/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16711634]

>To our less philosophical readers, for example, it is now clear that the so passionate Teufelsdrockh precipitated through "a shivered Universe" in this extraordinary way, has only one of three things which he can next do: Establish himself in Bedlam; begin writing Satanic Poetry; or blow out his brains.

[Anonymous No.16711656]

>If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

>Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.

[Anonymous No.16711689]

>>16711656
That's a bit mean on ol' Hegel isn't it? I mean Hegel had his flaws, but his significant contributions can't be denied. Just as those of Schopenhauer cannot be denied.

[Anonymous No.16711713]

>>16711689
>but his significant contributions can't be denied.
Maybe, but what are those contributions? I think he ultimately did more damage than good.

[Anonymous No.16711751]

>>16711713
And what damage did Hegel do? Considering this is a Carlyle thread, I will say that to look at history, any event in it, as merely "a series of mistakes" is extraordinarily reductive both in understanding history and the mind viewing it. In the furthest effective and worst case, it renders the individual ineffective and like a sheep watching the grass burn up. If a man thinks he has something brilliantly true, he should say it. No doubt Schopenhauer got quite a lot out of those post-Kant German Idealists which he trashes. No philosopher operates the same after them.

I mean, do you really think Schopenhauer's bitterness to Hegel and the likes came from pure philosophical conclusion, or the more likely just a personal dislike? If we think Schopenhauer said those things out of a philosophical spirit, we would be insulting his intellectual earnestness.

Hegel's life achievements taken as present collected fact, that is quite an achievement, one of genius and brilliance, because obscurity is not achievement. At least Carlyle thought so.

[Anonymous No.16711789]

>>16711751
>And what damage did Hegel do?
I suppose it depends on your perspective, but I would call spawning marxism and postmodernism serious damage. Discussions of this sort are usually not fruitful as both sides are very unlikely to change their minds, so I don't wish to start a full scale debate. But to merely answer your remarks, I highly doubt Schopenhauer took anything from Hegel. I would grant you Schelling (as he talks of him favorably), though the influence of Fichte was of the negative sort (he used to come up with counter arguments against his then-lecturer Fichte in student days). I would attentively read your arguments if you could track something in Schopenhauer that he got from Hegel.
>because obscurity is not achievement.
Does this mean any entertainer, pop-philosopher, charlatan or sophist who manages to capture the attention of the crowd is more accomplished than a philosopher who doesn't? I believe Plato would have a thing or two to say about that.

[Anonymous No.16711830]

>>16711789
>but I would call spawning marxism and postmodernism serious damage.
And what about Fascism? Even Analyticism Hegel influenced, and of course Hegel had a large influence on much other than Marxism and Postmodernism in general. What was it that Nietzsche said again? Something like "Goethe, Hegel, Schopenhauer; those Germans fought with each other like only brothers could". There's also that quote by him "We Germans are Hegelian, even if there had never been any Hegel, in so far as we (unlike all Latins) instinctively attribute a deeper meaning and a greater value to becoming [...] than to what 'is' - we hardly believe in the justification of the concept of 'being.'" Not even speaking of particular ideas, but Hegel as the intellectual spirit of the age, Schopenhauer no doubt took after, and I do mean directly from the source. I'm sure Schopenhauer read all of Hegel's works, the world was not the same after, and I Schopenhauer was not intellectually, though emotionally he may well have been no different.

>Does this mean any entertainer, pop-philosopher, charlatan or sophist who manages to capture the attention of the crowd is more accomplished than a philosopher who doesn't?
No, that's what I was saying. I was agreeing that obscurity is obviously not philosophy, but taking the life's achievement of Hegel, it is not mere obscurity.

[Anonymous No.16711878]

>>16711830
I don't believe fascism was under the direct influence of Hegel (or any philosopher), unlike marxism. Indeed you mention analytic philosophy, it is well known that early analytics had a strong dislike or rather contempt towards any sort of metaphysics because of the common Hegelianism in their day. Bertrand Russell himself was a Hegelian in his youth and later very ashamed of the fact. It was only in the recent decades that analytic philosophy has started recovering from that attitude and embracing metaphysics again. So in this way, one could argue Hegel has negatively impacted even the analytics. Those quotes of Nietzsche are nice, but frankly there isn't any argument here, only vague sentiments. What I'm more noticing there is Nietzsche trying to prove to himself and perhaps others (like Wagner and his circle) that he has moved on from Schopenhauer to the next stage of his thought. After re-reading this post, I realize I might be sounding argumentative, but again that's not what I'm intending.

[Anonymous No.16712081]

>>16711878
>I don't believe fascism was under the direct influence of Hegel (or any philosopher), unlike marxism.
It is true Fascism is necessarily an historically specific movement and of a more natural cause and origin. But its potential was formed intellectually, as any mass movement, and one as new as Fascism relatively visibly as far as it relates to Hegel through the 19th century and early 20th, just look at people like Gentile or Sorel. You must remember not all new Hegelians were marxists, and many - such as Wagner - would be closer to Fascism than Marxism today. And of course no one has to go into Gentile being a Hegelian.

