/lit/ - Literature

>>20570583
read it with kojeve and yes to all three

>>20570585
>yes to all three
wdym?

>>20570598
እግዚአብሔር ትቶናል። እንጸልይ

>>20570608
can you rephrase? i am anti semetic.

>>20570583
just read the preface

>>20570583
>will that change be a redpill, a blackpill or a whitepill?
just straight up kill yourself i think

>>20570653
hey man thats the most consice way to put it. i wanted it to be a neat and compact OP. i can elaborate but because you are posting on 4chan i can also just call you a newfag if you dont know what those phrases mean.

>>20570583
It will do nothing but confuse you. Just think, it has never been explained in normal language by people who have read it. They can only describe it through the vocabulary it presents. So are they actually understanding anything, or are they just learning a vocabulary? Are people really getting information from it, recontextualizing it in different vocabularies, and applying it to new situations? No. Scholars who study it for a living can't even agree if Hegel's progressions are logical, determined by a rule, loosely determined by some sort of rule of thumb, or just a story. The best people can do is dogmatically force an ill-fitting interpretation on it to pretend they have understood it, when really the text has not taught them anything but merely returned the readers own forced ideas.
Was Hegel really influential? Was Nietzsche really influential? Or did people just want to appropriate their philosophies over and over again by forcing an ill-fitting interpretation on them?

>Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.

>>20570583
You won't understand any of it if you weren't meant to read it.

>>20570684
>schopie got filtered
lol

>>20570663
>Was Hegel really influential?
>Was Nietzsche really influential?
yes. even if incomprehensible garbage it still influenced thought. similarly, Ulysses and the Red Book are schizoaffective ramblings but they still have made a massive impact on literature and modern thought. a broken, or near broken mind seems to be the grandest tree for the ripest fruits. you simply need to pluc them before they become rancid.
>So are they actually understanding anything, or are they just learning a vocabulary?
they are gaining an understanding of SOMETHING, who gives an entire fuck if its the text in question.
>etting information from it, recontextualizing it in different vocabularies, and applying it to new situations?
i think the text is too young to be truly applied to new situations. but perhaps thats an argument for another day.

>>20570583
The people that were inspired by it ended up retarded, do you want that?

>>20570708
You missed the point of what I said. People are *using* these texts by *appropriating* them with their own thoughts, and not learning from them.

>>20571515
Is that a bad thing? Tonally it seems like you're saying it bad that this is happening.

>>20571537
It is bad in that it distracts the person trying to actually learn by focusing their attention on the most unintelligible and inconclusive texts.

>>20570684
if youre a fag that thinks its badass to shop sunglasses on the original depressed incel then you're ngmi through hegel

>>20570585
Fpbp

>>20572265
Lmao

over the pandemic i spent serious effort trying to understand the miller translation. it took ~8 months to a year with a long gap around 300 or 400 paragraphs in. several things make the book challenging.
it is not written with respect for the reader. parts of it come across as autofiction. he sometimes speaks about specific examples using completely abstract language. if you don't have the example in mind as you read then his derivations will seem like they are coming out of nowhere/ass-pulls. it sometimes helps to read paragraphs aloud. the findlay analysis in the back is essential. it is like an "answer key" to each paragraph. sadler videos are nice but there is so much of them and they are so long that they are their own challenge to keep track of.

i think and write worse now because of this book's influence. it is a significant book. the idea that "the development of a thing can be seen as what is most essentially the thing itself" has been influential to me. the preface seems to be the most profound part but i cannot remember anything specific about it.

>>20572648
You think... Worse?? It turned you into a retard?

>>20570583
Hegel's phenomenology of spirit is basically the post-orgasm babbling of germany after napoleon.

>>20572648
huh?

>>20570583
There is no example of a normal Hegelian that is not a psycho or schizo. Reading this won't convert you into a Hegelian automatically but you need to be careful.

>>20570684
you literally just base your whole understanding of thinkers from memes. why are you even here? you dont read at all

>>20570627
ah, my apologies
1
121
12321
1234321
123454321
12345654321
1234567654321
123456787654321
1234567654321
12345654321
123454321
1234321
12321
121
1

>>20573065
kys

>>20572960
yeah i think it was a bad influence on the way i use language. infinite jest did the same

>>20570708
>but perhaps thats an argument for another day.
No, actually that’s an argument that you need to defend today.

>>20570684
Schopenhauer is the poor man's Buddha

>>20570663
This post makes Nietzsche look bad. Don't lump him in with Hegel.

>>20570583
Honestly I read it and I thought it he was just making a big convoluted argument for a panpsychial process philosophy. There are interesting parts but its not all that worth it really. Overhyped, maybe I've been filtered but I don't feel like I'm missing out on all that much.

I'm just gonna assume that anyone who claims that he understood a single word from that book is a pseud who understood nothing.

>>20574541
filtered? there are sections which are entirely and easily comprehensible.

>>20570684
Based, let the pseuds seethe

>>20570583
thinking in categories like those is the real sign of an internet-obsessed midwit. I suggest going outside instead

>>20570583
>redpill
the more you understand the phenomenology, the more you can see the precise philosopical contradictions within all other philosophies, and where they go wrong. Much of the confused debates and bickering between camps seems onesided and narrow minded
>black pill
Hegel calls this dialectical process the 'road of despair' or the 'labour of the negative', it is to see everything you thought you could trust vanish into thin air. to lose it all time and time again. To go through the development of spirit is witness its suffering.
>white pill
at the end, all is redeemed, not by ignoring or trivializing the suffering, but to realize it all as an act of love. The 'divine' knowledge attained is not that of an omniscient godhead, but that of Christ on the cross, suffering in absolute love for the world.

will understanding this book unlock my psychic powers?

The war two ideas is between a thing and its anti-thesis. One of them will win and beget its own anti-thesis which it will fight, again, one of them will win... this has existed since the dawn of time and the cycle will continues

>>20570585
this. i'm not even a hegelian, but kojeve's classes were very much informative.

>>20570583
its extremely lucid, but it stops where language stops, to explain stuff, and instead gestures towards where in the world our mind is in relation to itself and/or the other thing. i had a real nice dissociation when he brought me to the cusp of the two modes of mind that are always either/or

Subscribed.

>>20575333
it will unblock you psychotic powers

>>20573177
1^2
11^2
111^2
1111^2
11111^2
etc...

