--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" <willyate@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Will

As far as I know Carlson's is the only full commentary on the SL in English. I recently finally finished reading it. It is a fairly decent book.

Robert M. Wallace's _Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God_ is the only other book on the SL that I have read. It isn't a full commentary, but it comes pretty close to it. It is also a quite good book--and a good deal cheaper.

You don't necessarily have to read the Phenomenology all at once. Actually a knowledge of the SL is very helpful for understanding the Phenomenology. But a knowledge of the Phenomenology isn't, as far as I can think, the least bit helpful in understanding the SL.

John

Hi John,

Ouch! The Wallace isn't too cheap either! Thanks for your input, John. I think I'll end up ordering both. I have about a dozen books on the Phenomenology and am still completely lost, so I'll take anything I can get when it comes to the Logic. There are also An Introduction to Hegel's Logic by Justus Hartnack and The Logic of Hegel's 'Logic': An Introduction by John Burbidge, both of which received glowing reviews on Amazon. But with each coming in at well under 200 pages, I can't imagine they're the sort of thing I need. I'll stick with the Carlson and Wallace based on page count alone.

I'm surprised to hear you say that the Phenomenology is of no help with the Logic, but the Logic is helpful for reading the Phenomenology. Isn't the whole point of the Phenomenology to get us to the point where we can read the Logic? It seems like every day I have to reassess what this book is supposed to be about!

By the way, did you find the diagrams in the Carlson helpful and/or representative of Hegel's intentions?

Best,
Will

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "john" <jgbardis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" <willyate@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
> >
> > Best,
> > Will
>
>
> As far as I know Carlson's is the only full commentary on the SL in English. I recently finally finished reading it. It is a fairly decent book.
>
> Robert M. Wallace's _Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God_ is the only other book on the SL that I have read. It isn't a full commentary, but it comes pretty close to it. It is also a quite good book--and a good deal cheaper.
>
> You don't necessarily have to read the Phenomenology all at once. Actually a knowledge of the SL is very helpful for understanding the Phenomenology. But a knowledge of the Phenomenology isn't, as far as I can think, the least bit helpful in understanding the SL.
>
> John
>

Hi Will,



Carlson's book is probably the most engaging work on the Logic. One of its
virtues is that Carlson dialogues with many of the other commentaries or
stray comments on the Logic so you get a look picture of whose who.



I find that most Hegelians who focus on the Logic think little of Hegel's
claim that the Phenomenology is an introduction to the Logic. But since no
published work has ever really explained in a satisfying way the nature of
this introduction it is easy to see why so many find the Phenomenology a
frustrating work. I am of the opinion that the level of scholarship on Hegel
is extremely poor. Fill a room with 'Hegelians' and ask them to speak on
three topics: the dialectic, the absolute and speculative reason. I can
assure you that most of what you will hear will be pure nonsense. So be
aware that you are not only reading what may be the most obscure
philosophical work. You are also flying blind.



regards, Alan



From: hegel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hegel@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
wyate53
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:11 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hegel] Re: David Gray Carlson's Commentary on the Logic





Hi John,

Ouch! The Wallace isn't too cheap either! Thanks for your input, John. I
think I'll end up ordering both. I have about a dozen books on the
Phenomenology and am still completely lost, so I'll take anything I can get
when it comes to the Logic. There are also An Introduction to Hegel's Logic
by Justus Hartnack and The Logic of Hegel's 'Logic': An Introduction by John
Burbidge, both of which received glowing reviews on Amazon. But with each
coming in at well under 200 pages, I can't imagine they're the sort of thing
I need. I'll stick with the Carlson and Wallace based on page count alone.

I'm surprised to hear you say that the Phenomenology is of no help with the
Logic, but the Logic is helpful for reading the Phenomenology. Isn't the
whole point of the Phenomenology to get us to the point where we can read
the Logic? It seems like every day I have to reassess what this book is
supposed to be about!

By the way, did you find the diagrams in the Carlson helpful and/or
representative of Hegel's intentions?

Best,
Will

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com> , "john"
<jgbardis@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com> , "wyate53"

<willyate@> wrote:

> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish

the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides
to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray
Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to
buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians
are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to
the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact
that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't
find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!

> >
> > Best,
> > Will
>
>
> As far as I know Carlson's is the only full commentary on the SL in

English. I recently finally finished reading it. It is a fairly decent book.

>
> Robert M. Wallace's _Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God_ is

the only other book on the SL that I have read. It isn't a full commentary,
but it comes pretty close to it. It is also a quite good book--and a good
deal cheaper.

>
> You don't necessarily have to read the Phenomenology all at once. Actually

a knowledge of the SL is very helpful for understanding the Phenomenology.
But a knowledge of the Phenomenology isn't, as far as I can think, the least
bit helpful in understanding the SL.

>
> John
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" <willyate@...> wrote:

>
> Hi John,
>
> Ouch! The Wallace isn't too cheap either! Thanks for your input, John. I think I'll end up ordering both. I have about a dozen books on the Phenomenology and am still completely lost, so I'll take anything I can get when it comes to the Logic. There are also An Introduction to Hegel's Logic by Justus Hartnack and The Logic of Hegel's 'Logic': An Introduction by John Burbidge, both of which received glowing reviews on Amazon. But with each coming in at well under 200 pages, I can't imagine they're the sort of thing I need. I'll stick with the Carlson and Wallace based on page count alone.
>
> I'm surprised to hear you say that the Phenomenology is of no help with the Logic, but the Logic is helpful for reading the Phenomenology. Isn't the whole point of the Phenomenology to get us to the point where we can read the Logic? It seems like every day I have to reassess what this book is supposed to be about!
>
> By the way, did you find the diagrams in the Carlson helpful and/or representative of Hegel's intentions?
>
> Best,
> Will

Hartnack's little book is--I don't quite know how to say this--very uninteresting.

I tried to read Burbidge many years ago and had no luck with it. Maybe I might get more out of it now that I actually know the SL pretty well--but that sort of defeats the whole purpose, though doesn't it?

There's just so little on the SL in English, and much of what might be interesting, such as Marcuse's books on the subject, are just too expensive. People have spoken well about Houlgate's book on the logic. But it only deals with the first two parts of the Doctrine of Quality.

I found Carlson's little diagrams very helpful in the doctrine of Being; but I didn't hardly even look at them in the Doctrines of the Essence or the Concept. One thing I found very helpful with Carlson was his detailed commentaries on Quantity and Measure. I don't believe that is available anywhere else.

Usually the way a book works is that you read it and finish it in a reasonable length of time, you more or less understand it and find it more or less interesting. Then you find another book to read. And that's the way most of Hegel's books work as well.

But the Phenomenology and the SL... Both those works require years of careful study. If you are in a hurry to get somewhere then you better not even mess with them.

John

Hi

in the attachment you find Houlgate`s "Opening.." as a pdf file.

I am wondering what kind of edition of Hegel`s "Phänomenolgie..." you´re using. I`ve (in German) the edition from 1807 and but I can`t the passages you`re discussing.

Regards

Ulli
--
NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "ulrich barth" <ulrich.barth@...> wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> in the attachment you find Houlgate`s "Opening.." as a pdf file.
>
> I am wondering what kind of edition of Hegel`s "Phänomenolgie..." you´re using. I`ve (in German) the edition from 1807 and but I can`t the passages you`re discussing.
>
> Regards
>
> Ulli

Dear Ulli,

I believe it was an innovation on Miller's part to number the paragraphs of the Phenomenology.

Very likely you could get a copy of the Miller translation of the Phenomenology of Spirit quite cheaply. Then you would have to number the paragraphs of the German text accordingly in a given section. Then you would be able to see what passages we are discussing.

The new English translation of the Science of Logic has the German page numbers in the margins. But, unfortunately, this isn't the case with the Phenomenology (or, for that matter, with the still standard first translation of the SL).

John

The Pinkard translation, free online, is a bilingual edition, with numbering for paragraphs in both languages.

http://web.mac.com/titpaul/Site/Phenomenology_of_Spirit_page.html

Bill Hord

Laughter is the essence of mankind. Rabelais

This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient (or have received this email in
error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. Any
unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
email is strictly prohibited.

________________________________________
From: hegel@yahoogroups.com [hegel@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of john [jgbardis@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:17 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hegel] Re: David Gray Carlson's Commentary on the Logic

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "ulrich barth" <ulrich.barth@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> in the attachment you find Houlgate`s "Opening.." as a pdf file.
>
> I am wondering what kind of edition of Hegel`s "Phänomenolgie..." you´re using. I`ve (in German) the edition from 1807 and but I can`t the passages you`re discussing.
>
> Regards
>
> Ulli


Dear Ulli,

I believe it was an innovation on Miller's part to number the paragraphs of the Phenomenology.

