/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19415644]

Is The Science of Logic the hardest work in all western philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19415879]

No, but it is most definitely the dumbest. Even an expert conartist like Jordan Peterson can't rival its sheer levels of bullshit

[Anonymous No.19415981]

>>19415879
Have you even read it?

[Anonymous No.19416002]

>>19415644
what is it about that pic that's so cringe?

[Anonymous No.19416010]

>>19415644
Tbqh, Hegel has never been much of a challenge to me. Of course I've not read him in german since I'm no autist. He's hard indeed, but Whitehead took me even longer to digest and comprehend

[Anonymous No.19416012]

>>19416002
truth that demon that is hegel succeded in casting spell on the world through his works like phenomenology of spirti

[Anonymous No.19416066]

>>19416010
It’s all subjective, I found whitehead a little easier than hegel, and even easier than Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.19416080]

>>19416002
It's cringe if you don't know the original image.

[Anonymous No.19416081]

>>19415981
I tried, but it was far too retarded. Now, here's a test for you, can you stand on one leg and give me the essence of the whole book?

[Anonymous No.19416082]

>>19416002
>cringe
You spelt based wrong

[Anonymous No.19416104]

>>19416010
What did you read by him, the Phenomenology is much harder the the SoL

[Anonymous No.19416507]

>>19416081
I can, doesn’t mean i will though

[Anonymous No.19416534]

Yeah, it and Sein und Zeit are the top 2.

[Anonymous No.19416671]

>>19416002
Cringe dispelled

[Anonymous No.19416729]

>>19416534
Nah PdG is number 1

[Anonymous No.19416750]

>>19415644
I think the Phenomenology is far harder. Also the Encyclopedia, but in that case it is justifiable, since it was supposed to be explained orally.
>>19416081
This is an unreasonable request even when talking about easy books like the ones by Hume.

[Anonymous No.19416922]

>>19416750
>This is an unreasonable request
No, it's usually an excellent test to figure out whether the author is full of shit or not

I can do this with Hume: "sense data is all we know, and ideas based on sense data are incomplete, therefore induction is a fallacy". Now do Hegel, or accept that Hegel was a giant fraud

[Anonymous No.19416960]

>>19416729
its not even Hegel's hardest work. So how could it be number 1.

[Anonymous No.19417134]

>>19416960
It literally is though, Science of Logic is dense but it’s just long winded more than anything, what do you think the hardest philosophical work ever written is?

[Anonymous No.19417157]

>>19415644
Not even remotely.

[Anonymous No.19417240]

>>19417157
That’s the first Husserl I read, it’s one of his easier works

[Anonymous No.19417262]

>>19417240
His only harder work (that is published) is On the passive synthesis. It is also pretty much universally recognized as one of his harder works.

[Anonymous No.19417296]

>>19416960
It’s widely recognised as the hardest book ever written, even by scholars.

[Anonymous No.19417337]

I would have to go with either Sein und Zeit or PdG.
Both actually deal with ideas that are rather straightforward once you "get them" I feel, although I have yet to finish either of them in their entirety.

[Anonymous No.19417377]

>>19416922
>No, it's usually an excellent test to figure out whether the author is full of shit or not
I think it is unreasonable in the scope of a 4chan post. To properly summarize an entire dense book while making it justice is something that requires a paper, if not a book.
Any 3000 characters summary of any of Hegel's books is destined to fail, imho. I would make the same argument for other easier, more accessible authors like Hume or Descartes.
>I can do this with Hume: "sense data is all we know, and ideas based on sense data are incomplete, therefore induction is a fallacy". Now do Hegel, or accept that Hegel was a giant fraud
This does not even close to summarize the point of any of Hume's book. You've just summarized a random argument of his. Notice also that you have not justified any of the premises, which means that if I were to disagree with any of them your summary would be utterly useless.
If I were to say, to summarize the Science of Logic, that "the finite and the infinite cannot be separated, since if they were, the infinite would be limited by the finite, which would mean that it was not truly infinite", I don't think anyone who didnt already agree and know the context of this proposition would find this summary useful.

[Anonymous No.19417385]

>>19417296
The Phenomenology is usually deemed harder, especially because it recidved no editing. I think the Science of Logic is a quite accessible text for anyone who is familiar with thebhietory of philosophy, jt's just long and complex. On the other hand, in thr Phenomenology often even the bare meaning of simple sentences requires a lot of tinkering to be understood.

[Anonymous No.19417405]

>>19417385
Exactly, it doesn’t help that he wrote it in great haste. Apparently he was going to edit it to make it more accessible, but died before he could, I’ve never read it but I’ve heard in it’s original German form it’s even more difficult. His most accessible is probably the Encyclopaedia

[Anonymous No.19417448]

>>19417405
I've found the Smaller Logic much harder than the Greater Logic. The Annotations help a lot though (without them it is downright incomprehensible, which makes sense since he thought that it had to be explained orally to be properly understood).
I think his Lectures are his most accessible works. They require very little background, and the prose is not impenetrable at all

[Anonymous No.19417576]

>>19417448
Actually I agree, I just picked up the penguin classics edition of his Lectures on Aesthetics, very lucid