>>20572265
It's not badass. It's b0ss

>>20572538
Roflcopter even.

>>20575019
>final message is "just trust God, Bro"
The writers really ran out of ideas.

I'm curious, how many people that have read Hegel or are interested in reading him have also read Descartes, Leibniz, Kant– have a general understanding of modern philosophical thought? Additionally, have a general understanding of Aristotle, Plato and pre-Socratic thought? I can't imagine trying to read Hegel without for instance having read Descartes, or knowing the problems of the CPR, Plato's dialogues, Aristotle's metaphysics. I like to imagine that people don't attempt to read a text such as this without having at least having given themselves a good background to what it's trying to build off of.

>>20570583
if you dont take it seriously and just treat it as an attempt at making sense of old ancient language ceramic tablets, then it wont change anything. If youre easily influenced then, well too bad, youll be synthesized.

>>20570583
Use this anon. It will keep you safe

>>20573996
The aphoristic style does lead to genuine learning, but it also leads to heavy appropriation due to the lack of a clear organization of the elements of his thought. Nietzsche agreed with this, see his writings on degeneracy of style in The Case of Wagner.

>>20572648
>i think and write worse now because of this book's influence.
J.S. Mill said this is why he didn't read Hegel. Due to the paradoxical presentation, he said it would lead to damaging his ability to recognize logical errors.

>>20579081
That's just ascending beyond naive logic desu

>>20570708
>i think the text is too young to be truly applied to new situations
The text is nearly 200 years old, and intelligible information can be applied nigh immediately when the opportunity presents itself.

>>20578144
It seems to go without saying that you don't start with the phenomenology. That being said, not every part requires having read the whole philosophical cannon to digest. This is merely an excuse for unintelligibility. Even difficult books make different demands in different sections, and a requisite amount of philosophical and historical context should be sufficient to read and understand select sections.

>>20579083
One of the most stupid things I've ever read, congrats.

>>20570693
Memes upon memes. Nice bait kek.

>>20570583
I had a mental breakdown when I first picked up a Hegel's book at my library and really gave it my all to try to understand him, even though I was nowhere near prepared for a task like that. It wasn't even Phenomenology or Science of Logic. It's been a few years since that and I finished Phenomenology of Spirit and it's my favorite book I've ever read. Almost prophetic in nature, it is the most beautiful breaking of boundaries of language that has ever or ever will be written. You will never truly understand it, but that's not really a bad thing. Every time you look at it once again it will be like listening to a complex and beautiful song on a better and better equipment each time.
Anyway, that mental breakdown set me down the path of reading (western) philosophy from the beginning, mostly with the goal to get back to Hegel, and I'd say that it shaped me as a person more than anything else in my life.

>>20570583
>will this book change me at a fundamental level?
this book will teach you that nothing can change you at a fundamental level, only you by your on volition can let something create change wihin you

>>20570663
The specific vocabulary is there for a reason. When elaborating something or just mentioning it, it's much easier to say "being-for-us" than saying every time that an object has its existence even beyond its perceiving by any subject or consciousness which is being-for-us and that this "being-in-itself" it its truth.
It's nothing different than arguing with pop science loving retards that memorized some facts from reddit comments but cannot elaborate on them.
It's not the subject of the argument that's the problem, it's subject presenting the ideas in an argument (get it?), but it is sadly the truth that you will encounter pseudo-intellectual philosophers regurgitating already chewed interpretations of Hegel than anything else just because his system is so unfathomably complex.

>>20572648
>i think and write worse now because of this book's influence.
based

>>20578927
Don't lmao
I read it and it was more confusing that Phenomenology itself
Read it if you're really curious, but only after finishing PoS

>>20578121
No, God is a philosophically neccesary stage, but is only one of the stages of spirit, it is incomplete, it is not true love for the world to stand above it like a transcendent being and indifferently watch its suffering. To truly love the world is to affirm it fully, even its suffering. In Hegel's account of christianity, what is left after God dies on the cross is 'geist' i.e us, the people, the holy spirit. God is dead and we are his disciples.

>>20578144
You don't need to read the entire history of philosophy. You don't need to read anything or anybody before reading Hegel, not even Kant (although that miiight be a stretch, even for my point). The genius of Phenomenology is its presentation. Preface is incomprehensible, introduction is much better, but still hard, and then he starts the book with the absolutely most basic premise "imagine that the thing you're seeing it everything there is to it, here's why that's wrong" and it's so fucking beautiful.
I, of course, am not saying that you should start reading philosophy with Hegel, that's absolutely retarded (I speak for experience >>20580093), as all the other philosophers and philosophies are a necessary mental exercise before anything else.

>>20572648
>"the development of a thing can be seen as what is most essentially the thing itself"
hegel is a master for creating this completely mundane platitudes and thoughts and making them appear as magical and profound.

I've been reading this book on and off for over a year now and from my personal experience attempting to read the Preface with very little primer and limited prior experience in attempting to read philosophical works other than through secondary I got from libgen, I can say that what has helped me most in my attempt to parse this labyrinth was watching Greg Sadler's lectures on youtube. It was only with his lectures that I felt I was able to engage meaningfully with the text and although I haven't finished them I occasionally return to them. I really enjoyed the Preface, Introduction and the sections on Self Consciousness in particular but the other chapters I'll need to review, which is a point that I'd like to drive. In my opinion, this isn't a book you can simply just read and put down, it requires an occasional reread but over time, paragraphs become easier to read through and little blossoms eventually burst. I've started but haven't finished entirely a few books on secondary on this book in particular and so far the only one that's actually helped me think through his work has been Peter Kalkvage's the Logic of Desire.

I don't think I entirely "get" it, and I really don't know how many years of rereading it'll take to be able to read this at the highest levels, which is when you're able to read the Absolute Knowing section profitably and are capable of using that to bridge with the Science of Logic (and his lectures on World History), but after having gone through it at least once now with an honest attempt, I can safely say that I'm excited at the prospect of returning to it, especially after reading a couple other texts from the history of philosophy. I've found it very fun and rewarding to return to certain passages of his after reading a bit of Heraclitus and Spinoza, and I'm especially excited to return after I've been through a bit of Kant. I'm also quite curious about how differently I'll read the text after I've made it through Capital.

