Understanding Hegel - Where to Start?

[bluemangroup]

I've been meaning to understand Hegelian dialectics in order to better understand Marx's dialectical materialism (I've read the first eighty pages of Capital: Volume I, taking much notes, but had to stop due to college).

I found the Hegel Reader at my university's library and read through some of his early works and found myself bombarded by Kantian language.

I then flipped through a library copy of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and likewise couldn't for the life of me understand what he was saying - he along with Hegel (Hegel having been inspired by Kant, if I recall from trying to read in its entirety Hegel: A Biography, but the biography itself was both 800+ pages long and perplexing if one is not well versed in eighteenth-century German history) talk constantly about the 'Idea,' the 'Will,' and the 'Absolute.' It simply made my head hurt.

Needless to say, I do have The Basic Works of Aristotle and the Essential Dialogues of Plato along with Plato's Republic I had bought with birthday money from relatives (I have a huge family on my mom's side).

I think, IMHO, before dwelling into Kantian, Hegelian, and Marxian philosophy (as for the latter, I tried reading The Marx-Engels Reader but his early writings especially are nearly incomprehensible if one isn't familiar with Hegelian language) that I should focus on Plato as the 'founder of philosophy' before moving onto Aristotle, chiefly his Metaphysics. I think Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics would help too as far as moral philosophy goes, in relation to both Kantian and Hegelian concepts of morality, but I'm not sure.

Other than that, I have a bunch of philosophy books for a two-part class that I took spaced out by several semesters but I don't know where to start. I consequently have books by Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Hobbes, etc. but it seems so overwhelming when trying to sort out these works both in order of importance and chronology.

I also have Bertrand Russel's A History of Western Philosophy but its so long and I only have so much time to read non-school books. I was thinking about just reading the sections covering ancient Greece, but then again I'd still have to delve into Plato's various dialogues and Aristotle which would require massive amounts of note taking and a ton of reading when I'm currently strapped for time.

Should I simply stick with ancient Western philosophy first and slowly work my way upwards through the ages before getting first to Kant and then to Hegel and Marx?

Thoughts? Advice?:confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

In his book "Hegel's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics", late Wheat provides an interpretation of Hegel that, uh, makes sense. Part of the confusion around Hegel owes due to the fact that Hegel was a closeted atheist that purposefully used obfuscating language to conceal this out of fear of persecution. But Wheat shows that if you see through this, Hegel is quite easy to follow. The book is so straightforwardly compelling that it's the book that you start and end with if you want to understand Hegel (not saying your study ends there).

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2147

[Rafiq]

The Hegel of phenomenology of mind can perhaps be called an Athiest, but by decades later he had already reached his own limitations and became quite a conformist religious conservative.

To read Hegel, one needs to avoid introductions to him or narratives on his work. Read Hegel backwards: Read the aorks of Hegelians themselves, and then read Hegel himself.

[bluemangroup]

In his book "Hegel's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics", late Wheat provides an interpretation of Hegel that, uh, makes sense. Part of the confusion around Hegel owes due to the fact that Hegel was a closeted atheist that purposefully used obfuscating language to conceal this out of fear of persecution. But Wheat shows that if you see through this, Hegel is quite easy to follow. The book is so straightforwardly compelling that it's the book that you start and end with if you want to understand Hegel (not saying your study ends there).

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2147

Thanks for the link!:)

Would you say that this book is a good one for a beginner?

I take it that it provides a fresh take on Hegel and his dialectical system?:confused:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Charles Taylor is a decent commentator on Hegel, although his spirit-monist interpretation is a bit out of favour today. Hegel really "clicked" for me when reading Michael Inwood.

As for Kant, Henry Alison's "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" is a good interpretation, I think. But it's easy to overstate how much Hegel owes to Kant - as in fact Hegel does all of the time.

[RedMaterialist]

I've been meaning to understand Hegelian dialectics ...It simply made my head hurt.



LOL. That's what Lenin said about Hegel.

[bluemangroup]

Charles Taylor is a decent commentator on Hegel, although his spirit-monist interpretation is a bit out of favour today. Hegel really "clicked" for me when reading Michael Inwood.

As for Kant, Henry Alison's "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" is a good interpretation, I think. But it's easy to overstate how much Hegel owes to Kant - as in fact Hegel does all of the time.

Can your recommend a book or two by Michael Inwood?

Should I still read Charles Taylor if his ideas are out of favor today? (to some, I suppose, depending on how one look at his writing)

Should I just focus on Plato and Aristotle for now or dive right into Kant and Hegel? I might get the The Basic Works of Kant on Amazon as it gives a lengthy introduction and gathers up a lot of his most important writings (although it is 200 pages shorter than The Basic Works of Aristotle, which is over 700+ pages long, and only features maybe 150+ pages of Kant's much larger Critique of Pure Reason).

I'm looking forward to people's advice.

[Tim Cornelis]

Thanks for the link!:)

Would you say that this book is a good one for a beginner?

I take it that it provides a fresh take on Hegel and his dialectical system?:confused:

Yeah, it's perfectly fine for a beginner.

