/lit/ - Literature

Can someone explain to me what the fuck is the dialectics?

ESL+ Retard here, is it me or the language used in philosophy, difficult to grasp? Isn't philosophy a hard subject in itself? Why complicate it further by using flowery prose. Admittedly, I have only read the english translations, so I'm unknowledgeable, whether the original language used by the philosopher itself is complex or it's the translator who choose to do so. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to understand it. Is it same for English philosophers(the ones who wrote in English)? I haven't read any.

Kant ruined pic related for me. I got to Kant (and through German idealism) in a reverse chronology, started with Nietzsche and worked my way up there backward.

What's the point of a Hegel when there's Kant? What more did Hegel really say that Kant already didn't?

I refuse to believe this was an actual human being (same goes for Plato)

I.
The Doctrine of Pneumatism

1. Objective reality exists.
2. If you call the existence of objective reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist. The problem is, this is a philosophical dead-end, it offers no Praxis nor guidance to politicians, the people who rule this world. So you have no solution for upcoming the Collapse and are a pathetic Last Man, a parasite on the economic system which runs on biology.
3. The ultimate goal of the zoon politikon (a social being, i.e. all humans if you have never even partaken in basic philosophy) is for the world around them (the matrix upon which to imprint a Dasein) be a better, more authentic place.
4. Dualism doesn't exist. It's an illusion created by the Self after its creation at around the age of 3-4 when the Self (abstract thought) is "burst into existence" (Heidegger's "Being in Time") and struggles to connect the chaos surrounding the abstractly thinking Being. Thus it falls into dualism to better categorize the world, into opposing binaries. Opposing binaries are social constructs, illusions. See: the Pauli-Jung conjecture. Dual-aspect monism. In fact this is what Hegel from the start preached: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. This is what Plato from the start preached. What did they mean by this? The synthesis of opposing binaries will not be a mere equal-parts compromise!
5. Reality is One. Ideal reality, that is. There is also the hitherto, material reality, which is dualistic because it's fed by illusions about the Real created by the weak Being between the ages of 3 and 8. So, in the material world, dualisms exist. People are either Good or Bad. In the Ideal world, only Good and only Truth exists, because Good is Truth and Truth is Good, and falsity doesn't exist, because again, monism, only Truth exists and falsity (the absence of Truth) doesn't exist, because... it's absent. This is literally Plato, guys. And it's True!

II.
The Practice of Pneumatism

39. Pneumatism/Pneumaticism/Pneumatics is at heart an economic system, pragmatically it is a political ideology/theory, and also functions as a theory of sociology, philosophy, history, religion and the future.
40. Referring the Fifth Axiom: in the material world, Humanity is divided into 4 categories: people with a strong sense of Self (Being, or Dasein) who are Good and people with a strong sense of Self who are Evil & people with a weak sense of Self who are Good, and people with a weak sense of Self who are Evil.
41. To practice Pneumatism, as a Pneumatic/Pneumatist, is to first find likeminded people (hereafter referred to as Pneumatics or Pneumatists), and then work together for the betterment of Humanity to help achieve the ideal world in the material world, thus bringing the ideal world to reality by realizing the monistic doctrine of Pneumatism.
42. As a Pneumatic, you need to find likeminded people, Pneumatics, because that in itself is a Pneumatic activity, it acts like a springboard for action. Synchronicity & synergy in political Praxis.
43. To find Pneumatics, you will first have to practice Pneumatic morality and learn to distinguish the Good from the Bad. Important distinction. People with a weak sense of Self are not necessarily Evil. Likewise, people with a strong sense of Self are not necessarily Good—in fact usually they aren't! People with a weak sense of Self are more often Good than people with a strong sense of Self, because people with a strong sense of Self, regardless of morality, attain power over people with a weak sense of Self, and power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely).

