/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>2152

Because to those with autism like yours anything articulated beyond your normal vocabulary seems autistic.

"the self-articulated triconscience achieves absolute manifestation under any pre-ethereal circumnavigation when electro-chemically ontologised beneath any sufficiently neo-semiotic ideal nothingness" - Hegel

>>2153

faggot

>>2154

>>2155

Don't be mad just because I can read Hegel and understand him. Most of the difficulty with Hegel, frankly, is trying to get into Hegel from secondary literature. Hegel writes in a way intended to bring you along the philosophic path in all its twists and turns in order to see the truth in the path; he also writes in a manner in which nothing which he says will really make sense without knowing the general gist of all the spheres of his system from Logic - Nature - Spirit. Hegel isn't someone you can read straight up and understand, you just have to do a lot of reading and rereading. Every time you study some philosopher prior or after Hegel you can be guaranteed to be able to go back to Hegel and see something you didn't see before concerning problems you did not even realize were problems.

>>2159

So...just like reading James Joyce?

>>2164

Is reading him like reading it alone and being wrong, then reading it with a commentary and being wrong? Then reading the direct predecessors and being wrong? And finally rereading him directly again and coming slowly to realize that you cannot not be wrong so long as you keep thinking a certain way?

If so, yes.

>>2159

Please enlighten me about his ideas because I don't understand anything besides the obvious.

>>2170

Main aim: conceptualizing THE Absolute

Basic conclusion: an absolute is determined and necessary in-itself, not from anything outside it, nor can there be anything outside it. In terms of the real world, an absolute must not simply be inert eternal substance, but a subject in charge of its self-determination and end as itself.

Method (Dialectic): Conceptual analysis through following a concept's inner development of itself, which just happens to be referential to other concepts which tend to contradict it. This is not a formal equation you can slap onto anything such as thesis-antithesis-synthesis, or abstract- negation - concrete. The dialectic develops from the concepts you analyze and is unique for all of them. The contradiction within concepts cannot be known unless you carry out the full analysis on them.

Proof: The process of the Logic, which shows the necessary process of the development of true ideas that really grasp the objects of the world as they are in-themselves and not as they are for subjective consciousness.

If that makes no sense, I'm sorry for you. There is literally no simplification that can be made of Hegel to save you the time to really understand him. Any introduction, analogy, etc. is not just wrong, but dead wrong. If you ever want to study Hegel, you really can start anywhere, however, you then cannot stop. You have to engage in a dialectic yourself, the dialectic of what the fuck Hegel really means in what he wrote, and the only way to know is to engage in the process of getting to know Hegel in a charitable manner.

>>2176

And just so you know, everything I told you is basically wrong except for the method section. It's a simple logic, simpler than any formal mathematical logic, however that's also what makes people so shit at doing it, they have to actually think the concepts through and not just merely plug in propositions into a formal system to tell them what is valid, true, etc.

>>2177

>And just so you know, everything I told you is basically wrong except for the method section

Wha?

>>2184

The explanation of the Absolute and its proof is wrong. The purported aim is also wrong. They're partially right, but not fully true to what Hegel means, which literally cannot be written down in propositional forms or in a simple "X is Y".

>>2185

Now I'm just confused.

>>2187

>/philosophy/

>>2211

Now that's dry like my dick.