>So in this way, one could argue Hegel has negatively impacted even the analytics.
I don't see how this follows from Hegel previously being rejected by them. How has he "negatively impacted them" by their own rejection of him? Isn't it a benefit for the Analytics, if they can find some use in him, 100 years ago or sometime now, it is for the better? I don't quite understand your point.

As for Nietzsche, he may be saying those things feeling that he has moved on from Schopenhauer, but he sincerely has moved on to be able to see a value in Hegel (and of course Nietzsche was no Hegelian) that Schopenhauer would never admit at least publicly. And yes they are nice quotes indeed. But I guess at the end of the day, don't you think Hegel did produce a very important contribution to philosophy? In any event, Marxism and Postmodernism are the wrong or mistaken answers to questions in which Hegel has raised. Philosophy is after all the raising of questions with an affirmative content, isn't Plato's Parmenides an entire question? And it is known as we have said that Marxism and Postmodernism are not the only responses to Hegel. It is quite funny that spiritually and ethically, they are as far from it as possible.

>After re-reading this post, I realize I might be sounding argumentative, but again that's not what I'm intending.
Not at all, I thought I might have come across arrogant before, but I am enjoying this conversation.

[Anonymous No.16712940]

Bump for actually wholesome /lit/ discussion

[Anonymous No.16712969]

Man I love Sartor Resartus. Ive read it like four times

[Anonymous No.16712987]

>>16712969
Is it worth reading even if you don't know anything about the German philosophers he's supposed to be making fun of?

[Anonymous No.16713036]

>>16712987
My first read I had little to no context and still enjoyed it (my edition did have footnotes so that helped). On it's own it's still a really interesting ironical meta novel about a biographer and wacky German philosopher.
Also it becomes clear that Carlyle has much love for the German thought he parodies; he is one of Goethe's first English translators after all.

[Anonymous No.16713239]

>>16712987
Not the anon you're replying to but yes definitely, part of its purpose was actually to introduce the Germans to the English, an overall intention of Carlyle with all his translations and life's work. But he's not even strictly making fun of the Germans, he is in part, but he's also paying a great homage. You should just give a quick read of the wiki article (not the on the story), and you'll be better prepared, such as that the work was intended to be "a new kind of book" with a variety of typically separated book constitutions, in both method and themes. Though it's really a very simple book, and in no way daunting.

Just read it anon, I think anyone who has read it considers it a favourite.

[Anonymous No.16713247]

>>16712987
>Is it worth reading even if you don't know anything about the German philosophers he's supposed to be making fun of?
Wha- what??? I took everything in Sartor Resartus literally!!

[Anonymous No.16713276]

>>16712987
I read it for the first time because I got the notion somewhere that it resembled Moby Dick, and now I count it as one of my favourite books. I had the OWC edition and the notes were great because I didn't know anything about any of the topics discussed. I also credit it with inspiring me to read the German classics and even to begin learning German.

[Anonymous No.16713296]

>>16713276
>Carlyle still introducing Anglo's to the Germans over 140 years later
Highly based.

[Anonymous No.16713345]

>>16711789
>I suppose it depends on your perspective, but I would call spawning marxism and postmodernism serious damage
So retarded that you don't even deserve a response.
>>16711830
Hegel's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with fascism, qnd every other form of totalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.16713353]

>>16713345
>Hegel's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with fascism, qnd every other form of totalitarianism.
My point was that he undoubtedly influenced Fascism. I wasn't talking about the specific political philosophy in which he endorsed, because we were talking about what political philosophies he influenced, the other anon stating Marxism.

[Anonymous No.16713445]

>>16713353
Don't entertain that retarded's anon thoughts (which lead to retarded positions, like "if someone designs a philosophy A to destroy yours, you're philosophically responsible for A", as it is claimed for Hegel and Marx)

[Anonymous No.16713587]

>>16713445
I wouldn't call the other anon a retard, but Schopenhauer as any thinker can obscure many if you purely limit yourself to them, because of course you miss the greater context and un-stated meaning in them.

[Anonymous No.16714393]

>>16713445
>if someone designs a philosophy A to destroy yours, you're philosophically responsible for A
That is not what I'm arguing. There are specific features in Hegel's philosophy that are present in marxism and postmodernism. Hegel took Kant's distinction of phenomena and noumenon, and what he did was to remove the noumenon altogether. Therefore in his reality there are no longer "things-in-themselves", but only the mental constructs (the so-called Geist) and the historical process, the made up idea of dialetic, that governs it. Marxism took Hegel's dialetic and applied it to the material and then claimed it is scientific (I laugh everytime I hear the claim). Postmodernism took Hegel's trend of relativizing the reality and applied it to everything else. One hears absurdities like "gender is a social construct" and traces it back to Hegel and his "reality is a mental construct". It turns out I had arguments of my own. You could have engaged me in a discussion instead of acting like a teenage girl.
>oh no he said HEGEL BAD? no i wont answer him he's retarded!! guys nobody talk to him he's a retard!!!!!!
Shut the fuck up. Every time I criticize Hegel, his proponents try to discredit me instead of offering arguments. It looks like Schopenhauer was right when he said Hegel paralyzes the mind. You are the prime example.