Very likely you could get a copy of the Miller translation of the Phenomenology of Spirit quite cheaply. Then you would have to number the paragraphs of the German text accordingly in a given section. Then you would be able to see what passages we are discussing.

The new English translation of the Science of Logic has the German page numbers in the margins. But, unfortunately, this isn't the case with the Phenomenology (or, for that matter, with the still standard first translation of the SL).

John



------------------------------------

Homepage: http://hegel.net
Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/en/ml.htm
Listowners Homepage: http://kai.in
Group policy:
slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.

Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as scientific standards apply.

The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net, that is the copyright of the mails belongs to the author and hegel.net. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the mails of this list under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version, published by the Free Software Foundation. The mails are also licensed under a Creative Commons License and under the Creative Commons Developing Nations license (see footer of http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm ) Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, that solves that problem.

John

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, bill.hord <bill.hord@...> wrote:
>
> The Pinkard translation, free online, is a bilingual edition, with numbering for paragraphs in both languages.
>
> http://web.mac.com/titpaul/Site/Phenomenology_of_Spirit_page.html
>
> Bill Hord

Dear Hegel Friends,

I think that Carlson's book is great, it helped me a lot to understand the Science of Logic. My question is: have you ever found some place in his book that you don't agree with?



regards
Artur

Yes, many. But I think it is a very useful book.

- Alan

From: Artur Jochlik <arturjochlik@...>
Reply-To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:00 AM
To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [hegel] Re: David Gray Carlson's Commentary on the Logic






Dear Hegel Friends,

I think that Carlson's book is great, it helped me a lot to understand the
Science of Logic. My question is: have you ever found some place in his book
that you don't agree with?

regards
Artur









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Artur,

Yes, Carlson's book is very good. He dutifully works his way through the whole book from beginning to end. It is necessary to do this.

But once you work your way through the whole book, looking at and considering each move and each transition and each category, etc, that is really just the beginning of understanding the book. When you get through the book following Carlson, all you have done then is just read the book. Having just read the book, in fact, will put you far ahead of most people.

And it is only after having really read and worked through the book that you can finally begin to try to understyand what Hegel is up to. To try to understand Hegel without actually reading the book, or to try to understand Hegel based just on isolated passages from the book--that seems questionable to say the least.


John

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "Artur Jochlik" wrote:
>
> Dear Hegel Friends,
>
> I think that Carlson's book is great, it helped me a lot to understand the Science of Logic. My question is: have you ever found some place in his book that you don't agree with?
>
>
>
> regards
> Artur
>

Hi everyone,

I just had a look at Carlson's book, and my thoughts are the following.

I'm quite familiar with the Science of Logic, and so I wanted to use it as a reference for some passage which I found very difficult; the chapter on 'Grund' in this case. It is my impression the book is not very suited for this: I just skipped ahead to the relevant section, and found Carlson's commentary extremely unhelpful. He is translating Hegel, whose vocabulary I know, into another vocabulary which I don't know. So I would maybe have to read Carlson's book from the beginning, but that would be a bit much to ask.

Second, I got annoyed by the way he quotes secondary literature. He just keeps throwing in quotes which have no particular relevance, other than that he thought is is nicely phrased, from a wide variety of sources seemingly randomly applied.

I admit I gave up rather quickly, being immediately turned off by this, so if you think my criticism is unfair let me know. And so that leaves me looking for a good commentary on the chapters on reflection and ground, so if you know of any in English or German please let me know.

Best wishes,

Bart

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Will
>

Acording to his biblography, carlson seems not to know much (any?) german literature about Hegel.

For the 1st third of the logic of essence,
I reconend the books mentioned at

http://wiki.hegel-system.de/index.php/Reflexion_in_sich

For discussion of "grund" especialy roh's book "form und grund".

All the best
Kai


Am 11.01.2013 um 20:37 schrieb "bart_zantvoort" <bartfw.zantvoort@...>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I just had a look at Carlson's book, and my thoughts are the following.
>
> I'm quite familiar with the Science of Logic, and so I wanted to use it as a reference for some passage which I found very difficult; the chapter on 'Grund' in this case. It is my impression the book is not very suited for this: I just skipped ahead to the relevant section, and found Carlson's commentary extremely unhelpful. He is translating Hegel, whose vocabulary I know, into another vocabulary which I don't know. So I would maybe have to read Carlson's book from the beginning, but that would be a bit much to ask.
>
> Second, I got annoyed by the way he quotes secondary literature. He just keeps throwing in quotes which have no particular relevance, other than that he thought is is nicely phrased, from a wide variety of sources seemingly randomly applied.
>
> I admit I gave up rather quickly, being immediately turned off by this, so if you think my criticism is unfair let me know. And so that leaves me looking for a good commentary on the chapters on reflection and ground, so if you know of any in English or German please let me know.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bart
>
> --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
>>
>> Best,
>> Will
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Homepage: http://hegel.net
> Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/en/ml.htm
> Listowners Homepage: http://kai.in
> Group policy:
> slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
> only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.
>
> Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as scientific standards apply.
>
> The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net, that is the copyright of the mails belongs to the author and hegel.net. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the mails of this list under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version, published by the Free Software Foundation. The mails are also licensed under a Creative Commons License and under the Creative Commons Developing Nations license (see footer of http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm ) Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The general problem is that the English translations of Hegel's texts often are incomplete and wrong.

Regards

Ulli

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 12.01.2013 um 11:24 schrieb Kai Froeb <froeb-list@...>:

> Acording to his biblography, carlson seems not to know much (any?) german literature about Hegel.
>
> For the 1st third of the logic of essence,
> I reconend the books mentioned at
>
> http://wiki.hegel-system.de/index.php/Reflexion_in_sich
>
> For discussion of "grund" especialy roh's book "form und grund".
>
> All the best
> Kai
>
> Am 11.01.2013 um 20:37 schrieb "bart_zantvoort" bartfw.zantvoort@...>:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I just had a look at Carlson's book, and my thoughts are the following.
> >
> > I'm quite familiar with the Science of Logic, and so I wanted to use it as a reference for some passage which I found very difficult; the chapter on 'Grund' in this case. It is my impression the book is not very suited for this: I just skipped ahead to the relevant section, and found Carlson's commentary extremely unhelpful. He is translating Hegel, whose vocabulary I know, into another vocabulary which I don't know. So I would maybe have to read Carlson's book from the beginning, but that would be a bit much to ask.
> >
> > Second, I got annoyed by the way he quotes secondary literature. He just keeps throwing in quotes which have no particular relevance, other than that he thought is is nicely phrased, from a wide variety of sources seemingly randomly applied.
> >
> > I admit I gave up rather quickly, being immediately turned off by this, so if you think my criticism is unfair let me know. And so that leaves me looking for a good commentary on the chapters on reflection and ground, so if you know of any in English or German please let me know.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Will
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Homepage: http://hegel.net
> > Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/en/ml.htm
> > Listowners Homepage: http://kai.in
> > Group policy:
> > slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
> > only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.
> >
> > Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as scientific standards apply.
> >
> > The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net, that is the copyright of the mails belongs to the author and hegel.net. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the mails of this list under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version, published by the Free Software Foundation. The mails are also licensed under a Creative Commons License and under the Creative Commons Developing Nations license (see footer of http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm ) Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Bart,

Chapter 4 of my _Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God_ (2005) gives a detailed commentary on "Reflection," which immediately precedes "Ground." As far as I know, it's the only detailed commentary in English. I respond in some detail to Christian Iber's commentary in German, which Kai praises in his very helpful survey of the literature (below). I do not give a proper account of "Ground," but I think that such an account will emerge much more readily when we have a thorough understanding of "Reflection" and thus of Hegel's overall project in "Essence." We were discussing "Reflection" in a recent thread on this list

Re: [hegel] Essence, "Shine," Reflection, Ground (was: Dialectic, Contradiction, "Speculation")

See for example my 12/31/12 posting, "Hi Stephen," etc.

I'd be interested to hear what your interest is in the Science of Logic, and in "Ground" in particular.

