Lenin says I can't understand Capital without having read and understood the entirety of Hegel's Logic.
So, what philosophers and philosophical works do I have to read to be able to read and understand the entirety of Hegel's Logic so that I can FINALLY start reading Capital?
Other urls found in this thread:
empyreantrail.wordpress.com
twitter.com
you have to read all of Kant before you start reading Hegel
Lenin is wrong
Okay, so who do I have to read to start understanding Kant?
How so?
"All" is an exaggeration. The Critique of Pure Reason is the Kantian stock that Hegel mainly works from in the Science of Logic. Reading Fichte and Schelling is useful, although it isn't necessary.
To read TCPR, do I have to start with the Greeks or can I just read Hume and some of the empiricists and rationalists?
And if you're still confused about Kant, he's mainly influenced by Leibniz (via Wolff's systematization of his philosophy), Hume, and the scholastic form of Aristotle.
It wouldn't hurt, but I don't view it as absolutely necessary just for Kant. Mainly Aristotle, although Aristotle is more difficult to understand without some Plato.
You can understand 95% of capital without any other book. It stands alone.
Basically just Kant, and before him maybe Aristotle's Metaphysics and-or Descartes' Meditations. Kant is a fucking slog but his claims and arguments can be simplified. I just might not be the person to do it. Basically you need to understand what metaphysics is. Kant asks if metaphysics as science (wissenschaft = 'knowledgecraft/knowledgeship) is possible. Metaphysics is concerned with the primary causes of things, or the eternal WHY question.
To answer these questions it must make claims about essences which hold absolutely, like mathematical proofs, in all space and time. Kant says this is basically 'mind' and 'reason' going too far and that knowledge is fundamentally based in experience (wow durr). But he inaugurates this whole 'critical' spirit which Hegel and Marx took up. Part of needing Kant for Hegel is that Kant deals with the old dualism of metaphysics, the sensible and the supersensible, what is tangible and what has meaning in the tangible, or the existence and the essence. Kant calls these respectively phenomena and noumena or thing-in-itself, ding an sich. He says we can never grasp the noumena as such but that we use 'mental schemata' which are exist a priori in the mind to apprehend phenomena. Conceptually, Hegel and Marx strive to grasp the noumena. That's a pretty hasty and probably bad exposition but basically you should read a primer/sparknotesy thing about Critique of Pure Reason and maybe a little about Kant's moral philosophy, because Kant is also concerned with the 'subject' (Descartes stuff) and so are Marx and Hegel.
Read Althusser on the matter. He's got a short essay that's pretty good .
Ok, so lemme get this straight
Then:
Finally:
Am I getting this right?
What I'm trying to say is that Kant tried to demarcate the appropriate territory of metaphysical speculation. Whenever you hear about the 'science' of Marxism it's not the modern day positivist philosophy, wissenschaft just means a philosophical system of thought. Dialectics was supposed to overcome the dualism of metaphysics by sublating existence and essence into the dialectical process. That's also why Marx shits on 'metaphysics' so much, but to my mind the 'why' question always re-emerges even if it is vain. It's no coincidence that metaphysics comes from Greece, where the separation between intellectual and manual labor was more advanced than nearly anywhere else (thinking of China, which had robust philosophy too).
Honestly yes even though that is a lot.
...
You have to literally read the entire Western Canon.
That sounds like it could take a while.
This. OP listen Hegel is nigh impossible to read.
That isn't a bad approach. Most non-academic Marxists tend to read just Capital itself, reading other works if they wish to understand everything in it.
The approach you have is a quick philosophical approach to Capital, which isn't a bad thing. Some people try a much longer approach if their interest is in Marxism philosophically rather than politically. Plato's dialogues may not be a bad way to begin, regardless, since they're actually entertaining to read as literature. That sadly can't be said of most other philosophers.
I would prefer to just read Capital, but I don't want to blindly accept whatever Marx tells me without understanding his logical approach. That's no different than religion, at that point.
Nigga, anyone can read 300 pages a month. That's a year's study plan, tops.
Just to clarify, I've already read Wage Labor and Capital along with Value, Price, Profit.
I feel like I understood them pretty well. I don't know what else is in Capital that I'll need to understand Hegel for, though.
I'm a philosophy student and I've never seen metaphysics approached as such. I smell BS, tbh.
no, u
no
leave
the science of logic is one of the most difficult books ever written- conversely any undergraduate can grasp capital
Speak to me and I will save you the trouble. Send me an email if you're honest about it.
No, don't do that retarded shit, you'll get too bogged down. Hegel is particularly difficult.
It's much more practical to get it through more modern and specialized.
Listen, the modern school-grade planar Geometry is basically Euclid's Elements. But it would be worst advise in the world to say that you have to go through Euclid's Elements to understand mathematics.
Watch Half-Hour Hegel on Jewtube instead.
in Metaphysics, Aristotle specifically defines the subject matter as first causes, this is also what Descartes has in mind when he titles his work "Meditations on First Philosophy" and both conceive of an unmoved mover or God. Again, metaphysics is the appearance of the supersensible from the sensible, meaning from the world. A good easy word for this is 'why', 'how' being the physics question.
I have better list. And it's better because it's shorter. (I'm not aiming to be marxist-academic)
essay about basic economics without ideological base
sniffing slav can help you recognize ideology in interesting way
basic cybernetic book about planned economy
best economic book written
When you find pages you don't understand, you simply mark them, and after you finish chapter, you can come back here and make thread about it so comrade user can explain it to you and point out to other great book.
Exactly this. This simple observation is not stressed here enough.
In order to understand Capital, one only needs to read a book that is introduction to dialectical materialism, even from the point of what the modern science knows about universe, life, matter.
When you see that dialectics apply on Oparin's theory of life emerging from the primordial amino-acid soup, then the theory of evolution.
Therefore Georges Politzer or Alexander Spirkin are good starting points to skip the tedious and outdated Hegel. Lenin had time in the library and the Hegel's tome available to him.
Also useful
Philosophy 101, what is matter.
Excellent introduction to cybernetics as such, from a didactical standpoint. Effectively book on what is information.
And there you have a solid materialist philosophical foundation.
Lacan.
What do I have to read before Capitalism and Schizophrenia?
What primers do I need for The Accursed Share?
Can I just jump right into Homo Sacer?
This might be a controversial statement but unless you actually want to study the entire history of philosophy you might want to just stick with Capital. Get a primer or reading guide and just read the fucking book. You might not get a "perfect" understanding of it, but you're never going to get that anyway, at least not from the first read.
This thread really sums up the problem of trying to "understand" a text: To understand Marx you must read Hegel, to understand Hegel you must read Kant, to understand Kant you must read Hume and Aristotle as well as his opponents, and in the end you basically have to start with the Greeks and proceed from there. There comes a point where your understanding of a subject is "good enough", and unless you want to dedicate your life towards studying that subject, that's as good as it's gonna get.
According to the authors, nothing. But you should at least get an understanding of Melanie Klein, Lacan, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and Spinosa.
Marx, Mauss and Nietzsche.
Deleuze would argue so, but Deleuze was a weird fella with weird ideas and a very extensive knowledge on the history of philosophy. Agamben seems to take a lot from Heidegger and Foucault, so knowing them should help you.
cum eating commies
fuck off Zig Forums
That's what your sister called me after I went down on her.
Most importantly start with the Greeks. You need to acquire a profound knowledge of the poetical and scientific works of the ancient Hellene. Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Thucydides, Herodotos, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Sappho, Pindar, Gorgias, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Epicurus are absolute essentials. From there slowly work your way up through Roman, Medieval, Arabic (pay special attention to Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi), Modern and Enlightenment-era philosophy. In the case of Descartes, Spinoza, Kant and Hegel it is more or less necessary to read their entire work including diaries and personal correspondence, otherwise it is impossible to grasp Marx. After finishing with Hegel engage in a depth study of the Young Hegelians, particularly Bauer, Feuerbach and Stirner. Read all of Marx' earlier works and letters to start with. Only as soon as you've done all that is there a chance you will understand some parts of Capital at least upon multiple close readings.