So far, it's only made me more enthusiastic about studying philosophy and I hope it has the same effect on you!

>>20572265
>incel
Schopenhauer was the furthest thing from an incel.

>Spirit is Subject
What a pointless observation.

>>20570585
I disagree. Kojeve denudes Hegel of some of his more important metaphysical content. I would pick Hackett's Hegel's Ladder if I had just one commentary, but I would add Kojeve too.

>>20580225
>>20580301
It's easy to quote a key statement made by any philosopher and say "wow, so mundane", but unless you give at least an explanation of what these apparently so simple and straightforward statements are actually saying, you'll always just come across as someone who got filtered.

>>20580201
"It is one thing for one who comes to it and to the sciences generally for the first time, and something else for one who returns to it from these sciences. He who is beginning to make his acquaintance with grammar finds in its forms and laws dry abstractions, arbitrary rules, quite in general a disconnected aggregate of definitions that have no other value or meaning than what they immediately signify; at the start, there is nothing to be known in them except themselves. On the other hand, he who has mastered a language and is also acquainted with other languages with which to compare it, to such is given the capacity to feel in the grammar of the language the spirit and culture of a people; the same rules and forms now have an enriched, living value. In the medium of the language, he can recognize the expression of spirit as spirit, and this is logic. So, he who first comes to this science, at first finds in logic an isolated system of abstractions which, confined to itself, does not reach over to embrace other forms of cognition and of science. On the contrary, when held against the riches of the world-scenario, against the apparently real content of the other sciences; when compared with the promise of the absolute science to unveil the essence of these riches, to unveil the inner nature of spirit and of the world, the truth, then in the abstractness of its shape, in the colorlessness and stark simplicity of its pure determinations; this science has rather the look of one who can sooner afford anything than any such promise but stands penniless before those riches."
Of course we start from absolute immediacy in the Phenomenology and to an extent this is a starting point which can be accessible to just about any background. Perhaps the Phenomenology is a more accessible work than the Logic in this regard. I however cannot imagine one reading the phenomenology with little background and feeling contented; I believe he will end up backtracking to fill in the gaps, or else be left pondering what lies before its exposition (and after it). There is no one path, so this is not necessarily a bad thing. But the path need be taken, even if it is a winding one.

Get this translation from Notre Dame Press directly. Just don't order from Amazon; the print on demand edition will fall apart in your hands immediately.

>>20570663
filtered. If you read the great works before Hegel it is actually not that hard to uunderstand him. Im currently reading him (the end of reason) and it is really not as unintelligeble as people make it out to be.

>>20580093
>Every time you look at it once again it will be like listening to a complex and beautiful song on a better and better equipment each time.
It is, may I say, the rogue like of philosophy?

>>20580093
>It wasn't even Phenomenology or Science of Logic. It's been a few years since that and I finished Phenomenology of Spirit and it's my favorite book I've ever read. Almost prophetic in nature, it is the most beautiful breaking of boundaries of language that has ever or ever will be written. You will never truly understand it, but that's not really a bad thing.
What a pseud. This brings to mind Nietzsche in The Case of Wagner talking about "the idea" with respect to germans. Exact same case with you.

>>20580144
I dont think you get it. Nobody even knows what the basics of Hegel's system is supposed to be. See my comment on how professional scholars can't even asnwer a basic question on Hegel's logic. There is only the "pop-sci" layer.

>>20578144
I've read them.

>>20580396
Oh, so please be the first to enlighten us on the true depth and profundity of those statements.

Look at all these psueds pretending they actually understand whatever psychobabble Hegel wrote to sound smart

>>20582408

Hegel is a fucking eejit because he doesn't believe in astrology when it is verfiably true and I have seen it work thousands of times through my own eyes (well you can't trust your senses anon xD - fuck off) that is my litmus test for a philosopher. Do they believe in astrology?
Kant also shows his stupidity in the preface to the critique of pure reason when he discounts magic and similar activities, and basically discounts spiritual perception, when they are also real.

>>20575019
>the more you can see the precise philosopical contradictions within all other philosophies,
The more you think you can see*

>>20582289
Suck his mustached dick somewhere else.
Although Nietzsche would fit in on /lit/ since, just like all of you, he's always trying to sound smart to compensate for *something*, while giving literally zero answers and solutions to questions and problems he's giving.

>>20582299
His system is very circular. That's a problem with learning him just as much as it is when presenting him.
Take for example the Phenomenology. It's his first grand work, but the preface, the first thing you read, is incomprehensible if you didn't already read the entire book. Why is it in preface then? It's almost like foreshadowing.

>>20584468
A preface or introduction for that matter is never written before the completion of the text. It would be akin to envisioning the completed text prior to any actual movement toward that end, tied to some vague intuition regarding the contents of the text. If such a thing is written succeeding the completion of a text, we can be assured that it is more comprehensive, more far reaching than the novice would be able to apprehend. Now, why is this a thing which frustrates, which might prevent you from reading the text in order to grasp its contents? There is certainly a turning back regarding such a preface, a return once the contents of the main work have been read. So, we return back on the preface and find in more than we would have as a novice. Perhaps the most interesting direction would be to read it as a novice and then return to it upon completion. It will show its brilliance to even the poorest of visions; once one has oriented himself, it shall shine brighter.

>>20585098
That's what I'm saying, it was a rhetorical question, faggot. Spend less time forming sentences and more actually reading them.
Preface to Phenomenology is infamous because it starts with a question about prefaces and their pointlessness in a philosophical work and then proceeding to be extremely complex and inevitably incomprehensible. And it is beautiful. If a preface or introduction was meant to be read after reading the rest of the book it wouldn't be a preface or introduction. Kant's introduction to first Critique is great because it explains many concepts (not in his sense) which you will need to understand the book. It is simple and it is effective - there's no need to read it after you complete the entire trilogy of Critiques.

Not that this necessarily legitimates my opinion, but I've cared enough about philosophy to have gotten an undergraduate and a graduate degree and for most of a decade have read philosophy almost daily, recent and old. I don't enjoy Hegel. To me, Hegel sucks to read. If it's the ideas you care about they can be better understood by other means. Tons of metaphor, nothing is straightforward. But people who like Hegel wouldn't have it any other way. That is the real attraction of Hegel. Philosophy people who like Hegel tend to act like they've got something really big figured out, but trust me when I tell you they'll either be unable to cogently express it or when they do you'll find that it could have been put plainly and that reading Hegel is one of the most difficult ways to arrive at an understand those ideas (rather than, say, reading a recent interpretation of Hegel (eg Sally Sedgwicks's). Hegel is one of those magnets for people who can't wait to act like they understand the big picture and who want to learn a bunch of impressive sounding jargon that can be quibbled over endlessly. You get to talk about the absolute or whatever. It sucks.

