[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1659286452412127.jpg (62 KB, 976x850)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
Can I just read the Phenomenology of Spirit and not trudge through the rest of the bajillion works of philosophy?
>>
>>20794521
Oh, no. You wouldn’t want to do that.
>>
>>20794521
PoS is a gigantic strawman of every single philosophical system that Hegel did not like. It would make you insufferable beyond belief. If that's your goal then go for it.
>>
If you're lazy read Aristotle and the Summa.

No quicker (intellectual) shortcut to the truth of things has been devised
>>
>>20794521
Yeah. The only other philosophy I read before it was a couple Plato dialogues and I understood it just fine
>>
>>20794521
Yes, probably. Just read a philosophy textbook.
>>
>>20794543
That's every philosophy reader's goal, however.
>>
>>20794521
PoS stands for piece of shit, just like your post.
>>
>>20794559
>the Summa
Yeah dude good idea, tell the fucking frogposter that wants to "skip," philosophy by reading one of the most notorious texts to read a few thousand pages of incredibly complicated theology. I assume you meant the summa theologae and not summa contra gentilae
>>
>>20794521
Stupid frogposter.
>>
>>20794521
If you want to "skip," just get John Cottingham's anthology of western philosophy and flip around the different things that interest you. You won't get anything from the Phenomenology, not simply because Hegel is complicated and you don't have the necessary background understanding, but mostly since his text literally wasn't edited.

The whole idea of "skipping," philosohy is foolish. Moreso than any other subject philosohy is conversational in nature, with notable figures explicitly building off of each other by responding/refuting their priors. Sure you can read, say, Kant without Hume, but when you try you'll keep seeing Kant refer to this Hume guy and be totally lost.
>>
>>20794521
Reading Wittgenstein then moving on with your life would probably work better



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.