 5348
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 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.
Anonymous 30-03-21 17:37:46 No. 5349
>>5345 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.
Anonymous 21-05-21 08:52:28 No. 5766
>>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 Anonymous 20-06-21 22:17:24 No. 6149
>>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
Anonymous 22-06-21 13:08:50 No. 6175
>>6160 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
Anonymous 22-06-21 15:32:38 No. 6177
>>6176 depends what ideology do you follow?
What did you already read?
Anonymous 22-06-21 15:44:32 No. 6178
>>6177 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?
Anonymous 22-06-21 16:02:47 No. 6182
>>6179 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
Anonymous 04-07-21 17:47:27 No. 6279
>>4554 You will never fully understand Hegelianism unless you understand Leibnizism and Kantianism.
Let that sink in.
Anonymous 22-08-21 15:33:25 No. 6878
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.
Anonymous 17-10-21 20:59:36 No. 8292
>>8144 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.
Anonymous 18-10-21 15:19:00 No. 8294
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
Anonymous 23-10-21 17:07:34 No. 8441
>>8292 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.
Anonymous 23-10-21 19:37:13 No. 8444
>>8300 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. 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’). Anonymous 23-10-21 20:12:05 No. 8445
>>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. <“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. Anonymous 26-12-21 19:27:58 No. 9091
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 Anonymous 17-01-22 06:40:51 No. 9430
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.
Anonymous 28-01-22 14:25:43 No. 9576
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?
Anonymous 31-01-22 00:42:20 No. 9585
>>9576 https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1969/lenin-before-hegel.htm Anonymous 28-04-22 16:50:05 No. 10509
>>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?
Anonymous 06-05-22 11:16:41 No. 10537
>>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.
Anonymous 08-06-22 21:42:18 No. 10991
>>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.
Anonymous 15-01-24 11:06:39 No. 21400
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.
Anonymous 25-09-24 11:24:17 No. 22785
>>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.
Anonymous 26-09-24 07:42:55 No. 22790
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.
Unique IPs: 42