Lol isn't this book required high school curriculum reading in German schools?
Why is every acting like it's magical ancient language that holds the keys of the universe

>>20586218
Because that's all it's good for.

>>20586064
His very grandiose and beautiful language shows a clear influence by German romanticism. I don't need to understand him to enjoy reading him :)

are we all braindead?

>>20580348
could you elaborate more your point? i'm interested.

>>20586833
Sure

>>20572648
wow based

>>20584468
>Suck his mustached dick somewhere else.
>Although Nietzsche would fit in on /lit/ since, just like all of you, he's always trying to sound smart to compensate for *something*, while giving literally zero answers and solutions to questions and problems he's giving.
Did you even read what you just wrote about Hegel? Such clear cut projection.

>>20580815
Feel free to be the first to explain the simple Hegel, then, since the scholars who studied him for a living have been unable to pin down and agree upon basic facts about his logic.
The truth is it isn't that it's easy for you, you are just reading at a very low and passive level without asking questions.

>>20587716
Thank you for responding to this pseud so I don't have to. Took the words right out of my mouth.

I had a pretty nice life. Good job, high salary, wife, hobbies. This book specifically really kicked off my quitting my good paying job to make 1/4th as much as a philosophy candidate. I do but regret it at all (yet... lol).

I would say though that it's inaccessible in general, but particularly the Preface, and combines some of the most complex (and brilliant) ideas I've ever read, with, at times, egitimately the worst writing I've ever seen in a book that made it to print. Just absolute trainwreck run-on idea vomit. Parts were written by hand, in one draft, with a war going on so he had some excuse.

>>20582317
Not him, but you're the one advancing the negative claim that Hegel's work has no meaning, so you should be explaining why.

>>20587716
You read neither.

>>20570659
Jesus Christ seriously fucking kill yourself lmao
>redpill bluepill newfag
You're like a teenage Morphius
Get off this site and sort your life out, you need more than Hegel

Is Klaus Schwab a Hegelian? It seems like he's cut from the same cloth as other globohomo technocrat worshippers like Kojeve.

>>20588940
He is a Popperian, just like Soros.

>>20588898
Okay newfag.

If you want to go beyond getting your opinions on world events from memes and internet gossip, you could try reading Schwabs book. You can learn quite a bit about how these sorts of people think by reading the obscure books they publish, thinking that they'll only ever be read by other technocrats.

>>20570627
it means
>God has forsaken us. Let's pray
more or less, you cannot translate literally

>>20570708
>>20573969
>No, actually that’s an argument that you need to defend today.
agree

>>20570583
Is it worthy of being understood?

>>20572648
>i think and write worse now
sorry friend but you cant think wrong (hence you cant think worse), just more or less efficiently and/or effectively but not well or right or wrong

>>20573081
>psycho or schizo
what's wrong about them?

>>20575375
I actually wonder how true is that in reality.

>>20573236
have you any insights about why that happened to you or it's just a (maybe true) belief?

>>20589391
the joke is that it is in a Semitic language.

Look at all these psueds still pretending that they understand hegel's word diarrhea.

>>20570684
Schopenhauer was literally just butthurt because everyone preferred to attend Hegel's lectures instead of his. He is the archetype of the seething incel.

>>20580102
>volition
that's bullshit. You're no more than a convoluted flux of ideas, there isnt a you as an individual continuous coherent being, therefore there isnt any "your own volition" (you wrote on but im gonna assume that you meant own). So literally everything can -and, in fact, does- change you.

>>20580201
>I speak for experience
you speak from experience

>>20580275
based

>>20584468
>His system is very circular
though it being *very* circular, it should not be *absolutely* circular because, in that case, it would be empty

>>20579783
>Nice bait kek
And yet he still got you seething

>>20588940
Schwab in Czech literally means cockroach (šváb).

>>20570663
Hegel scholars most definitely agree on some key points. But yes, there are extremely varied views on Hegel. You can read that the entire core of the system is religious (e.g., Hackett), or you can hear that "there is no God in Hegel, even the theological writings," (e.g., Bernstein, whose lectures on PhS and Kant you can find for free at bernsteintapes.com).

This isn't the damning indictment you think it is. You need to understand Hegel in the context of Western philosophy. No one man so dominated all of philosophy at any other point aside from Aristotle during scholasticism. Much of thought was defined in terms of Hegel. You have right Hegelians, left Hegelians, Marxist readings, Christian readings. The battle over Hegel became quite important in contemporary thought and politics and led to radical rereadings.

It also meant that interpreters of Hegel were able to add much to, and take much away from his system, or change it, and create their own subset of study. So today, Hegel as Hegel saw his ideas is just one area of Hegel scholarship. Hegel as Marxists read him is an entirely different area, focusing on the historical ways in which Marxism read Hegel to come to their own conclusions (Marx himself saw his philosophy as an extension of Hegel, he having sublated him).

That his influence seems so much less today is more because the reaction against Hegel became such a strong force (but this still his Hegel influencing philosophy). Russell and logical positivism as a whole, with its huge influence on the philosophy of science (the "received view") and interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen) was a reaction against Hegelian influence. It was to clear philosophy from convoluted metaphysics they felt bordered on mysticism or meaninglessness. And so analytical philosophy too has roots with Hegel. The fact that it went so far on trying to expel metaphysics, to the extent that logical positivism became self refuting and produced the absolute incoherence of Copenhagen, is a direct result of attempts to ward off the ghost of Hegel.

Interestingly enough, with the big paradigm shifts of the past 50 years or so, chaos theory, information theory, and the elevation of semiotics / biosemiotics from the humanities to the physical sciences, Hegel had come back into science journals with avengence. The shelf producing dialectical is a very great innovation, whatever else can be said of his system, and represents a powerful tool.

So too, he's come back in the social science. Fukuyama made his fame essentially just restating a simplified (too simplified really) version of Hegel and throwing some modern case studies to go along with it.