14. If monism is true, then all binaries are always wrong. If dualism is true, then no unifying theory is possible and philosophy is useless (Wittgenstein: "philosophy is either obvious or useless" nonetheless, Wittgenstein's failure in actually constructing a sensible Tractatus does not mean it's impossible, this line of thinking does not track and Wittgenstein's nihilistic approach to philosophy is a failure)
15. We can either construct a monist or a dualist theory of history. In the last 14 points I've laid out why a dualist theory of history is doomed to fail. How to construct a monist theory of history?
16. The Self/Being (Dasein) is everything to history.
17. The study of history reveals that the evolution of history is really just the evolution of the Being.
18. The evolution of the Being is impacted by just 2 environmental factors: (1) the physical size of his community (2) the set of information carried by this community. These 2 factors produce a varying number of pathways for the Dasein to self-actualize. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers had a limited number of pathways to self-actualize and were thus happier.
19. Technological progress is unstoppable. History proves that.
20. Attempts at reverting technological progress, or reverting to the primitive Dasein, are doomed from the start. It's a reactionary expression that does not lead anywhere productive.
21. Reactionary thought only leads to suffering, doubly so when it's coupled with a totalist mode of policing. Reactionary thought is the thought of the Nietzschean Last Man. Reactionary thought is an unconscious and unwitting replication of the master-slave paradigm, a paradigm which does not lead to a reduction of suffering for anyone.
22. The status quo is always bad. Until it isn't. And you must always fight to change it. Until you don't. But we're not there yet. That moment is called post-scarcity. We have not achieved it yet. That's why we suffer. We live in a world of scarce resources and near-infinite information on how to obtain them. This creates schizophrenic potential for the post-modern Dasein.
23. The master-slave paradigm serves to at best continue the status quo, at worst change it into something much worse.
24. If the future must be harmonious for it to exist at all (fig. 6), how to envision it? Most important crises for the post-post-modern Dasein must be identified (this is the moment we're in right now: the metamodern moment). The crises are the following from most important to least & each follow the former: (I) the national identity crisis, (II) the personal identity crisis, (III) the demographic crisis, (IV) the climate crisis, (V) the authoritarian crisis (it's a master-slave-paradigm-replicatory crisis in general), (VI) wealth inequality

start with the sour Krauts

>>20591227
Kneel

Did /lit/ enjoy reading the Phenomenology of Spirit?

Please leave and never return if you agree with any of the following;

>you believe 'the author is dead'
>you think fantasy, science fiction, detective fiction, young adult fiction or horror are literature
>you barely know your classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
>you speak a single language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
>you read for the plot
>you read for entertainment
>you rarely read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>you do not at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon (muh african authors)
>you mostly read contemporary literature
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
>your rarely read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme are just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

This is a board about literature. You're not welcome here. Please take your plebeian garbage to /b/ or reddit, where you will find both a demographic and a general atmosphere more consistent with your tastes and your culture.

As a strong non-Hegelian, what did this guy even believe? Can someone give a quick summary?

What the fuck is Hegel talking about? I can't even find any books talking about the triangle analogy.

>The Greek world developed thought as far as to the Idea; the Christian Teutonic world, on the contrary, has comprehended Thought as Spirit; Idea and Spirit are thus the distinguishing features. More particularly the facts are as follows. Because God, the still undetermined and immediate Universal, Being, or objective Thought, jealously allowing nothing to exist beside Him, is the substantial groundwork of all Philosophy, which never alters, but ever sinks more deeply within itself, and through the development of determinations manifests itself and brings to consciousness, we may designate the particular character of the development in the first period of Philosophy by saying that this development is a simple process of determinations, figurations, abstract qualities, issuing from the one ground that potentially already contains the whole.

>The second stage in this universal principle is the gathering up of the determinations manifested thus, into ideal, concrete unity, in the mode of subjectivity. The first determinations as immediate, were still abstractions, but now the Absolute, as the endlessly self-determining Universal, must furthermore be comprehended as active Thought, and not as the Universal in this determinate character. Hence it is manifested as the totality of determinations and as concrete individuality. Thus, with the nous of Anaxagoras, and still more with Socrates, there commences a subjective totality in which Thought grasps itself, and thinking activity is the fundamental principle.

>The third stage, then, is that this totality, which is at first abstract, in that it becomes realized through the active, determining, distinguishing thought, sets itself forth even in the separated determinations, which, as ideal, belong to it. Since these determinations are contained unseparated in the unity, and thus each in it is also the other, these opposed moments are raised into totalities. The quite general forms of opposition are the universal and the particular, or, in another form, Thought as such, external reality, feeling or perception. The Notion is the identity of universal and particular; because each of these is thus set forth as concrete in itself, the universal is in itself at once the unity of universality and particularity, and the same holds good of particularity. Unity is thus posited in both forms, and the abstract moments can be made complete through this unity alone; thus it has come to pass that the differences themselves are each raised up to a system of totality, which respectively confront one another as the Philosophy of Stoicism and of Epicureanism. The whole concrete universal is now Mind; and the whole concrete individual, Nature.

Do the shapes of consciousness actually develop imminently? If so, what is the significance of this w/r/t the materialism-idealism debate?

Pure cancer

Why read other philosophers when I could just read the greatest one of all time?

>“We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”
gee thanks

>>20209745
That is the joy of the most marvelous dialectic. The only thing Hey is for Horses Girl pic related got right was bitchy arguments ruling the will of the world SOVL

What the fuck does he mean by "Desire"?

How do I become god? I don't want becoming; I want being. I don't want to have to read books. I don't want to be limited by time and space. I don't want to be limited by anything. I want pure freedom. I want every informational possibility contained within myself and I want it right now. What are some literature on how to remove all metaphysical constraints and become identical with the Absolute?

Was he the best troll in history?

Seriously, is that guy a troll or what?

Is Hegel a fucking troll?

He wasn't a philosopher-. He was a fucking sage.