58

And boy howdy does my head hurt.

I'm almost through the preface, and i have NO clue what he's talking about.

So far, the only thing I've gotten is something about how a result is determined by the path that lead to it, and that a negation is not a destruction of something but just a further step forward.

But I have no fucking clue about his other concepts like Notion, Subjective/Objective, what he means by Science or how to piece it all together.

It really feels like walking in, mid conversation, in a foreign language.

Is the rest of the book easier to read, or should I just call it quits here?

I just wanted to better understand dialectics lmao

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Pavlichenko_Fan_Club@hexbear.net 17 points 20 hours ago

Are you reading the Science of Logic? It's not a good introduction to Hegel, let alone philosophy. Start here instead: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ol/encycind.htm Also (cliche I know) browse around https://plato.stanford.edu/ for broad overviews on certain topics.

Contrary to everyone here I would encourage you to go further. Understanding dialectics is a necessity for any Marxist--here you will perhaps be interested in Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks. To really understand dialectics, and be able to make the transformation to its material ground would put you in a position to understand Marxism better than 99% of today's "Marxists"

[-] duderium@hexbear.net 4 points 16 hours ago

I spent the first year or two of the pandemic walking around outside while listening to podcasts about hegel and other marx-related philosophers (like Why Theory and the sadly defunct Red Library). The issue here is that a lot of podcasts that discuss Hegel are lib, but I still feel like I got a lot out of it, although I kind of shuddered when you were like “what the fuck does he mean by ‘notion’?” Because yeah, what does he actually mean by that?

Sometimes I would get up in the morning and drink some coffee and read a page or two of the Phenomenology and google everything that confused me. I didn’t get too far but it was still pretty rewarding.

[-] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 20 points 23 hours ago

I think there's very little reason to read Hegel unless you're a scholar. It will not help you understand anything. He's a notoriously obtuse writer.

[-] GeckoChamber@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago

In my opinion, unless you are an academic or at least an exceptionally academic type, there is no reason to read Hegel's works, the guy did not write very clearly. If you are looking for a more readable book about dialectics, I would consider Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic.

[-] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 6 points 18 hours ago

Absolutely amazing book

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 14 points 23 hours ago

What's your background in philosophy? Hegel is notoriously difficult to parse. What's your current understanding of dialectics?

[-] Big@hexbear.net 7 points 21 hours ago

I'm just a layman, I'm afraid. I've been expanding my understanding of literature and I frequently come across various references to philosophy, so I've taken some detours over the years and read baudrillard, nietzsche, plato, some marx, zichec or however you spell his name, fanon, etc. Almost every one of them refer to Hegel, so I thought I'd check him out.

As for my current understanding of dialectics. Iirc, everything is connected in an infininite Web of ever changing contradictions that negate or solve each other, giving rise to new contradictions to be solved and so on.

Probably wrong, but I'd like to get a better understanding.

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 9 points 20 hours ago

You're better versed in broader philosophy than me, so no worries! Essentially, dialectics is characterized as the following:

  1. Dialectics does not regard nature as a collection of static, isolated objects, but as connected, dependent, and determined by each other.
  2. Dialectics considers everything as in a state of continuous movement and change, of renewal and development, where something is always rising and something is always dying away.
  3. Dialectics is not a simple process of growth, but where quantitative buildup results in qualitative change, and qualitative change result in quantitative outcomes, as a leap in state from one to the other, the lower to the higher, the simple to the complex.
  4. Dialectics holds that the process of development from lower to higher takes place as a struggle of opposite tendencies that forms the basis of their contradictions.

You've got the gist of it, for Hegel turn the Marxist dialectic back on its head and assume all change is in the advancement of a grand, supernatural Absolute Idea.

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

That Idea of course being a united German Protestant Monarchy.

[-] replaceable@hexbear.net 7 points 16 hours ago

Ngl pretending to believe german society at the time was the ultimate peak of humanity is a great bit

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 4 points 15 hours ago

It would be even funnier if we just turned the whole thing upside down for a laugh.

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 4 points 16 hours ago

Oh of course, can't forget that!

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 5 points 15 hours ago

Aside from the idea that every moment destroys our consciousness and then it reforms slightly changed only to instantly be destroyed again (and that is how we are able to consciously perceive time passing and change), I think that part is my favorite, because there is so much build up to it, only for it to fall flat on it's ass.

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Yea, I'll admit I only read some minor works and excerpt of Hegel so I'm unfamiliar with the explanation for perceiving time passing, but that sounds entirely up Hegel's alley.

hegel-kraken

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 5 points 14 hours ago

I had to read half of 'Phenomenology of the Spirit' for my Metaphysics II class. And I read the other half on a combo of Adderall and Acid.

And other people interprete that section differently, I am only going off of what the class consensus was about what the fuck he was talking about.