He's getting play from physics journals looking at self-similarity and fractal recurrence to theology journals to political science to occult studies.

The old wizard won't stay dead.

That all said, there are core tenants people agree on. The SEP article on the dialectical is a good starting point.

>>20572648
>"the development of a thing can be seen as what is most essentially the thing itself"
sounds like literally plato but said in a dumb way

>>20580815
A big filter for Hegel is that people:

A. Want to jump in with no context or secondary guidance and so mistake passages aimed at his contemporaries as being something entirely different.

B. PhS is the most famous book so people start there. Of course this opens up on the incredibly rushed, brilliant, but also at times incoherent Preface, and they assume everything Hegel ever wrote must be like the Preface. Whereas Philosophy of History is fairly straight forward despite being composed of notes Hegel made for teaching. History of Philosophy and Philosophy of Right might also makes better starting points. But people like to plow into the Phenomenology or the Greater/Lesser Logic and get owned.

>>20590234
It isn't. Hegel has a novel and extremely neat solution to the nominalism vs realism (re: universals) divide and starts with the issue of universals/tropes and objects from the point of pure sense certainty and builds up from there. It is a very different approach from Plato.

Epistemologically, his "the truth is the whole," system, a premonition of the coherence definition of truth (though still very different) is also quite different from the Greeks, and holds up well over time in the context of discoveries in physics and the mathematics of the discrete (graph theory, etc.). It kind of points to the methods of simulation and problems of non-linearity, arbitrariness of systems, and sensitivity to initial conditions (chaos), that would come front and center 150 years later. Unfortunately, without microprocessors, methods couldn't really take up the philosophical implications for the sciences.

>>20575463
kojeve has a notoriously idiosyncratic reading of hegel. he's interesting but it isn't Hegel. not that that's a bad thing really.

>>20570583
You might attain Absolute Knowing, the first step to the attainment of the Absolute.

>>20590211
>All of the 20th century is an attempt to exorcise Hegel.
>21st century opens with the "rediscovery" of Hegel.

>>20591101

>>20570583
It’s Boehme-lite, which in turn is Ibn Arabi-lite

>>20570583
>objective negation leads to subjective synthesis with the extrinsic attribute of the Absolute
It's an immensely prolix setup for what you might find more directly in Vedic/original Buddhist (Brahmakaya) material. It's what you bring to it and your intentions and uses for the reading, as with anything. Go right ahead. Why not--

>>20570585
>>20580815
These

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIjEEG_o_XRqamupE-M5Fka-
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

>>20572648
>"the development of a thing can be seen as what is most essentially the thing itself"
A thing is essentially the development of itself? What does that mean

>...the fundamental guiding principle in Hegel's objective logic is the "unity of opposites."

>The basic idea of a unity of opposites is that in order to entertain any idea, you need to be able to entertain its opposite; otherwise, your idea is vacuous in the sense that it could apply to anything. In fact, Hegel's first unity of opposites is just that: the unity of the opposition between vacuity (applying to nothing) and tautology (applying to anything).

>This is his unity between Nothing and Being. He explains this as something like: to even talk of Nothing is to consider it as a thing, and to make it be. But it is a thing with no characteristics, a pure Being. On the other hand, pure Being has no characteristics either, it simply is; thus it is contentless, and therefore Nothing.

>Lawvere's interpretation of this opposition is to see Nothing as the initial object O and Being as the terminal object 1 since in a category of spaces -- e.g. a topos or at least an extensive category -- O is an empty space and 1 is a single point. These are opposite in the sense that they are distinct (and intuitively, very distinct), but are unified in that they are the left and right adjoints of the same functor.


https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2357569/can-you-explain-lawveres-work-on-hegel-to-someone-who-knows-basic-category-theo

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositions+as+types

>>20591242
Meant for >>20591218

See also:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHegel's%20dialectics%E2%80%9D%20refers%20to%20the,contradictory%20process%20between%20opposing%20sides.

Scholars often use the first three stages of the logic as the “textbook example” (Forster 1993: 133) to illustrate how Hegel’s dialectical method should be applied to his arguments. The logic begins with the simple and immediate concept of pure Being, which is said to illustrate the moment of the understanding. We can think of Being here as a concept of pure presence. It is not mediated by any other concept—or is not defined in relation to any other concept—and so is undetermined or has no further determination (EL §86; SL-M 82; SL-dG 59). It asserts bare presence, but what that presence is like has no further determination. Because the thought of pure Being is undetermined and so is a pure abstraction, however, it is really no different from the assertion of pure negation or the absolutely negative (EL §87). It is therefore equally a Nothing (SL-M 82; SL-dG 59). Being’s lack of determination thus leads it to sublate itself and pass into the concept of Nothing (EL §87; SL-M 82; SL-dG 59), which illustrates the dialectical moment.

But if we focus for a moment on the definitions of Being and Nothing themselves, their definitions have the same content. Indeed, both are undetermined, so they have the same kind of undefined content. The only difference between them is “something merely meant” (EL-GSH Remark to §87), namely, that Being is an undefined content, taken as or meant to be presence, while Nothing is an undefined content, taken as or meant to be absence. The third concept of the logic—which is used to illustrate the speculative moment—unifies the first two moments by capturing the positive result of—or the conclusion that we can draw from—the opposition between the first two moments. The concept of Becoming is the thought of an undefined content, taken as presence (Being) and then taken as absence (Nothing), or taken as absence (Nothing) and then taken as presence (Being). To Become is to go from Being to Nothing or from Nothing to Being, or is, as Hegel puts it, “the immediate vanishing of the one in the other” (SL-M 83; cf. SL-dG 60). The contradiction between Being and Nothing thus is not a reductio ad absurdum, or does not lead to the rejection of both concepts and hence to nothingness—as Hegel had said Plato’s dialectics does (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5)—but leads to a positive result, namely, to the introduction of a new concept—the synthesis—which unifies the two, earlier, opposed concepts.

>>20591272
This method also resolves the realism/nominalism conflict that had been one of, if not the largest problem in metaphysics for millennia.

