PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy: Anyone familiar with Kant/Hegel?



winter
06-02-2010, 01:48 AM
the word geist/zeitgeist popped up while reading through some books on Hegel, made me think about this site :D

just wondering if anyone is knowledgable in either of these philosophers to help give me a basic overview of either Kant (CPR) or Hegel (Phenominology of Spirit).

thanks!

Faust
06-02-2010, 09:03 AM
taking SZ to the next level (like wikipedia level)

ProfMonnitoff
06-02-2010, 10:37 AM
ive read some of their works but i kant see this discussion going anywhere [suicide]

winter
06-03-2010, 10:38 AM
thanks, wasnt after anything major.
just curious to see if anyone was familiar with it.

ComeUpon
06-03-2010, 12:08 PM
If you haven't already, take a look a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There should be quite a few entries on Kant and at least a couple on Hegel. For a fuller treatment, you can take a look at the Kant and Hegel books in Routledge's Philosophers series edited by Brian Leiter. I can't speak for the Hegel, but the Kant written by Paul Guyer is fantastic.

todestrieb
06-03-2010, 12:16 PM
Why bother reading Kant and Hegel in this day and age? Why not spend your time, energy and good money perusing more of and prancing about in some Rikkkk Owens? Unless you're prepared to have every fibre of your being hollowed out, scarred and harrowed beyond repair (shit is irreversible); and your soul subjected to a visceral battery tantamount to a dispiriting and numbing experience of intellectual and physical self-flagellation; then Kant or Hegel is most certainly not for you, especially Hegel. The latter makes wearing Poell bootwear, for all its purported notoriety as an exercise in the threshold of pain, a relatively pussified/sissified experience - like a lush stroll on a soft white beach with gentle whimsical waves caressing pedicured feet... and you don't even have to think. Poell is nothing (in the sense of pfffffffft, rather than nicht-sein/non-being [lol]), Hegel will destroy you. Inside and out. Within and without. Corrosively. Critically. Deservedly, for, what is philosophy but effectively the complete and utter overturning of everything one holds as self-evident, as taken for granted, as givens, as truths, as sacred? My drift, you get.

However, if you're serious about this shit, then forget about reading Kant's three Critiques (of Pure Reason, of Practical Reason, and of Judgement, i.e. the essential entry points to Kantian thought), or in the case of Hegel: the Phenomenology of Spirit, or the Philosophy of Right. The latter two books are generally regarded as his most well-known pieces of work, and the most read, but they hardly touch base with the essential grist and muscle of his thought. I say jump straight right into the deep abstruse end, the very abyss and Bacchanalian revel, of Hegelian genius and brilliance. The very stuff that will suffocate, obfuscate and coruscate the living shit, life-blood and sensibility out of you. I'm speaking of course about Hegel's Science of Logic, the greatest piece of philosophy ever written. This shit will eat you alive. Will run you ragged and senseless. May even get you constipated. But that's the least of your worries.

A taste of the beastly tome:
The in-itself into which something is reflected into itself out of its being-for-other is no longer an abstract in-itself, but as negation of its being-for-other is mediated by the latter, which is thus its moment. It is not only the immediate identity of the something with itself, but the identity through which there is present in the something that which it is in itself; being-for-other is present in it because the in-itself is the sublation of the being-for-other, has returned out of the being-for-other into itself; but equally, too, simply because it is abstract and therefore essentially burdened by negation, with being-for-other. There is present here not only quality and reality, determinateness in the form of simple being, but determinateness in the form of the in-itself; and the development in positing this determinateness as reflected into itself.
Which is as tasty in the German:
Das Ansich, in welches das Etwas aus seinem Sein-für-Anderes in sich reflektiert ist, ist nicht mehr abstraktes Ansich, sondern als Negation seines Seins-für-Anderes durch dieses vermittelt, welches so sein Moment ist. Es ist nicht nur die unmittelbare Identität des Etwas mit sich, sondern die, durch welche das Etwas das, was es an sich ist, auch an ihm ist; das Sein-für-Anderes ist an ihm, weil das Ansich das Aufheben desselben ist, aus demselben in sich ist; aber ebensosehr auch schon, weil es abstrakt, also wesentlich mit Negation, mit Sein-für-Anderes behaftet ist. Es ist hier nicht nur Qualität und Realität, seiende Bestimmtheit, sondern an-sich-seiende Bestimmtheit vorhanden, und die Entwicklung ist, sie als diese in sich reflektierte Bestimmtheit zu setzen.

TadaoAndo
06-03-2010, 09:16 PM
I'm struggling with Deleuze at the moment. It's dense but worth it.

HWith
06-04-2010, 09:30 AM
When speaking of Kant I'm quite fond of this little piece. It's quite good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpL_5CI0WQ

Faust
06-04-2010, 03:48 PM
I'm struggling with Deleuze at the moment. It's dense but worth it.

It's dense and not worth it. So what are you selling? Been speeding like crazy - my radar is broken.

klangspiel
06-04-2010, 09:16 PM
For a fuller treatment, you can take a look at the Kant and Hegel books in Routledge's Philosophers series edited by Brian Leiter. I can't speak for the Hegel, but the Kant written by Paul Guyer is fantastic.

the hegel is great as well. it's by frederick beiser who's quite an authority on the philosophy of the period - late 18th century to early 19th century german philosophy - having written extensively on kant, hegel, fichte, schelling, and the wider context of german idealism and romanticism.

as for guyer's book on kant, he's always been a fantastic commentator and generally very reliable. one of the more preeminent kant scholars out there. anyway, for cpr specifically, there's no shortage of introductory companions, readers, and guides in the market at the moment. off the top of my head, i can think of books by sebastian gardner, anthony saville, james luchte, matt altman, kuehn, kitcher, douglas burnham. the old norman kemp smith commentary to the cpr is also well worth a look. guyer and wood's translators' introduction to the cpr is also a very good place to start. like guyer, wood himself has written an introductory overview on kant with an intended appeal of a wider readership and 1st year philosophy students. it also shares the same title of kant. i'd recommend guyer's over wood's simply because guyer has his organised just a little bit better than wood's, but nonetheless, both are solid and good introductions to kant.

re: hegel's phenomenology. again, there's no shortage of introductory reading guides available. books by robert stern and larry krasnoff spring to mind. very helpful texts for undergrads or just about anyone trying to touch first base with the phenomenology. my favourite of the lot is probably donald verene's hegel's absolute which is not so much a reading guide but a monograph of sorts on hegel. it's very clear and accessible, and more importantly compact and short in length. it's the best introduction to the phenomenology and hegelian philosophy, more broadly, that i can think of. john russon's reading hegel's phenomenology is another well worth having a look at as well.