And it is basically a new interpretation that's close to initial interpretations. The reason of why it remained undiscovered according to Wheat is because Hegel intended his works and philosophy to be for close knit followers of his time, something like that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Can your recommend a book or two by Michael Inwood?

I think "Hegel", part of the "Arguments of the Philosophers" series, is his most accessible. He also authored "The Hegel Dictionary", but that's a bit technical.


Should I still read Charles Taylor if his ideas are out of favor today? (to some, I suppose, depending on how one look at his writing)

His interpretation had been dominant for quite some time, and is still interesting today, so if you have the time and inclination, sure, I would recommend you give it a read.


Should I just focus on Plato and Aristotle for now or dive right into Kant and Hegel? I might get the The Basic Works of Kant on Amazon as it gives a lengthy introduction and gathers up a lot of his most important writings (although it is 200 pages shorter than The Basic Works of Aristotle, which is over 700+ pages long, and only features maybe 150+ pages of Kant's much larger Critique of Pure Reason).

Bear in mind that much of Aristotle's corpus concerns matters we would not recognise as philosophical today, e.g. his zoological observations (and hearsay). I don't think you need to have a good grasp on Plato and Aristotle to understand Hegel, to be honest, and likewise with Kant. Hegel was reacting more to the post-Kantian skeptics like Schulze and subjective idealists like Fichte than he was to Kant.

[bluemangroup]

Bear in mind that much of Aristotle's corpus concerns matters we would not recognise as philosophical today, e.g. his zoological observations (and hearsay).What about Plato's and Aristotle's concept of the state? Or Aristotle's Metaphysics? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kant heavily influenced by Aristotle's Metaphysics?

And as for Hegel, isn't his Philosophy of Right at the very least partially inspired by Aristotle's The Politics (at least according to The Hegel Reader, which asserts that it stands up there in importance concerning the notion of the state with The Politics)?

That being said, would anybody recommend selling out $11 bucks for the The Basic Works of Kant? It contains many of his lesser known (but no less important) pieces but unfortunately only takes maybe 150-200+ pages worth of selected excerpts from Kant's much longer Critique of Pure Reason. Am I better off just reading Critique of Pure Reason in its complete form on its own?


Hegel was reacting more to the post-Kantian skeptics like Schulze and subjective idealists like Fichte than he was to Kant.Are there copies of Fichte's works and other subjective idealists in English online or offline? Are they important to read if one is to better understand Hegel's arguments?

[Rafiq]

The problem with reading German idealists is being dis-located from their historic context. It's hard because they respond to controversies and a general intellectual environment which is not found today, so it's hard to locate the actual context of their works.

Users will lynch me for saying it, but Zizek's insight in Hegel is the best you're going to get today.

[bluemangroup]

Got the Modern Library Classics Basic Works of Kant, which is a good size (roughly 450-500 pages) as far as portability goes.

Its much shorter than The Basic Works of Aristotle, a fact which made me wonder if I should buy it; I did so anyway upon reading that there are a grand total of 13 volumes worth of works by Kant alone!:(

It heavily excerpts from Critique of Pure Reason.

Does anyone think that the excerpts on their own are sufficient to fully grasp Kantian language and ideas?

The selections are mostly short and to the point and, as I don't have the time to slog through 13 volumes of Kant's writings, I think that The Basic Writings of Kant will be a good choice to grasp his ideas clearly.

Thoughts?

[Asero]

Reading Hegel: The Introductions (http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version-9780980544015-Reading_Hegel.pdf)

[Comrade Jacob]

I would love to have some Hegel on my shelf, I know basically nothing about his dialectics or him as a figure. I can't find much by him from Ebay. Any titles anyone recommends?

[Asero]

I would love to have some Hegel on my shelf, I know basically nothing about his dialectics or him as a figure. I can't find much by him from Ebay. Any titles anyone recommends?

Reading Hegel: The Introductions (http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version-9780980544015-Reading_Hegel.pdf)

[Dodo]

It goes like this:

Descartes>Hume>Kant(*)
Then Schelling and Fichtre>Hegel

Descartes is crucial for getting into the basic framework of modern philosophy, Hume for his take on reality. And Kant because he is the head of critical philosophy. However Kant tries to give answers to many things Hume deals with.

Schelling and Fichte are extensions of Kantian philosophy, and Hegel is the synthesizer.

[N. Senada]

I started reading the Phänomenologie des Geistes and i suggest anyone who want to star dealing with Hegel directly with this thick book.



Schelling and Fichte are extensions of Kantian philosophy, and Hegel is the synthesizer.

Fichte and Kant are deeply different.
The ficthian Doctrine of Science is real breaking point between kantism and romantic idealism and even between Kant and Fichte themselves. Fichte, once a Kant's student, strongly defend it's different philosophical point polemizing directly with his old teacher.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If you want an easy to understand, Anglo-American Analytic approach, Terry Pinkard might be a decent place to start, although I prefer the Continental approach to Hegel's philosophy.