[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1608528384265.jpg (169.33 KB, 1200x525, hegel anti idpol.jpg)


There are people who spend their entire lives reading Hegel and still manage to come out empty handed.

ITT we discuss the great thinker, Karl Marx's teacher, and he on who's shadow we walk:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

1. What are good things to read/view to get an understanding of Hegel from a philosophical neophyte?

2. What service can Hegel's philosophy provide us today?

3. What an be done to make Hegel more accessible to the masses? Why is it so unpenetrable?


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.
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.


File: 1608528384759.pdf (4.12 MB, HEGEL'S CRITIQUE OF THE CO….pdf)

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.


File: 1608528386772.pdf (1.98 MB, Hegel's logic.pdf)

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


> 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.


File: 1608528389709.pdf (117.19 KB, The Rational Kernel of Heg….pdf)

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.


File: 1608528389876.jpg (131.28 KB, 977x699, a8ad1d86454461a5e2fe604ef9….jpg)

What's the difference between reason and understanding in Hegel?


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?


File: 1608528397971.pdf (10.38 MB, Early Greek Philosophy, Vo….pdf)

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 Hegel


I just found this:


Looks pretty thorough.


Hegel was usefull in early 19th century, but Marx made him useless and extinct .


how so


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.


>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:
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?


what did he write?


I don't think he would be the best resource on reading Hegel. I'd get something more contemporary and aimed at beginners.

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.


>I want to encourage other marxists on /leftypol/ to take Hegel seriously like Marx, Engels, and Lenin did.

How do we start?


>Read Hegel
>try making his ideas and methods more accesible
>spred them


I mean how do we start to read Hegel?


The Philosophy of History and the History of Philosophy are probably the easiest to get into


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:

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:
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:


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.


>>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.


>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.
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.


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.

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"


*in those terms


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

Unique IPs: 8

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]