Hegel. Where do I start?

[Post-Something]

I'm trying to get to grips with Hegel, but I don't know where to start. I went on the link in the philosophy sticky, and I looked around his achieve, but I got kind of disorientated...also, what I did read on Dialectics was kind of confusing. Can somebody explain the basics, or point me to a source where I could read a really broken down version of his ideas?

This is the page I started to read:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm

but I couldn't get my head around "negation", or pretty much anything after that; even though it's called "Hegel for beginners" :lol:.


Thanks in advance!

[gilhyle]

This is difficult. Everyone who has studied Hegel would give you a different list. I suggest the following (in this order !):

1. Introducing Hegel by Lloyd Spencer and Andrezej Krauze

then

2. On Hegel by Aalison Leigh Brown

then

3. Hegel's Phenomenology: A Philosophical Introduction by Richard J Norman

and then

4. Philosophy of History by Hegel

and then

5. Logic and Existence by Jean Hyppolite

and finally

6. Hegels Lesser Logic (Encyclopaedia Logic)

and then if you REALLY want to

7 Hegel's Science of Logic.

then

8. Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks.

....and if you get through all that, then your on your own !

[apathy maybe]

I suggest browsing Philosophy, or doing a search in Philosophy.

You can find works explaining why you shouldn't even bother studying Hegel.

[rouchambeau]

I'm trying to get to grips with Hegel, but I don't know where to start.
How about with Descartes. Wait, maybe you should brush up on Plato before anything else.

[Marsella]

I would advise you not to start.

Hegel is a big great fucking waste of time.

If you have to read anything about dialectical crap, at the very least read Marx's texts on them. But personally, I would ignore the whole pile of shit and focus on something more relevant and correct (i.e. historical materialism) rather than waste your time on something you won't understand well, is wrong, unhelpful and has zilch to do with actual worker's strugggles.

[Post-Something]

Ok, that's all really helpful, thanks a lot. When I get enough money, I think I'm going to get the first couple of books from that list Gilhyle.

I don't get why so many of you seem to think he's a waste of time though, I thought Hegel was central to a lot of Marx's ideas. Plus, it was a quote from Lenin, where he said something like "it's impossible to completely understand Marx without understanding the whole of Hegel" or whatever that got me really wanting to read up on him.

Also, Rouchambeau, I've read "The Last Days of Socrates" and "The Republic"; I think the idea of forms is a kind of outdated though to be honest. And my first philosophical book was a copy of Meditations condensed to about 50 pages or so, but I'll have a read of the actual copy at some stage.


Anyway, thanks for all of your help :)

[Marsella]

I don't get why so many of you seem to think he's a waste of time though, I thought Hegel was central to a lot of Marx's ideas.

He's a waste of time because he advocated the approach in your user-title.

And he was a complete reactionary.


Plus, it was a quote from Lenin, where he said something like "it's impossible to completely understand Marx without understanding the whole of Hegel" or whatever that got me really wanting to read up on him.

Not really. I understand Marx without having to resort to that gibberish shite.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I would advise you not to start.

Hegel is a big great fucking waste of time.

If you have to read anything about dialectical crap, at the very least read Marx's texts on them. But personally, I would ignore the whole pile of shit and focus on something more relevant and correct (i.e. historical materialism) rather than waste your time on something you won't understand well, is wrong, unhelpful and has zilch to do with actual worker's strugggles.

^This.

And really, what do you expect Lenin to say? He was a dialectician!

[Awful Reality]

Lenin suggested "The Science of Logic," if I recall correctly.

Anyway, that's what I'm reading now, and let me assure you that it is typical early-19th century writing and is confusing! In any case, it is very interesting and helps one understand Marx more.

I assume Hegel's works are not public domain, however, as marxists.org has a very small selection of his works (mostly abriged), and I found it hard to find him at my local public library (and I live in a large city).

[Holden Caulfield]

i would read a 'short introduction' book that you can get, first on political philosophy then on Hegal, Kant, etc...

then from this move onto there own actual works, the books are short and a very concise way to scope out a new subject

[Awful Reality]

He's a waste of time because he advocated the approach in your user-title.

And he was a complete reactionary.

Not really. I understand Marx without having to resort to that gibberish shite.

You've been un-banned? Why were you in the first place?

How was he reactionary? He didn't talk about politics...

[Wanted Man]

I wouldn't start with Hegel in the first place. Unless you want a reference frame of Marx's influences. In any case, there is a lot of good introductory stuff. For the most basic: Dialectics for Kids (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/).

[chegitz guevara]

The easiest work of Hegel's is his Philosophy of History. Really what you take away from Hegel is not his dialectic, but his writing style, which Marx copied in Capital.

[Awful Reality]

I wouldn't start with Hegel in the first place. Unless you want a reference frame of Marx's influences. In any case, there is a lot of good introductory stuff. For the most basic: Dialectics for Kids (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/).

Lol at "Dialectics for Kids," clearly a Hoxhaist publication.

</petty sectarianism>

...In any case, I think Dialectics for Kids is a bit too basic :) And Lenin once said that nobody can understand Marx without thoroughly having read "The Science of Logic."

[Wanted Man]

Lol at "Dialectics for Kids," clearly a Hoxhaist publication.
Is it? :p They have a chapter on communism, where they say that they're not even communist. They believe Mises's idea that socialism is doomed to failure, because it has no system to calculate prices.

If anything, DfK proves that dialectics, like any philosophy, can be used to justify anything; not only socialism, but also Austrian school economics...

I agree that it's probably a bit elementary, but that can sometimes be a refreshing way to look at things.

[bezdomni]

I think it is perfectly easy to understand Hegel without actually reading that much by him. If you want to familiarize yourself with what Hegel wrote, you'd probably use your time much better if you read somebody else's analysis or criticism of Hegel....rather than go through volumes and volumes of his own annoyingly circuitous writing.

Reading Hegel is definitely not a precursor to reading or understanding Marx. I had been reading Marx for three years before I even looked at Hegel, and when I actually did so...I just read a few chapters out of Phenomenology of Spirit for a school assignment and immediately forgot them.

I've read some other critical appraisals of Hegel, and naturally I've read most of what Marx says about Hegel...and I've never found it difficult to have a relatively in-depth understanding of Marxism with only a cursory knowledge of Hegel.

Of course, if you want to read Hegel for his own sake....then by all means go ahead and do it. All I'm saying is I don't think you really need to read anything by Hegel to understand or appreciate what Marx did.

As a corresponding example, you don't have to read everything written by Newton to understand his laws of gravitation or calculus. His ideas have been more concisely explained by other people who use his approach but not his words.

[Post-Something]

Ok, wow, thanks a lot guys! That's really helpful! I looked up a couple of websites and I sort of get the basics now. As soon as my exams are done, I'm going to buy one of those introductory books; I think like you guys said, something he'd written would probably be too heavy. Anyway, thanks for everything!

[gilhyle]

Good luck....the jump from No. 4 to No. 5 above is a bit steep, so if you are interested but struggling it might be better to read something else rather than Hyppolite.

It always amazes me the number of people who claim to understand Marx perfectly well ! I calim to agree with what I understand, but when you get into Vol 3, Theories of Surplus Value and parts of the Grundrisse I would not be so arrogant as to say I just 'understand' it.

[rouchambeau]

SP:

Reading Hegel is definitely not a precursor to reading or understanding Marx.I thoroughly disagree. Sure one can get a good understanding of Marx without any knowledge of Hegel. But, since Marx was inspired and influenced by Hegel, I think it would be safe to say that understanding Hegel is key to understanding the preceding thoughts Marx was railing against and appropriating.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Don't bother -- he is a total waste of time.

Some of his more serious errors have been summarised here (where any sense can be made of them, that is):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm