/lit/ - Literature

>>22337869
Written by autistic Germans, notorious for their lack of brevity and needless attention to small but unimportant details.

>>22337869
>just like Kant’s Critique of Pure reason

If anyone but Kant wrote CPR, it’d be two thousand pages

>>22337889
No, they are the most insightful philosophers. I just don't think this is the best way to do it.

>>22337892
Excellent point, and pretty cerebral. There are basically 2 types of German books in my experience, ones that are so direct and simple you can see how this country was the epicenter for 2 world wars, and books that are so long winded with so many compound words you can see how this country lost 2 world wars.

>>22337898
I think you failed to understand what I wrote.
Their message is drizzled in the German languages, where being obtuse can happen subtly. This doesn’t detract from the core concepts what so ever.

>>22337914
>that last statement
Fucking funny

>>22337892
this

>as regards the comprehensibility of a system of speculative cognition, connected under a single principle, we may say with equal justice: many a book would have been much clearer, if it had not been intended to be so very clear.

hegel is a hack
schlegel on the other hand..

>>22337869


Wellseating of concepts.

Hegel should not be compared to I'maweelil Kant, as the former is Catholically oriented, whilst the latter is heretical.

>>22337869
clarity and analytic writing was largely a direction reaction to hegel. There is a reason for why he writes the way hegel does though.

"simply" put, the world is very complicated and there are many details. Our mind is also very complicated with many details. This is not a coincidence, and our mind interacts with the world in a dynamical and intertwined way. If we want to describe how this happens in a detailed way, we are going to have to be very precise in describing every little interaction step by step. In line with good old tradition, we can also start from the most basic and foundational things, and work our way up to the highest and most complex history. Once we've done that, we'll have given a description of the dynamical interaction between mind and world. There is no other way to describe it because the mind is situated in the world as you are describing it.

>>22337869
>>22337869 (OP)
clarity and analytic writing was largely a direct reaction to hegel. There is a reason for why hegel writes the way he does though.

"simply" put, the world is very complicated and there are many details. Our mind is also very complicated with many details. This is not a coincidence, and our mind interacts with the world in a dynamical and intertwined way. If we want to describe how this happens in a detailed way, we are going to have to be very precise in describing every little interaction step by step. In line with good old tradition, we can also start from the most basic and foundational things, and work our way up to the highest and most complex history. Once we've done that, we'll have given a description of the dynamical interaction between mind and world. There is no other way to describe it because the mind is situated in the world as you are describing it.

>>22337869
If you take a look at Hegel's texts when he was young, that obscure style wasn't that present. With time, for whatever reason, he became more obscure. Why? We can only speculate.

However, if you want a general reason as to why many philosophers will have much more complicated ways of explaining their ideas that you, for example, it's pretty simple.
You are an average person in 2023, they were pionners in their respective century. Being the first to express an idea, to explore a new system, is extremely complicated. Of course you, as an average person right now, would not need 600 pages to explain your own thinking, because most likely your way of thinking is neitheir new, revolutionnary, or in any way shape or form, special (I mean no offense by the way).
In Kant's case, for example, in the Critique of Pure reason, it's very obvious that he himself struggles with some of the ideas he has, because he's the first to explore them. Taking a look at both versions of that books shows you how much he struggled to express clearly what he tought (even though clarity was obviously something he never achieved there).
Hegel might also be a fucking hack, if you are to believe people like Schopenhauer.
In any case, you usually need people to lay out ideas in a complex manner before these ideas can be discussed easily after.