>The concept of “apple”, for example, as a Being-for-itself, would be defined by gathering up individual “somethings” that are the same as one another (as apples). Each individual apple can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to an “other” that is the same “something” that it is (i.e., an apple). That is the one-sidedness or restrictedness that leads each “something” to pass into its “other” or opposite. The “somethings” are thus both “something-others”. Moreover, their defining processes lead to an endless process of passing back and forth into one another: one “something” can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to another “something” that is the same as it is, which, in turn, can be what it is (an apple) only in relation to the other “something” that is the same as it is, and so on, back and forth, endlessly (cf. EL §95). The concept of “apple”, as a Being-for-itself, stops that endless, passing-over process by embracing or including the individual something-others (the apples) in its content. It grasps or captures their character or quality as apples. But the “something-others” must do their work of picking out and separating those individual items (the apples) before the concept of “apple”—as the Being-for-itself—can gather them up for its own definition. We can picture the concept of Being-for-itself like this

>>20591286
BTW, a solid mathematical model of this, with progressions of the dialectical instead of a route database of definitions, when combined (necessarily) with a working definition of relative synonymity would allow us to:

A. Have a working definition of complexity, one that isn't just "not too ordered or too high entropy, networked, but not overly so, dynamic, robust to changes, and... uh, like porn, you know it when you see it...."

B. Would allow for the use of information theory in physics to flow naturally into information theories use in far-from equilibrium systems (namely life), and up from biochemistry and genetics into all of biology and from there into higher level disciplines.

A sort of grand unification of information eludes us because defining fractal recurrence of the same information (as encoded) can't be done systematically, nor can one untangle the issues surrounding what is a channel, what is a message, and what is an interpretant (semiotic relations) in any given process. Converting Hegel's Dialectical, Pierce's Triangle, and Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness in an effective formalism opens up the possibility of a sort of grand unification.

That might be too much to hope for, but a good enough formalism would still be absolutely huge for the sciences and would break apart the horrendous silos wherein "information" and entropy are defined and operationalized differently by each subfield, preventing theorization across borders we know should be possible.

>>20570583
Does Hegel say anything that Plato didn't already say?

>>20570684
A cunt as usual. Rather a painful truth than a dreamers deluge though; when it comes to philosophy mind you. If your philosophy is not a dead end but a tool box, as Deluze stated, then you end up becoming a poets bin and another philosophers pointless jettie. Hegel, against his intention, has been so plundered by every philosopher since that his universal system has become the opposite: a heterogenous outgrowth of conflicting interpretations. Who cares for Hegel as Hegel?

Shop is very different: he writes a system where most his disciples will not, pessimism doesn't suit a system of thought being obviously hypocritical in its assertions about life, and this system will be pointlessly defended by him over his life.

I come to philosophy for the characters and Shop's one of the funniest: he spent his adult life arguing that life is intrinsically blind of its own course. What a life.

Hegel's system is impressive but the man alas is boring. Zizek and the rest can dish their Hegel up because Hegel the man is so characterless he can be over written like that.

>>20591365
for one the dialectic of hegel is not the dialectic of plato, one which would end in aporia
otherwise, not a worthwhile concern

>>20588264
Is it true understanding Hegel is like losing your virginity for the second time?

i regret making this thread.

>>20591159
Boehme can’t be reduced further, there is a lot of shit in his readings.

>>20592821
Better.

>>20570659
>Overcompensating newfriend
You're at least not from this board

>>20593106
true this is not my native board. but theres nothing wrong with being nice :)

>>20593116
I'm not the guy above, but we don't really take to foreigners around here. /pol/tards and /r9k/cels you know. Nobody who has anything between their ears like racists and incels.

>>20593138
/pol/ and its consequences have been a disaster for this site.

>>20593156
Truly

I only read Taylor's commentary but pretty much agree with his assessment that's it's all speculative nonsense of the kind that Kant specifically attacked. A self-posited spirit, really?

It's all very "clever" but in a fictional world building speculative sense. There's not much to be gained other than the historical context unless this kind of thing entertains you.

>>20593138
We really do, in fact you outed yourself as the stranger here. Go kill an arab somewhere else.

>>20570583
>of spirit
So it's bunch of bullshit.

>>20593588
>I read one guy who was filtered, not even Hegel, so it's all nonsense.

>>20572648
>i think and write worse now because of this book's influence
Lol, hegeltards.

>>20570583
Just understand how Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis works, how the Mind works in the samw way (and how society is controlled in the dame way by providing Thesis and Antithesis and letting your Mind fill in the blanks)

>>20594716
Judging by your post, the blanks are in your head.

>>20570583
1. Yes.
2. Whitepill.
3. Captain Underpants and the Attack of the Talking Toilets

Google "Hegel Information Theory," and look at the top result, a 399 page "paper" if you want to see how Hegel's toxic mental venom took an MIT and Harvard engineer doing useful stuff and turned him into a schizo filling out reams of paper on Hegel's Logic and imagined connections to obstruse mathematics and logical formulations, physics, and information theory.

There are many such cases. Solid STEM folks, particularly physicists and mathematicians somehow being duped into the black hole of Hegel's nonsense schizo salad.

>>20595360
His political influence is no less dire. He's considered the grandfather of communism, fascism, and modern liberal democracy.Also liberal theology. Just think about what those three have done to the world. And they have all tried to stand holding the banner of "Hegel said so," above their heads despite being diametrically opposed foes. Pure mind venom.

>>20595360
>>20595377
How can one man be so based?

>>20572265
>making it through Hegel
Lol, lmao

what would hegel think of postmodernism, how does it fit into the dialectic?

>>20595360
I have distinct impression that people who pursue philosophy, particularly metaphysics are STEM rejects who have the mindset for analytics but are not educated or intelligent enough to do complex mathematics.

This is particularly true for schizos who actually try to make sense of Hegel's word salad

>>20595561
Salad is good for you.

>>20570585
Why? Honestly curios.

>>20595561
This is wrong though because a lot of the folks in philosophy of x subject already got their PhDs in said subject. For example, quantum foundations is full of people who were very successful in physics and could obviously do the math to get into and through top physics programs, and then turned to philosophy.

On the flip side, people on the philosophy side who get seriously into the philosophy of physics or the philosophy of neuroscience have to become essentially specialists in those fields.

That said, what you're describing might be more true for your sort of run of the mill philosophers whose career paths are pretty much to learn philosophy, write some iterative papers on hot topics, and teach philosophy.