>>16713587
>I wouldn't call the other anon a retard
How kind of you.
>any thinker can obscure many if you purely limit yourself to them
That is very true, I agree. Though save for a number of fundamental insights, my views differ from Schopenhauer. I would gladly discuss his shortcomings if you are so inclined.

[Anonymous No.16715228]

bump

[Anonymous No.16715328]

>>16714393
>Hegel took Kant's distinction of phenomena and noumenon, and what he did was to remove the noumenon altogether. Therefore in his reality there are no longer "things-in-themselves", but only the mental constructs. [...] Postmodernism took Hegel's trend of relativizing the reality and applied it to everything else. One hears absurdities like "gender is a social construct" and traces it back to Hegel and his "reality is a mental construct".
The products of objective Spirit are not mere mental constructs, and thry cannot be subjects of mere arbitratoons, this is explicitly evident to whoever has read the Phenomenology. People cannot make up morality, they can only conform to it.
>Maxism took Hegel's dialetic and applied it to the material and then claimed it is scientific (I laugh everytime I hear the claim).
This is literally a meme invented by Engels and Lenin. In Marx' works there is literally no trace of the dialectical method. In fact, considering how it works, Marx could have not used without having to give up his materialist framework. and if you think that's not true, please, tell me how can you kickstart the dialectic without starting from immediate abstract representations such as Being and Nothing - remember that if what you're saying is true, the dialectic of nature should precede the science of logic, which is downright impossible!
>It turns out I had arguments of my own
These were pretty shit arguments based on hearsay on a philosopher you've never read (or atvthe very least, on a philosopher you've never understood).
>You could have engaged me in a discussion instead of acting like a teenage girl.
Eh, it turned out I was right, I probably should have ignored you.

[Anonymous No.16715611]

>>16715328
>The products of objective Spirit are not mere mental constructs...
This does not mean much to me. The important point in consideration is that there is no noumenal mind-independent entity in Hegel's idealism, which makes it an overcomplicated relativization of Kant.
>This is literally a meme invented by Engels and Lenin...
Notice that I never explicitly mentioned Marx himself. Rather marxism as an ideology was in consideration, of which Engels and Lenin are central figures.
>you've never read
I believe any philosophical idea that is precise and definite could also be articulated in a precise and definite way. Hegel fails this criterion, and I will not waste my time on his convoluted prose, only to end up with a relativization of Kant. I would let you know that the arguments I presented in my posts rest on scholarly interpretations of his work (poor men had to read that garbage and write interpretations of it).
>I probably should have ignored you.
Please do. It seems like you have not learned so much philosophy as you have learned sophistry. Arguing with you will be a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.16716049]

>>16715611
>The important point in consideration is that there is no noumenal mind-independent entity in Hegel's idealism, which makes it an overcomplicated relativization of Kant.
The Spirit is not dependent on our minds, rather our minds depend on it. What we can grasp is what is revealed in its costant unravelling. I guess you're in good faith, so I'll just tell you your mistake is that you haven't really understood what the jump from Subjective Consciousness to Objective (and then Absolute) Spirit entails in his Phenomenology. The claims you're attributing to him (i.e. relativism, mind-dependent idealism) are all claims he vehemently argues against. If the Spirit becomes a mental construct, and if its manifestation is subject to the arbitration of individual humans, then you've reached an anti-Hegelian philosophy.
>Notice that I never explicitly mentioned Marx himself. Rather marxism as an ideology was in consideration, of which Engels and Lenin are central figures.
Sure, but even then, they took the dialectic only in name. Just look at Engels' and Lenin's (and later Stalin's and Mao's) treatment of contradictions. For Hegel the only relevant contradictions are immanent ones (as in, contradiction derived immediatly from the analysis of a concept), while all those thinkers treated it as something extrinsic (as in, the contradictions between different classes, an expression that simply makes no sense under Hegel's framework).
>I believe any philosophical idea that is precise and definite could also be articulated in a precise and definite way. Hegel fails this criterion, and I will not waste my time on his convoluted prose, only to end up with a relativization of Kant. I would let you know that the arguments I presented in my posts rest on scholarly interpretations of his work (poor men had to read that garbage and write interpretations of it).
What scholarship?
Regarding being precise and definite, Hegel fits both these virtues. His texts are so hard to read specifically because he was so autistic regarding terminological precision.
>Please do. It seems like you have not learned so much philosophy as you have learned sophistry. Arguing with you will be a waste of time.
Pointing out that a philosopher you haven't read simply did not make the claims you're attributing to him (to the point where the picture you've presented is close to being the literal opposite of his philosophy) is sophistry?

[Anonymous No.16716733]

bump.

[Anonymous No.16716751]

>>16713345
>Hegel's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with fascism, qnd every other form of totalitarianism.
hegel is a careerist intellectual faggot who surfed on the renaissance. hegel is 100% a fascist