Best, Bob W

On Jan 12, 2013, at 3:24 AM, Kai Froeb wrote:

> Acording to his biblography, carlson seems not to know much (any?) german literature about Hegel.
>
> For the 1st third of the logic of essence,
> I reconend the books mentioned at
>
> http://wiki.hegel-system.de/index.php/Reflexion_in_sich
>
> For discussion of "grund" especialy roh's book "form und grund".
>
> All the best
> Kai
>
> Am 11.01.2013 um 20:37 schrieb "bart_zantvoort" bartfw.zantvoort@...>:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I just had a look at Carlson's book, and my thoughts are the following.
> >
> > I'm quite familiar with the Science of Logic, and so I wanted to use it as a reference for some passage which I found very difficult; the chapter on 'Grund' in this case. It is my impression the book is not very suited for this: I just skipped ahead to the relevant section, and found Carlson's commentary extremely unhelpful. He is translating Hegel, whose vocabulary I know, into another vocabulary which I don't know. So I would maybe have to read Carlson's book from the beginning, but that would be a bit much to ask.
> >
> > Second, I got annoyed by the way he quotes secondary literature. He just keeps throwing in quotes which have no particular relevance, other than that he thought is is nicely phrased, from a wide variety of sources seemingly randomly applied.
> >
> > I admit I gave up rather quickly, being immediately turned off by this, so if you think my criticism is unfair let me know. And so that leaves me looking for a good commentary on the chapters on reflection and ground, so if you know of any in English or German please let me know.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Will
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Homepage: http://hegel.net
> > Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/en/ml.htm
> > Listowners Homepage: http://kai.in
> > Group policy:
> > slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
> > only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.
> >
> > Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as scientific standards apply.
> >
> > The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net, that is the copyright of the mails belongs to the author and hegel.net. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the mails of this list under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version, published by the Free Software Foundation. The mails are also licensed under a Creative Commons License and under the Creative Commons Developing Nations license (see footer of http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm ) Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Robert Wallace
website: www.robertmwallace.com
blog: http.//robertmwallace.blogspot.com
email: bob@...
phone: 414-617-3914












[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In regard to my own reading of the SL, I started that about 8 or 9 years ago with the chapter three of Bob's book which was (and probably still is) available on the internet. This is a detailed commentary of the Quality section.

Then when his book came out, chapter four is a detailed commentary on the first part of the doctrine of essence. It then skips the middle part and concludes with a detailed commentary on the categories of modality and relation that concludes the doctrine of essence. Chapter 5 skips the first part of the doctrine of the concept, but deals at some length with the middle and concluding parts.

So on my first reading of the SL I was very much helped by Bob's book, being left on my own for the daunting middle section of the doctrine of essence and the syllogism section of the doctrine of the concept.

So, then, Carlson's book guided me in my second reading. The book is like a forced march through the book from beginning to end. The whole point of the book is just to get you from the beginning to the end. So, obviously, he isn't able to linger at any point.

I believe the whole point of a first reading of the SL is that it makes a second reading possible. And the whole point, perhaps, of a second reading is that it makes a third reading possible.

At any rate I recently began a third reading with the help of Houlgate's Opening of Hegel's Logic. This provides a quite detailed account of the first two out of 27 chapters. Houlgate spends 150 pages on his detailed commentary of these two chapters. But even there he skips the remarks. To a large extent the remarks deal with the history of philosophy. And, obviously, the SL stands in a very strong relation to the history of philosophy. What Hegel is trying to do can't be understood without bring in the history of philosophy that he is consciously addressing. And Houlgate also doesn't address the what might be called second-level narrative of the book. He only addresses each transition as it comes along. He doesn't try to fathom the over-all structure of the book or the over-all "story" that Hegel is trying to tell. Bob's book has much merit in, not only dealing with the individual transitions, but also trying to understand the over-all "story" or "meaning" of the book as a whole.

These are the only three substantial books on the SL in English that I know of.

John

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "bart_zantvoort" wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just had a look at Carlson's book, and my thoughts are the following.
>
> I'm quite familiar with the Science of Logic, and so I wanted to use it as a reference for some passage which I found very difficult; the chapter on 'Grund' in this case. It is my impression the book is not very suited for this: I just skipped ahead to the relevant section, and found Carlson's commentary extremely unhelpful. He is translating Hegel, whose vocabulary I know, into another vocabulary which I don't know. So I would maybe have to read Carlson's book from the beginning, but that would be a bit much to ask.
>
> Second, I got annoyed by the way he quotes secondary literature. He just keeps throwing in quotes which have no particular relevance, other than that he thought is is nicely phrased, from a wide variety of sources seemingly randomly applied.
>
> I admit I gave up rather quickly, being immediately turned off by this, so if you think my criticism is unfair let me know. And so that leaves me looking for a good commentary on the chapters on reflection and ground, so if you know of any in English or German please let me know.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bart
>
> --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
> >
> > Best,
> > Will
> >
>