This might describe me. I've never been great at mathematics, although I feel a large part of this has to do with going to an inner city school system where freshmen classes would be around 1,100 kids and 225 would graduate four years later. Hard to care about geometry with gang bangers around and math was always taught as this totally disconnected thing we had to do to pass a state test.

I took two STEM majors in undergrad and did fine enough there but I have these huge gaps in basic math such that I was 99th percentile on the GRE for verbal (higher since I had 170 and 168 started the top percentile that year) and 70th for math, which is shocking to me because I recall very little geometry or algebra. But I tested into the "advanced" track for quantum in my field at an elite school and did fine. I later was very successful in a finance position, then left for a startup and learned to code (basically automating the deputy city manager for finance job I had held).

I really don't like my work and am thinking of going back to school to study, and Hegel is my favorite philosopher. But it's like a 75% pay cut for funded PhDs because they pay less than $40,000 a year ago IDK if I can actually do it.

Whole point being, even if you're not incredibly gifted with mathematics doesn't mean you can't master very difficult mathematics for specific areas if you can understand the logic and semantic framing of the math. Indeed, I've worked with people whose mathematical acumen almost seems to hurt their analysis because they miss the essential questions and framing for the complexities of the analysis or brilliance of a coding solution.

But maybe part of the issue is that we think of visio-spatial IQ as "math IQ," and verbal-logical as "verbal IQ." It isn't really, the latter is more predictive of success in academia for most fields. Logic is a huge part of math.

Obviously visio-spatial too. When people talk about intuiting chaos theory and fractal self similarity from the "shape" of the math, I honestly don't know what the fuck they are talking about. When I create ETL pipelines and write SQL, M, etc. I joke that the data always looks like a rectangle the size of my screen. Visualizing my relationships? I just look at them in text lol.

>reading Hegel
Le shiggy biggy no diggy

>>20596778
I'm sorry I just can't take anyone seriously who claims to understand hegel.

>>20596905
Plenty of Hegel's ideas are quite understandable. Certainly not all of them, there is some obscurity for sure, but there is plenty there to take away.

>>20590211 has it right in that a big part of the confusion on Hegel comes from people not being clear on if they are doing an analysis of Hegel or the Marxist Hegel, or X Hegel, etc.

It's sort of like the huge variety you get with different types of Platonism. At first it seems like this Plato must have been fully of mysticism, but also very logical, but also an anti-realist, etc. It makes more sense when you realize Plato has multiple periods, with his thought changing across them, and that Platonism represents hundreds of years of tradition where people took the core ideas in different directions.

Unfortunately, whereas we have had centuries to sort out Plato, and now call a group of writings "middle Platonism," or another "neo-Platonic" even if all the authors, voicing disparate opinions, all say they are just "interpreting Plato."

Unfortunately, the Hegelianism has not been adequately separated from Hegel yet.

>>20596905
>I'm sorry I just can't take anyone seriously who claims to understand hegel.
>i dont believe you. hey basically im just not gonna take it (you seriously) i know... UGH i know... im sorry!!!!! its just that im not gonna take it is all hahahahahahahah

>>20597233
>Plenty of Hegel's ideas are quite understandable. Certainly not all of them, there is some obscurity for sure, but there is plenty there to take away.

Have you ever read phenomenology? There's no coherence. Every paragraph sounds like ramblings of a drunken schizo madman.
>>20598454
I'm sorry anon you had to be this way.

>>20598534
the midwit namefag who is diggin himself deeper in to his pride of being filtered hard. no wonder you are a materialist lmao

>>20595360
Holy based Hegel neurowizard

>>20598534
Have you? The sense certainty chapter is fine.

>>20598565
I take no pride in not understanding PhS. But after reading that I'm quite certain that a pseud like you doesn't either.

>no wonder you are a materialist lmao
How's the occult practice treating you anon. Managed to summon any succubus yet? XD

>>20598735
Couldn't get past the preface. None of the sentences make any sense.

>>20598534
>Have you ever read phenomenology? There's no coherence. Every paragraph sounds like ramblings of a drunken schizo madman.
They hated him because he told them the truth.
If Hegel was alive today he'd be an /x/schizo reposted on Reddit for karma. Don't misunderstand me there is certainly value to Philosophy which allows you to project your own mental picture onto the text but is intellectually much poorer than anons here claim.

>>20591350
>creating a formalization of triadic processes of pierce
do you have a discord? Im literally doing this exact thing, and i need someone to bounce ideas off of.

>>20598797
>Couldn't get past the preface.
>claims teh whole book is unintelligable
the preface literally warns you in the first paragraph that its not worth reading.
>Further, in the case of such an aggregate of information [...] an opening talk about aim and other such generalities is usually conducted in the same historical and uncomprehending way in which the content itself is spoken of. in the case of philosophy [...] this would give rise to the incongruity that along with wiith the employment of such a method its inability to grasp the truth would be demonstrated.
to put it in simpler terms for you. summarizing the book in a preface would either be the entirety of the book itself or not be a good enough explanation to explain what the book will be about. he is literally saying you have to read the whole book to understand the preface.

>>20570583
Unironically, how does this relate to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations?

>>20598898
>the preface literally warns you in the first paragraph that its not worth reading.

Tried the introduction too. Still schizo babble.

Plus if this is how he says "preface is hard lol" then imagine how he'll conway complex idea(which I'm quite certain are free flow thought ramblings his brain came up with)

>>20599005
i put it insimpler terms because you think its hard. im literate. you should try it.

>>20586064
So who do you read? And how do you explain the continuing relevance of German Idealism in international scholarship? All you have are stereotypes and vague claims with no substance, a form of argumentation you claim is Hegelian

>>20599005
Introduction is great. It's a breeze after the preface and it prepares you well enough for the rest of the books explaining some basic ideas. Beginning of Consciousness is even better asking you no more than to take what you see/experience at face value and assume that that's the entire thing and its truth.
Too many people on here take pride in their intellect (or illusion of it) since it take no physical effort and things like philosophy can really be stretched to still consider yourself smart (even when you're just taking already-chewed opinions and interpretations), but still don't want to put in effort to read Hegel so they just write him off as meaningless schizo to protect their pride. It's hilarious.
But hey, it's June I guess.

>>20599062
Its not hard its stupid. Either the guy really can't write or he's deliberately trying to obfuscate inorder to sound sophisticated or the translator sucks . You wouldn't have to put it in simpler terms if he did it himself. My point still stands.

