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.

>>5946 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.

>>5946 >>5953 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

>>5982 > 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.

>>6004 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.

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?

>>6023 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.

>>6100 what exactly does Heraclitus say about paraconsistent logic in relation to the world, word for word?

>>6115 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!)

>>6120 >>6100 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

I just found this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ Looks pretty thorough.

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

>>6172 how so

>>6172 By puting hegel from his head on his feet. And today we have much beter logics anyhoo

>>6172 You will never fully understand marxism unless you understand Hegelianism. Let that sink in.

>>6180 Why would you want to indoctrinate yourself with obvious bullshit? To understand Marx you only need to read Marx.

>>6181 >Why would you want to indoctrinate yourself with obvious bullshit? What are you talking about?

>>6182 You don't have to "let" something so obviously false "sink in".

>>6301 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 >>5982 . 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?

>>6461 what did he write?

>>6461 I don't think he would be the best resource on reading Hegel. I'd get something more contemporary and aimed at beginners. >>6181 >>6301 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

>>6465 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

>>6462 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