Has anyone here successfully been able to understand Hegel?

[thephilosopher6]

Because I’ve been having a hard time reading through him. I’ve been able to successfully read through Kant but as for Hegel… man I don’t even know where to begin.

 

[Entwhistler]

I have read a bit of Hegel and have come to the conclusion that Hegel is not meant to be understood.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I have read a bit of Hegel and have come to the conclusion that Hegel is not meant to be understood.

It sure seems that way doesn’t it? I even saw somewhere that people who have been studying Hegel for years don’t even fully understand what he is talking about in his works.

 

[Entwhistler]

It sure seems that way doesn’t it? I even saw somewhere that people who have been studying Hegel for years don’t even fully understand what he is talking about in his works.

I don’t doubt it. I actually think that Hegel meant to do it. It actually somewhat forces people to agree with him or at least to feel deference to his “superior knowledge”.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I don’t doubt it. I actually think that Hegel meant to do it. It actually somewhat forces people to agree with him or at least to feel deference to his “superior knowledge”.

Perhaps. Maybe he was just a really bad writer as well.

 

[inocente]

Because I’ve been having a hard time reading through him. I’ve been able to successfully read through Kant but as for Hegel… man I don’t even know where to begin.

Try this. It’s Arthur Holmes, Wheaton College, lecturing on Hegel in a class on the history of philosophy, at youtube.com/watch?v=ARarjQYOhA4

His following lecture is also on Hegel. The playlist of all the lectures (scroll the section in black) is at youtube.com/watch?v=H7EIkUp4gWo&index=58&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t doubt it. I actually think that Hegel meant to do it. It actually somewhat forces people to agree with him or at least to feel deference to his “superior knowledge”.

"The test of the intelligibility of any statement that overwhelms us with its air of profundity is its translatability into language that lacks the elevation and verve of the original statement but can pass muster as a simple and clear statement in ordinary, everyday speech. " (Adler, Six Great Ideas, p.103)

 

[tonyrey]

There is a clear exposition of Hegel’s basic ideas here:

philosophybasics.com/philosophers_hegel.html

It helps to know that Marx inverted his theory of thesis, antithesis and synthesis from an idealistic to a materialistic explanation of social development.

 

[tonyrey]

"The test of the intelligibility of any statement that overwhelms us with its air of profundity is its translatability into language that lacks the elevation and verve of the original statement but can pass muster as a simple and clear statement in ordinary, everyday speech. " (Adler, Six Great Ideas, p.103)

There is no difficulty in understanding the process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis!

 

[Vico]

Because I’ve been having a hard time reading through him. I’ve been able to successfully read through Kant but as for Hegel… man I don’t even know where to begin.

His thinking (dialectic reason) is different because he uses a dynamic rather than a static view, such that the initial totality gives way to another modified totality. This is called sublation.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no difficulty in understanding the process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis!

I think that’s the point. Hegel should have used Kant’s words which you quote instead of “Abstract-Negative-Concrete.”

 

[tonyrey]

There is no difficulty in understanding the process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis!

Studying Kant on my own was tough but when I became used to his terminology I understood why his interpretation of reality is superior to Hume’s scepticism. Fortunately Hegel wasn’t on the syllabus!