But yeah, not gonna stop pseuds from pretending they are smart because they think they understand obscure rants.
>>20599305
>>Beginning of Consciousness is even better asking you no more than to take what you see/experience at face value and assume that that's the entire thing and its truth.

Ok maybe I'll try first chapter to see if it gets any better.

>Too many people on here take pride in their intellect (or illusion of it) since it take no physical effort and things like philosophy can really be stretched to still consider yourself smart (even when you're just taking already-chewed opinions and interpretations

I make no claim to intellect. Especially in the context philosophy lol because such a claim would be vacous in this field anyway.

>but still don't want to put in effort to read Hegel so they just write him off as meaningless schizo to protect their pride.

I write what I see. And I can see now that pseuds really love to pretend that they understand word diarrhea

>>20599369
>Ok maybe I'll try first chapter to see if it gets any better.
If you're reading it out of context and only to see "if it gets any better" you won't understand a thing and will complain the same.
Who would've thought that a complex philosophical system complete by itself can't be understood by skimming some pages out of context :)

>>20599305
>Too many people on here take pride in their intellect (or illusion of it) since it take no physical effort
That's the good thing about intellect; if you have to strain very hard to think then you can pretty much be certain you're incorrect about whatever it is you're thinking of.

>>20599853
>if you have to strain very hard to think then you can pretty much be certain you're incorrect about whatever it is you're thinking of.
t. midwit.

>>20599865
Struggling to think or explain the validity of concepts without jargon is a telltale mark of midwittery unfortunately. Chess is completely different to philosophy because it is competitive and does not rely on abstract thought, only adversarial (predictive/empirical) executive decision making.

>>20599883
we are talking about intellect you 4 year old.

>>20599853
I meant physical effort in the most literal sense.

>>20599886
And?
>>20599888
Coming to correct conclusions does not necessitate physical effort.

>>20599883
>and does not rely on abstract thought
t. chesslet
dude just admit you are retarded and get over it.

>>20572648
thread should've ended here

>>20599899
If you can't understand the difference between chess and conceptual thought you are not going to make it.

>>20599910
if you cant understand the connection between chess and abstract thought you already didnt make it.
further, if you cannot understand the difference between conceptual thought and abstract thought, then ywnbam

>>20599896
You're an idiot. Go do something physical like running, you're too stupid to understand a single sentence.

>>20580693
ngl browsing the PDF this feels pretty legible though I assume the purists will seethe at the translators substituting "Absolute" for "absolute truth" etc

>>20599915
>if you cant understand the connection between chess and abstract thought you already didnt make it.
I never said there wasn't a connection. Learn to read a little better.
>>20599920
I'm unsure why you're becoming irrationally aggressive. It seems like it's because you have nothing to say in defence of your conflation of chess and conceptual thought. I'll spell the difference out for you in extremely simple terms: In chess there is no objectively correct move, in conceptual thought there is am objectively correct answer to any question.

>>20599936
I never mentioned chess :)

>>20599825
>If you're reading it out of context and only to see "if it gets any better"

Well then where do I get the context? All I ask when I open a book is that the author convey his ideas as clearly as possible without compromising the complexity of the subject matter. Instead what I get is this <---

>>20599941
Then you're still wrong because discovering truth is not dependent upon physical effort.

>>20599955

>>20599955
By reading the first 371 paragraphs.

>>20599959
That's what I said you idiot. Also I was talking about the pride in (supposed) intellect, not the ability to 'derive objective truth' or anything similar.

>>20599955
honestly this is indefensible if you compare it with this version >>20580693 I couldn't tell you it's the same text (it is)

>>20599955
Not even a Hegel fag but this is just saying that moralists who moralize based on sentimental factors stemming from a feeling of self-diminution, like Christians and socialists, basically negate their own success by universalizing their moral systems and making reality (mainly the state and direct environment) reflect their own moral beliefs. They end up feeling estranged from their own world after they make it reflect their own beliefs.

>>20600005
gee I wonder why he didn't write it like that then?
Oh yeah because he probably meant something else or he's a schizo

>>20570583
It sets up the western philosophy/science into diving deeper into the ancient Buddhist/Hindu insight.

As Descarte was a generational leap from Greeks and Kant was a generational leap from Descarte, Hegel is a generational leap from Kant. Furthermore, Husserl is a generational leap from Hegel. By generational, I meant in leaps of understanding the human cognition and mind.

The underlying modern psychology rests upon what these guys have worked to build. Its a very deep understanding of how the mind works, while not as sophisticated as the Buddhists/Hindus, its gets good chunk of it.

But ultimately, you need to understand that western understanding of the mind has been shifting away from the ancient greeks and into the ancient indian line of understanding. So along the way as you read those, some parts wont be completely satisfactory because the shifts aren't complete and there are missing pictures here/there.

I bring up the buddhist/hindu insights because they're key/critical dialogue needed in understanding the human mind as the debate about the nature of human mind has been played out extensively in those indian traditions, its not just "buddhim vs hindu" but rather buddhists vs buddhists and hindus vs hindus. Its an overarching debate throughout the philosophical tradition.

>>20574464
You're missing the big picture for the trees. He's setting up for a pansychism, but thats not the point. Panpsychism isn't the only conclusion that can be drawn from it. Its popular, but its not the only one. Whats more important is the underlying principles which lays the ground works for future philosophers to build up upon.

>>20600517
Furthermore, the whole thing leads forward into the modern Derrida/structuralism/post-structuralism debate as well. Its important to understand the sequences of events in which these philosophers are responding to one another and one upping one another.

Hegelians ironically don't have a soul.

>>20570583
No it will not, Hegel in the introduction says that its not edifying. If you see it as a "pill" of any kind you didn't understand it, like most larpers in the replies

I’m in love with Hegel

>>20596778
Will learning Hegel help me to optimize my databases? How does he relate to programming?

I hate Hegel

>>20599883
Don’t try to learn coding, too much “jargon”.

>>20600517
>Husserl
Where do I start with him?

>>20570663
Everything could be an “ill-fitting interpretation” including how I read your reply. That’s almost a given with any language.

>>20591462
The course of history only continues to prove Schop right, meanwhile all the dialectics amount to schizo babble used to justify pouring books and maintaining the status of academicians.