[HELP] Reading Hegel's Philosophy of History

[littlebabyjesus]

Problem is, gorski, that from all that I've read by you on here, I don't think you really understand Hegel or any of the other writers you've studied. If you did understand what you've read, you should be able to reproduce it in your own words. You singularly fail to produce coherence in your own words.

Incoherence disguised as sophisticated complexity is one of my pet hates.

 

[danny la rouge]

Who gives a fuck!

You surprise me*. You really don't care if people listen to what you have to say?










[*This is a lie.]

 

[danny la rouge]

Incoherence disguised as sophisticated complexity is one of my pet hates.

Mine, too. Very much so.

 

[gorski]

Gorski, my friend, you are, I hope, aware of the serious shortcomings the notion of IQ has? KS alluded to this in his posts, but I see you didn't pick up on it. Most serious people give the notion very limited credence these days, not least because "intelligence" has proved very hard to pin down.

IQ tests measure ability to do IQ tests, and since with practise you can improve at doing IQ tests, I'm sure you'll agree that they can't be measuring any kind of fixed value, such as the version of "intelligence" your post implies you adhere to.

I now start seriously doubting yours as you can not see a simple point. This is seriously demanding stuff. Not exactly best suited for idiots and cretins... Bye!

LBJ, just piss off... What a silly trolling exercise...

 

[gorski]

You surprise me*. You really don't care if people listen to what you have to say?










[*This is a lie.]

You flatter yourself wildly, sir! Why, oh why should anyone care what you and your ilk think of?!?

 

[gorski]

Problem is, gorski, that from all that I've read by you on here, I don't think you really understand Hegel or any of the other writers you've studied. If you did understand what you've read, you should be able to reproduce it in your own words. You singularly fail to produce coherence in your own words.

Incoherence disguised as sophisticated complexity is one of my pet hates.

Btw, that would presume you do understand it "correctly" and I don't... at all... after all that study...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Btw, that would presume you do understand it "correctly" and I don't... at all... after all that study...

Nope. I've read only a tiny bit of Hegel and a couple of commentaries. I don't need to understand it to recognise that you don't.

Instead of tackling the point directly, the answer invariably seems to be 'you need to read Hegel', like he's some kind of prophet.

 

[danny la rouge]

I now start seriously doubting yours as you can not see a simple point. This is seriously demanding stuff. Not exactly best suited for idiots and cretins... Bye!

Mate, I got you: you're saying it isn't easy going. It wasn't a hard point to follow. I merely picked up on a couple of things: you opening arrogance, and your out-dated use of the notion of IQ.

I'm not the sort of person who thinks one should post a CV before commenting on a thread, but I should point out I have read Hegel, and I have studied philosophy, so please don't come the savant with me. Cheers.

 

[gorski]

Nope. I've read only a tiny bit of Hegel and a couple of commentaries. I don't need to understand it to recognise that you don't.

Yep. Stupid! At least an unintelligent [stupid] troll...

 

[danny la rouge]

You flatter yourself wildly, sir! Why, oh why should anyone care what you and your ilk think of?!?

I'm asking you if you care whether people listen to what you say. If you do, my advice is don't open by calling them stupid.

Of course if you don't care, then carry on. But I do wonder what the purpose of communicating is if you don't want to be heard.

 

[gorski]

Mate, I got you: you're saying it isn't easy going. It wasn't a hard point to follow. I merely picked up on a couple of things: you opening arrogance, and your out-dated use of the notion of IQ.

I'm not the sort of person who thinks one should post a CV before commenting on a thread, but I should point out I have read Hegel, and I have studied philosophy, so please don't come the savant with me. Cheers.

Nope, you do not get it. But then, I got your real and proper arrogance [unlike alleged mine] much earlier on this forum, so not gonna lose any sleep over the pot and the kettle thingy...

 

[danny la rouge]

Yep. Stupid! At least an unintelligent [stupid] troll...

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. ^ You've been on the thread how long? Just over an hour. And so far you've managed to post a staggering 15 insult-laden posts. On a two page thread.

 

[danny la rouge]

Nope, you do not get it.

So you've added mind-reading to you skills. I congratulate you. I must remember not to look into your eyes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

To be fair, I insulted him first.

My point stands, btw. If the argument in a post is incoherent, that indicates a lack of understanding.

 

[gorski]

I'm asking you if you care whether people listen to what you say. If you do, my advice is don't open by calling them stupid.

Of course if you don't care, then carry on. But I do wonder what the purpose of communicating is if you don't want to be heard.

So, I state something generally, something no one in their right mind can negate [there are plenty of people out there who are lazy, stupid, uneducated, seriously superficial, unsteady, uncertain about their self-worth etc.] and you read it as if it was directed either to:

YOU personally

or

EVERYONE?!?

A lot of Philosophy studying wasted, I fear...

Whoever reads it that way is a bit... either a weakling or stupid. Either way, doesn't get very high on the scale of intelligence or self-confidence, in my opinion...

 

[gorski]

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. ^ You've been on the thread how long? Just over an hour. And so far you've managed to post a staggering 15 insult-laden posts. On a two page thread.

Read above this post why. Twat! Nothing to do with people like you, eh? Nothing to do with you at all, the way you are, touchy and silly! Just downright silly!! FFS!!!

At least LBJ has some decency and honesty...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Blah blah blah blah idiot blah blah stupid blah...

[BLAH BLAH BLAH]

Blah!!!!

... blah blah blah blah phildwyer blah...

blah blah blah blah blah blah.............................................

 

[danny la rouge]

you read it as if it was directed either to:

YOU personally [...]

In my later comments I was taking your comments together. You've directly called LBJ stupid on this thread, something which is far from being true. It's hard to keep track of the times you've used terms like "stupid" and "lazy" so far on this thread, to be fair.

But let's get back to your initial point about Hegel. You say he isn't an easy read. OK, fine. Now shall we move on?

 

[gorski]

To be fair, I insulted him first.

My point stands, btw. If the argument in a post is incoherent, that indicates a lack of understanding.

Yes. But it also implies that s/he who understands understands "correctly" or absolutely perfectly and there is no room for mistakes, misunderstandings etc.

I stated my opinion, which btw is not exactly mine, as who knows how many share it, and you stated yours.

Enough for intelligent people to make their own minds up.

I am not persuading anybody to "change their mind", FFS... I am NOT playing the "like me" game. I am much more ambitious! I am interested in a much harder thing: truth, any way I can find it out! Not a popularity contest, not playing power/influence games, which is what Philosophy for some comes down to, it seems...

Shameful!

 

[gorski]

In my later comments I was taking your comments together. You've directly called LBJ stupid on this thread, something which is far from being true. It's hard to keep track of the times you've used terms like "stupid" and "lazy" so far on this thread, to be fair.

But let's get back to your initial point about Hegel. You say he isn't an easy read. OK, fine. Now shall we move on?

Again, you missed the point!!!

 

[danny la rouge]

Again, you missed the point!!!

The point being what?

 

[gorski]

Blah blah blah blah idiot blah blah stupid blah...

[BLAH BLAH BLAH]

Blah!!!!

... blah blah blah blah phildwyer blah...

blah blah blah blah blah blah.............................................

Happy trolling. But still not exactly intelligent or in any way inspired or inspiring...

 

[gorski]

The point being what?

Here comes the Philosopher who can't even minimally analyse a statement...

echhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[kyser_soze]

That some people are stupid for a wide variety of reasons I think,

 

[danny la rouge]

Here comes the Philosopher who can't even minimally analyse a statement...

echhhhhhhhhhhh

Just tell me the point that I missed.

 

[danny la rouge]

That some people are stupid for a wide variety of reasons I think,

Hardly a very interesting point, especially not wthout defining 'stupid'. "There are stupid people".

If that was the point, then I didn't miss it, I just didn't think it deserved any marks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That some people are stupid for a wide variety of reasons I think,

Mostly through not having read enough Hegel, I think you'll find.

Anyway, apologies to the OP for ruining the thread. I shall leave Gorski alone now.

 

[gorski]

The point, Danny, which proves exactly what you are doing now, i.e. you have no idea how to read a book, how to approach a work [of Art, Science, Medicine, Law, Philosophy etc.] in the best possible spirit, so as to be able to learn from it, to take what can be taken from it etc.

What you are doing is what weakling and feeble minds are doing: being mean, nasty, trying to foist bullshit into a statement or book, post or whatever...
Fairness is a foreign word to you!

Minimal and elementary Phenomenology, at least, not to mention a proper Historical approach...

But never mind, you really are not worth it...

 

[danny la rouge]

The point, Danny, which proves exactly what you are doing now, i.e. you have no idea how to read a book, how to approach a work [of Art, Science, Medicine, Law, Philosophy etc.] in the best possible spirit, so as to be able to learn from it, to take what can be taken from it etc.

What you are doing is what weakling and feeble minds are doing: being mean, nasty, trying to foist bullshit into a statement or book, post or whatever...
Fairness is a foreign word to you!

I see.

FWIW, I think you're projecting a lot of your own failings onto others. I came here making two points: first, that your turn of phrase wasn't very welcoming, and second that your view of the notion of IQ was outdated. Quite how that's "nasty" etc or lacking in fairness is baffling. However, you carry on. I'm sure you will.

 

[gorski]

He was such an obscure figure, don't you agree?

No.

No.

He was a leading Philosopher of his time and everyone had to define their own position in relation to him, long after he was gone!

His lectures were such a must that there never was enough room and people were literally hanging off the windows. Everyone came to pay their respects to Philosophy and its leading character, to find out what it said about them, the New Era [after the French and American Revolutions] etc. etc....

I want to move on to Marx's Das Kapital, eventually. I'm having the hardest time understanding Hegel though, been struggling a lot lately. I read the intro, including part one (Oriental history) and it feels as if I got nothing out of it.

You will have an even harder time with Marx if you do not get this, an easy Hegel text, sorry. It keeps track of the notion of Freedom and the advance in the consciousness of Freedom.

The main point being that Orient doesn't know of the Notion. Only one is free there.

It starts properly with the Ancient Greeks but it still is rather limited.

It it continually developed in the Christian-Germanic tradition, starting with the Bible, which sees all as equals but only in the eyes of God.

It is then put on the stage of History as a political program, with the French and American Revolution.

But that doesn't mean it has been achieved fully and comprehensively [the Hegelian Right v. Hegelian Left debate opens up here]. We are still working on it, was his conclusion in his earlier versions of the latter system, which earned him the wrath of the Prussian state, which is why they invited old Shelling "to uproot the devil's [revolutionary] seed he has sawn"... It took them a while to understand what Marx later calls the rational core of his Philosophy.

The concept of Spirit is still somehow very cloudy to me; if anyone can explain it to me in layman's terms, I'd really appreciate it.

Above is the core idea. From it you would be wise, as many an interpreter has written, to study Phenomenology of Spirit, especially the struggle for recognition, as described by Hegel.

As I said my goal is to move on to Marx but for those of you who have read both, what exactly should I look to focus on when reading Hegel?

The above. That which is universal [spirit of Humanity, embodied in Freedom]= Spirit = God = Absolute etc.

But that has to be taken carefully and seriously, studied with passion, not dismissed out of hand because some bunch of philosophical wankers [mainly Anglo-American, as the case may be, sadly] said 'Hegel is rubbish'...

The clever Americans etc., btw, like Ch. S. Peirce, G. H. Mead etc. all studied the guy carefully before stating their own positions!!!