Posts under this category will be in separate sub-categories for each of the major works, with titles prefixed by section numbers and links to the texts at marxists.org as follows
EL Encyclopedia 1 Logic
ENM Encyclopedia 2 – Nature – Book 1, Introduction and Mechanics
ENP Encyclopedia 2 – Nature – Book 2, Physics (including Chemistry)
ENO Encyclopedia 2 – Nature – Book 3, Organics (including the Earth)
ES Encyclopedia 3 – Spirit
PR Philosophy of Right.
PS Phenomenology of Spirit
SL Science of Logic
Note: The EN “Philosophy of Nature” at marxists.org is a translation of the 1817 edition which has incompatible paragraph numbers to the much more extensive 3rd edition of 1830. For EN I will be referencing paragraph numbers from the Petry translation of that 3rd edition, which also has very extensive and useful explanatory notes etc.
The paragraph ranges are:
ENM1-ENM271 Hegel G.W.F.-Philosophy of Nature, Vol. 1-George Allen and Unwin Humanities Press (1970).pdf
ENP272-ENP336 Hegel G. W. F.-Philosophy of Nature, Vol. 2-George Allen and Unwin Humanities Press.pdf
ENO337-ENO376 Hegel G. W. F.-Philosophy of Nature, Vol. 3-George Allen and Unwin Humanities Press (1970).pdf
Petry’s end notes are listed with page and line numbers. These will be prefixed by the corresponding paragraph numbers as above.
If there are posts on any other of Hegel’s works they probably won’t be in sub-categories, at least initially. I have read a few minor works like “Who Thinks Abstractly” as well as “The Philosophy of History” (Sibree translation), but won’t attempt to catch up doing notes.
For understanding and promoting Maksakovsky, Marxist-Leninist works on materialist dialectics should be an adequate philosophical basis together with Marx’s economic works (including Grundrisse). Studying Hegel should hopefully be unnecessary.
For developing Maksakovsky and Marx’s Capital further it seems unwise to ignore Lenin’s advice that it is necessary to understand the whole of Hegel’s Science of Logic in order to understand even the first chapter of Capital. “Understand” is a very low bar for the “flight of speculative reason”. Developing further will require updated material on materialist dialectics together with updated economics.
Science of Logic is part of a “system” that needs to be grasped as a whole, as set out in the three volumes of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences listed above.
Originally the Phenomenology of Spirit was intended as a preliminary needed before reading the Science of Logic or the Encyclopedia.
Hopefully the Phenomenology can be avoided by starting from the corresponding sections of “Subjective Spirit” in the Encyclopedia 3, as recommended by Hegel, according to Robert E. Wood, “Hegel’s Introduction to the System – Encyclopaedia Phenomenology and Psychology”. So I will start with Robert Wood’s “Introduction, Translation and Commentary” for those sections. This also includes an overview of the whole Encyclopedia System and of the remaining sections of volume 3 on Spirit (ie the initial “Anthropology” part of “Subjective Spirit” transitioning from ENO, the “Objective Spirit” and the final “Absolute Spirit”.
There is an extensive literature on Hegel and a full appreciation would require far better understanding of the whole background of at least seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth century European and especially German history and philosophy than is feasible for me, as well as a thorough background study of the whole history of philosophy.
Despite not having that background, what I hope to do is a close reading of Science of Logic, together with the corresponding material from EL and from Lenin’s Conspectus and together with the detailed presentation in terms of modal homotopy type theory at nLab. That is made easier because they are all cross referenced via the online SL paragraph numbers provided “pragmatically” by Andy Blunden at marxists.org.
Although intrinsically difficult and becoming more difficult the more distant we are from the spirit of Hegel’s world there are some other factors that could make this feasible.
First as well as the classic translation of EL by Wallace at marxists.org there are now two more modern translations which are less of a “loose paraphrase” and may help overcome the difficulties resulting from translating Hegel’s very idiosyncratic German. These include extensive introductions and editorial notes not included in the online transcriptions. (The same is true of the other works mentioned here).
Also hopefully made easier by a more modern translation of SL:
(Cambridge Hegel Translations) Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel, George Di Giovanni-The Science of Logic-Cambridge University Press (2010).pdf
Also hopefully made easier by a detailed section by section commentary:
David Gray Carlson-A Commentary on Hegel’s Science of Logic (2007).pdf
Unfortunately neither of those are cross referenced to the SL paragraph numbers. So I will also have to follow page by page through a hardcopy of the Miller translation used by marxists.org.
Before getting started on that massive undertaking I will have to first catch up with the mathematics needed to understand the material at nLab. I expect that to be more immediately useful in relation to Marx and Maksakovsky’s economics. It will take quite a while…
I will also have to do at least one preliminary reading of the whole Encyclopedia, without attempting a close reading or notes. (By all accounts Hegel’s Logic requires multiple readings).
So I’m putting this down as a statement of intention to get it out of my head while I get on with Maksakovsky.
But for idiosyncratic reasons I have already started “playing” Hegel by audio on daily walks. That is not as crazy as it sounds. There is even a libravox recording of the Wallace EL. I did get “something” from other libravox philosophy recordings and from text to speech of Preface to Phenomenology (Pinkard translation), “History of Philosophy”and “Philosophy of Right” (Knox/Inwood).
But obviously it won’t work for SL and it is too easy to lose track even with less dense works.
I don’t expect to post much on Hegel until I am sitting down doing the close reading of SL etc. “Playing” doesn’t go well with annotating. But I do now have a category under which to record progress and which others can contribute to.