Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit

The Phenomenology of Spirit and The Encyclopedia Phenomenology

Claim: A smaller work, titled Philosophy of Spirit (also translated as "Philosophy of Mind"), appears in Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, and recounts in briefer and somewhat altered form the major themes of the original Phenomenology.

The claim is quite problematic, if not entirely misleading. Philosophy of Spirit is the entirety of the third section of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences; and not a smaller work. Secondly, it (Philosophy of Spirit) does not recount “in briefer and somewhat altered form the major themes of the original Phenomenology”. It is only The Encyclopedia Phenomenology that does this ; whilst the other two are thematically at variance with it.

The encyclopedia itself is divided into I. Logic II. Philosophy of nature III. Philosophy of spirit

Philosophy of spirit in turn is divided divided into

I. Anthropology II. Phenomenology (Encyclopedia Phenomenology) III.Psychology

This fact in itself question the veracity of Hegel's own 1832 appended footnote to the Science of logic’s 1812 preface. As Hegel had noted in the 1812 preface, the, second part that followed the phenomenology would have“contained the Logic and both the two real sciences of philosophy, the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of Spirit” But the emendation notes that This title [i.e. “First Part of the System of Science”] will no longer be added to the second edition to be published this coming Easter. – In place of the intended second part here mentioned, which was to contain the complement of the other philosophical sciences, I have since brought out the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, in its third edition last year”. But The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences is not the second part but the whole system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to improve the lead of the article, Διοτιμα. Unfortunately your recent (as of July 8) additions are very poorly written. It is unclear to me why you believe that the lead needs to contain so much information about the subtitle of the book, or why it should mention the fact that "Hegel supplied varying titles to the printer." Why are any of these points of crucial importance? It's also wrong to add text such as, "But, as Terry Pinkard notes “Even the order in which he made those changes remains disputed among scholars today" to the lead; there is no reason why a single scholar's view about such a secondary issue would be worth mentioning there. You should consider that such material might be more appropriate to a different section of the article. I'm going to remove your additions for now; please reconsider what you are doing at this article. I'm all in favor of ensuring that the lead is accurate, so please make any necessary corrections - but remember that going into excessive detail isn't the right way to do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you read any of the last entries into the talk page?

The claims are factually wrong.

The concern is not good normal English or proper writing;but the veracity about the content.The  errors were corrected as they stand in the text.

As usual, If you feel that they are very poorly written,or not good normal English, verify the claims and amalgamate them into the article in a form placatory to your aesthetic sensibilities.

there is no reason why a single scholar's view about such a secondary issue would be worth mentioning there.

This is not Pinkard’s opinion, (you would have known it if you read any of the entries) this has been an issue since 1835; that has whole bands in the Hegel-Studien dedicated to it.

Since this is a philosophical work, the title of the book is not a matter of caprice ; it informs how the content should be viewed and was viewed by Hegel. Is it a Science of the Phenomenology of Spirit to Spirit (as it appears to spirit)? or a Science of the Phenomenology of Spirit as the Science of the Experience of Consciousness”. what is the form of the phenomenology is intimated by the subtitle itself . And this is a crucial issue when explaining the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your many entries on the talk page above, such as "Derrida on Hegel’s Preface", are rambling and self-absorbed mini-essays that often have no apparent relation to improving the article and show a somewhat less than perfect grasp of English. In answer to your question, I read all of your comments above, starting with "Derrida on Hegel’s Preface", and they were a waste of my time. You shouldn't be very surprised if other people do not bother to read such comments, or that no one has responded. The fact that no one has responded is a good indication that your comments are not appropriate. If you are looking for a forum in which to ask people whether they have read Derrida's analysis of the Phenomenology of Spirit, then you have truly come to the wrong place. I have tried to tell you in the past that your talk page comments are both strange and inappropriate, and that you should alter the way in which you communicate with other editors, but I see that nothing has changed. A case could be made for removing most of your comments entirely as abuses of the talk page and a possible exercise in trolling. If you persist in making such comments, then I may bring your behavior to the attention of administrators.

If there are factual errors then you should be able to correct them without turning the lead into a poorly written mess, full of trivial details about one minor aspect of the book the article is about, in the process. The issue, to put it bluntly, is not my "aesthetic sensibilities", but rather your failure to write something of an acceptable level of quality. I have plenty of experience improving articles about books, and I can tell you that your recent edits here are no good. If the publication history of The Phenomenology of Spirit is of such interest to you, then I suggest that you add a publication history section and add relevant information about this matter there. It does not belong in the lead. There is no difficulty involved in removing a specific claim, such as, "The book's working title, which also appeared in the first edition, was Science of the Experience of Consciousness", if it is actually incorrect, but there is no justification for adding a mass of inconsequential details and comments to the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(By the way, if the comment from Pinkard ("But, as Terry Pinkard notes “Even the order in which he made those changes remains disputed among scholars today . . . ”") is undisputed fact and not opinion, then it should not have been prefaced with "as Terry Pinkard notes"; it should simply have been presented as fact.) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

More than welcome, you are, to report this trolling, abuse and edits. pointing out factual errors that can be ascertained by  the text is all that has been done. A wrong title and subtitle, with a  misrepresented relation to the rest of the system existed in the lead; and it even further  equated it with a wrong part of a different system.  As noted earlier “ verify the claims and amalgamate them into the article in a form placatory to your aesthetic sensibilities” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Your talk page comments above are inappropriate in numerous respects. Please stop engaging in inconsequential ramblings about Derrida and instead address yourself clearly to the article and how it can be improved. If you insist on continuing to make inappropriate posts, I may well remove them and draw them to the attention of administrators. I suggest reviewing WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The guideline states that, "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." That being so, the most important information should be presented first. There is nothing necessarily wrong with mentioning that the Phenomenology was published with variant titles, but such information is hardly more important than the fact that it is Hegel's most widely discussed philosophical work. The lead as it currently stands presents information of secondary importance before more important facts and that cannot really be allowed to stand. I appreciate that your most recent edit makes some adjustments to your previous efforts - that's a positive thing - but there are still problems with it that need to be worked out.

For example, part of the lead states that, "Hegel described the work as an “exposition of the coming to be of knowledge”. This is explicated through a necessary self-origination and dissolution of “the various shapes of spirit as stations on the way through which spirit becomes pure knowledge”." However, those sentences are followed by, "Its German title can be translated as either The Phenomenology of Spirit or The Phenomenology of Mind, because the German word Geist has both meanings." That is not a logical way to arrange those sentences, because the fact that the book's German title can be translated in different ways into English has nothing to do with the two previous sentences. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, and now, you may "remove them and draw them to the attention of administrators". All that has been done is point out factual errors that can be ascertained by  the text. Facts cannot genuflect themselves to placate your aesthetic sensibilities; or phrases anyone would normally use in English. You can edit the page whichever way you deem fit, all that is of concern is factual veracity. You terribly ignore that the inconsequential ramblings about Derrida was aimed at those "familiar with a specific interpretation of the Phenomenology's Preface and what is their take on it. It is addressed to kindred spirits interested in the content; and isn't concerned about aesthetic proclivities on grammatical structure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 09:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are interested in Derrida's analysis of Hegel, then feel free to find a forum for people who care about such matters and join it. Wikipedia is not such a forum and trying to use it as one is inappropriate. If you insist on making comments not related to improving the article they can be removed. I regret that you have not chosen to address your comments to any matter of greater importance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, and now, you may "remove them and draw them to the attention of administrators"... I regret that you have chosen to see the comments as not address at longstanding factual errors in the article. The claims are not interested in Derrida's analysis of Hegel; but bring attention to the factually verifiable claim that the preface to the phenomenology " is neither useful nor even possible" which is a matter of greater importance to the preface section of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 09:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I concur with FreeKnowledgeCreator in this case; Διοτιμα, you might want to read WP:SYNTHESIS. (In addition, you have seriously violated WP:3RR.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

What in specific do you concur with? You seem to be making new accusations of your own that are a variance what was leveled above. (In addition, you have seriously violated the sensibilities of good normal English,and showed a somewhat less than perfect grasp of English in your WP:3RR claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed unsourced section

I removed the following unsourced section for now, if we find references for it, we can include it again.

Identities, differences and arguments logically expressed

Spirit=revealed Totality of Being = ((subjective) Revelation + (objective) Being) = (Knowledge + Real) = (Subject + Object)

System = Subject<->Object [Subject reveals Object, Subject is revealed in Object]

Self = Time} = Man} = Action = Negativity = Selbst

Given/static Being = Space = Sein

Totality of Being = (Time + Space)

Man ≠ Sein
⊃ Man = non-being, nothingness, Nicht-sein
⊃ Time = Nothingness
⊃ Time = annihilation of Space/given Being/Sein

Mvbaron (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Drawing and painting

G.W.hegel 117.220.120.205 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

More summary in Structure section?

I was reading this article to get an idea of what the book is about. The "Structure" section is very helpful. But it doesn't go past the Introduction. I know some of the book's content is covered in "Important concepts," but it would be useful to have summaries of the 6 sections of the book. What do the editors think? Andy Mohebbi (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)