It's basically a retread of the old Ship of Thesius problem. If your mind can change, and ideas can change, are you still really you? And by what mechanism can these ideas of self change, when you are dealing with a paradigm of Platonic ideals? After all, previously Kant proved that even if they do exist, we can only have limited access to them through logic, but if we assume they do exist in a platonic form, then how do they appear to change?

Marx just turns the whole thing upside down and says, this is silly, ideas clearly change over time and do not exist in some platonic vacuum somewhere, and they change because they are directly influenced by the material conditions that we, as the makers and keepers of ideas, experience. It is extremely refreshing to read Marx after Hegel, because he is extremely clear-cut in comparison.

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 3 points 12 hours ago

Yep, I've only read Hegel through small Red Sails articles, so reading the Phenomenology of Spirit is way above my philosophical weight class. Marx is far more accessible, and that's because, as he says, the point is to understand the world so as to change it.

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 6 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The preface is easily the easiest part to read, imo (aside from some individual smaller sections later). If you Google a few words you can probably get through it.

Edit: I think I understood most of the preface at some point, but now I only remember when he compares the history of intellectual development to the growth of a plant, which I found to be very helpful for appreciating the concept of historical progressiveness.

For Marxism, you also might be better off with just looking at the application by Marxist authors, particularly Marx, Engels, and Mao.

However, I think being interested in any philosophical writer is legitimate and shouldn't be discouraged, so I'll point out that there is a philosophy PhD on YouTube who made a 379 part series discussing all of the Phenomenology of Spirit in order, called "Half Hour Hegel." No, I'm not saying that you need to watch all 190+ hours, just that it could be worth checking out the first episode or two to see if that's helpful.

Also Jesus Christ that dude is such a poster. The sheer volume of videos is wild for what he does.

[-] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 5 points 19 hours ago

I just wanted to better understand dialectics lmao

You're better off reading Daoist works like the Dao De Jing and the Zhuangzi with the understanding that they were written in China during the Warring States period. That or reading the Vietnamese textbooks translated by Luna Oi.. In practice, Hegel is only understandable once you have a decent grasp of dialectical materialism through Marxism. You read Hegel after understanding Marx to deepen your understanding of Marx that you already have. Hegel is not good for pedagogy.

[-] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Learn dialectics from an easier teacher. Check out how it's laid out in Constructive Criticism under the Dialectical Materialism section, which separately breaks down Dialectics and Materialism.

Edit: I thought I was on a .world community, you may be past this lol.

[-] mmmari@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

well, a curated introduction might be a way to get into it, kinda like cliffnotes and then you can go from there.. Philosophize This podcast has several episodes on Hegel. sometimes the writing (of anything) is just a product of its time and is hard to understand nowadays due to sentence structure and vocabulary. nothing wrong with using tips and tricks here and there to digest something as complicated as philosophical writing

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

It also doesn't help that because he was writing in German, there are these kind of compound phrase-words that are extremely hard to translate into English (because he is essentially making up new words in German). The closest English equivalent is kind of how I do it which is to just put dashs between things (such as phrase-word) but even that isn't an exact representation, at least according to my friend who is fluent in German and has read Hegel.

He also deliberately engages in using these phrase-words for a long time in a purely metaphorical sense, before going 'actually I meant all of this literally, now go back and read the last 100 pages with that in mind, despite me giving you no indication that that was the case prior in the text.' And then in the next section he will use something extremely literally before going, 'lol jk it was a metaphor the whole time.'

And it is extremely easy to miss that change if your eyes have glazed over from reading Hegel too long. Which is why you can kind of argue about it forever.

Truely infuriating writing style

[-] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

sometimes the writing (of anything) is just a product of its time and is hard to understand nowadays due to sentence structure and vocabulary

In the case of Hegel this is compounded by his deliberately obtuse writing style.

It's like how scientific names in biology got really hard to pronounce because a bunch of nerds that named the things engaged in Latin vocabulary brinkmanship (at least according to my professor when I was studying evolutionary biology).

[-] iridaniotter@hexbear.net 4 points 20 hours ago

The Phenomenology? Yeah that preface is a piece of work. There's a lecture series on Youtube that might help but it's almost 200 hours long. If you're reading it only because you're trying to understand dialectics/dialectical materialism then I think you're better off saving it for later. Find a writer who engages with the dialectical (materialist) method that you can mostly keep up with and enjoy reading and start from there instead. So that might be, say, The Dialectical Biologist, or Capital, or Thought and Language. Ilyenkov has written some pretty good introductory and history essays on dialectics, too...

[-] GayTuckerCarlson@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

squidward-nochill

"This isn't a thread about cock"

speech-l

confusion

squidward-chill

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
58 points (100.0% liked)

philosophy

20240 readers
73 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes


Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS