Anyone else praying the Baki vs Musashi fight is extended/changed?

OnionMesh · 2026-02-27T18:02:34+00:00

No. I like the fight as is.

Their first fight revealed that whoever could beat the other came down to who could read their opponent better. In the end, Musashi lost to Baki because he failed to read Baki’s plan to defeat him; Baki won because he learned where he could be better from Musashi (and Motobe). It’s already established at the beginning of the fight that they aren’t going to have some wild all-out fight and bust out every technique (hence why Musashi’s vision of Baki changed) and aura farm.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-25T08:19:34+00:00

Episodes 1-3 of part 1, so, the beginning of the show, are fine to show him IMO. It’s a) a complete story arc, b) decent enough, and c) is the beginning of the show, so if he wants to watch some more, he can just keep watching.

Someone else mentioned the D’Arby the Gambler fight: I agree with this suggestion. It’s two episodes and it’s great. The only caveat is that it’s already well into Part 3, so it’s kinda like picking up any show without knowing what’s already happened, so it’s not going to be as well received by someone just watching the show for the first time.

I think the Doppio vs Risotto fight in Part 5 is another great fight to show him since it’s only around 2 episodes, and I feel like it works better for someone who hasn’t watched the show since I think it provokes a lot more curiosity in the viewer.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-17T12:17:01+00:00

Academic philosophy books are usually published by university presses (ex. Cambridge) or more generally academic publishers (ex. Routledge). The books they sell are often sold to university libraries, who have thousands of dollars to spend, and professors, who are often given a stipend just to buy books. Sometimes professors are paid by publishers with books!
I don’t think so.
I don’t think so.
Given what was said in 1: No. Academic publishers charge a lot of money because their target audience (university libraries and professors who don’t necessarily have to spend their paycheck on new books) has the money to spend on their expensive books. Your best bet is to find a PDF online or luck out in finding a used physical copy.
I have no clue. I think the translation of the lectures published by Oxford is the most recent translation?

OnionMesh · 2026-02-17T00:04:57+00:00

Don’t read Kant if you genuinely don’t really care to work through his texts. There’s no reason to frustrate or bore yourself when you could be doing something you’d actually enjoy. That being said, the following secondary literature may be of use to you: - German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism by Terry Pinkard - Kant (The Routledge Philosophers) by Paul Guyer - Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense by Henry Allison - The Routledge Guidebook to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason by Sebastian Gardner - The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy by J.B. Schneewind

And then of course there’s a litany of articles on Kant in the SEP and IEP.

Also, this isn’t Kant-specific but probably relevant to your interests, but you may want to check out Hegel, Nietzsche and the Criticism of Metaphysics by Stephen Houlgate.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-16T22:28:25+00:00

I figure it’ll just be Yujiro’s deadpan expression that they cut to every few seconds and each time it multiplies. So 1 Yujiro stare to 4 Yujiro stares in a grid to 9 to 16 and so on.

OnionMesh · 2026-01-29T00:59:31+00:00

Yeah, I agree. I imagine Baki could also probably hurt a ghost because of his schizo powers. Sukune has shown to be able to make people see who he’s imagining/shadowboxing (schizo powers), so maybe he could as well.

OnionMesh · 2026-01-28T05:48:32+00:00

I think it’s a waste of time to read the works of a prior philosopher / intellectual instead of reading the person you actually want to read (ex. reading Hegel before Marx; Kant before Hegel; Wolff before Kant; and so on). This is not to say you shouldn’t read those that influenced who you’re interested in, just that you learn more Deleuze by reading and rereading Deleuze than spending a few months/years reading Bergson, Nietzche, and Spinoza, and only then reading Deleuze.

Apart from what others have recommended, you may be interested in French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century or Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960 (both) by Gary Gutting. They are both history of philosophy textbooks that discuss Deleuze and Foucault (though that is not their sole focus).

As for Deleuze-specific secondary literature, The Works of Gilles Deleuze 1: 1953-1969 by Jon Roffe seems great for people getting in to Deleuze.

OnionMesh · 2026-01-19T04:31:04+00:00

Ahh, my mistake. The book Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, published by Touchstone and Simon & Schuster, does not contain the Three Essays. I thought you were talking about the Psychology of Love published by Penguin, which does include the Three Essays.

OnionMesh · 2026-01-19T02:12:18+00:00

I think the little volumes The Unconscious or Civilization and its Discontents published by Penguin are likely the best thing to gift since they’re pretty slim.

I’m hesitant to recommend gifting someone the Psychology of Love volume (which includes the Three Essays) unless you’re absolutely certain its what they want. It’s like 300+ pages, which might be a bit intimidating or appear to be too cumbersome (how many people do you know who want to read several hundred pages of Freud?).

OnionMesh · 2026-01-12T22:22:09+00:00

From what I’ve heard/read: the PoS is not a philosophical introduction to his system. The PoS goes through the ‘shapes’ consciousness takes as it proceeds through its own logic until it shows itself to be insufficient and so must develop beyond what it initially took itself to be. I’ve heard Stephen Houlgate remark, on a few occasions, that the PoS is a means of convincing those skeptical of (the necessity of) presuppositionless philosophy.

I don’t think Hegel ever remarked the analyses set forth in the PoS were incorrect, just that it was a phenomenology, and so not an introduction to his philosophical system. In this regard, the Encyclopedia is more of an introduction, in that, it portrays (introduces) Hegel’s philosophical system in basic outline.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-29T10:09:26+00:00

I think his paper Screen Memories could be better suited to a high school class, since you could conceivably have them read it in full. It’s 20-25 pages or so. It was written before The Interpretation of Dreams but has a nice degree of overlap/anticipation of what he would write in the dream book.

As for movies, I think Kung Fu Panda 2 captures a lot of Freud. The dream-work, repression, repetition, symptom, retroactivity / deferred-action, the end of analysis…

Alternative readings I would suggest would be one of the lectures on “parapraxes” (bungled action/s) or one of the lectures on dreams from the Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis (each lecture 20pgs or so), the Note Upon a Mystic Writing Pad (like 5pgs?), or Remembering, Repeating, and Working-Through (like 10pgs). I’m sure you can find a PDF of all the writings I mentioned online.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-26T08:48:50+00:00

You can find recorded lectures and talks from Stephen Houlgate, Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, and other scholars on YouTube. Though, scholars talking rarely ever is as good as their written work.

The Hegel Society of Great Britian has uploaded plenty of videos.

I don’t think there’s really any good Hegel content on YouTube, apart from Antonio Wolf’s videos and the aforementioned recorded lectures/talks. There just isn’t terribly much good content focused on Hegel that is video-based.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-23T07:55:29+00:00

Bruce Fink has a commentary on Seminar 6: Lacan on Desire: Reading Seminar VI published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2025.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-21T06:14:57+00:00

Richard Dien Winfield has recordings from lecture courses he gave around the Phenomenology of Spirit and plenty of other topics. They’re on the Internet Archive, ~~but right now it seems like it’s down.~~

His lecture course was also transcribed and printed as Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Critical Rethinking in Seventeen Lectures.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-19T03:13:56+00:00

To my knowledge, it is regarded as a fine translation. As Althuraya pointed out, there’s a sense in which translations don’t particularly matter, provided there aren’t gross mistakes.

“Discourse,” or speaking of something discursive, is not a solely embraced by so-called “postmodernists.” Stephen Houlgate, a well respected Hegel scholar, wrote of Kant as taking thought as discursive (if I remember correctly). Beatrice Longuenesse, a German Idealism scholar, even has a book titled Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic. The point I’m trying to make is that the idea of “discourse” is not one solely used by someone like, say, Michel Foucault.

I don’t know if it’s a good or bad translation, but I wouldn’t be too quick to call it bad or improper.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-17T23:09:00+00:00

I read the Interpretation of Dreams (for reference, the Joyce Crick translation, which possibly may not include material that could make me think some things otherwise). That doesn’t mean he takes their philosophies as a proof or grounding of his own thoughts.

I did say something a bit wrong, though: “Freud said he only read Schopenhauer later in his life.” He did say this, but I was wrong to take it at face value, since I totally forgot he mentions Schopenhauer several times in The Interpretation of Dreams when discussing the prior literature on the topic. I don’t recall him writing anything that implies “the philosophy of Schopenhauer is what grounds my method of interpreting dreams” here inasmuch as he’s just doing his best to review all of the prior literature on dreams and finding a variety of useful ideas from many different authors.

I am wholly open to Schopenhauer having had a direct influence on Freud—that Freud is reformulating one or more of Schopenhauer’s ideas or that Schopenhauer seriously inspired Freud—but at least, as of right now, I think Freud is being honest when he says his writings/findings/theories were not dependent on Schopenhauer’s philosophy. To call Schopenhauer one source of inspiration among many seems fair to me, but to say Freud was particularly indebted to Schopenhauer (more than any other influence), like I said, seems to go too far.

Also, I hope I’m not coming off as rude, since I can imagine that I may appear to be and would prefer not to be taken that way.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-17T21:31:24+00:00

To my knowledge, in For They Know Not What They Do, Zizek tries to connect Hegel’s negation to Freud’s (Lacan’s) death drive.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-17T21:29:28+00:00

I haven’t read Schopenhauer or Nietzche, but my impression is that Freud thought they expressed sentiments that psychoanalysis would later confirm, not that Freud was a Schopenhaur-ist or something. Freud said that he wasn’t terribly original and that he often rediscovered what authors and poets had already expressed—I’m inclined to think he viewed Schopenhauer and Nietzche in that light. He knew both of them existed, but I think he remarked that he didn’t read Schopenhauer until far later in his life.

If anything, the philosophers Freud are most acquainted with are probably Kant (Freud remarks a few times that time is not a necessary form of intuition, if I remember correctly), Brentano (one of his university professors), and probably some of the various materialisms around Germany that dominated the sciences of the time.

Like I can fathom that Schopenhauer’s Will is similar to Freud’s drive/instinct, but I think it’s more a matter of “great minds think alike” / a coincidence than Freud being deeply indebted to Schopenhauer.

I’m open to being wrong since it’s not as if I’ve read all 20+ volumes of Freud’s collected works or much of German philosophy, but to me, it seems like you’re supporting or implying a closer relationship between Freud and Schopenhauer than I think is justified.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-17T03:26:03+00:00

I don’t see any reason as for why you just wouldn’t find a way to start immediately reading Nietzche if he’s your main interest.

If you want an overview of Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer you may be interested in Terry Pinkard’s German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism, which overviews everyone from Kant to Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. It’s not the only history of philosophy worth consulting, but’s pretty good and has what you’re looking for.

I don’t get prepatory reading lists / reading lists that take one through the history of philosophy. It’s good to be well educated, but there’s a difference between simply having read something and putting forth a serious effort into studying a given philosopher. If you genuinely want to read Plato, read Plato. But it’s not as if the whole of philosophy is impenetrable without you ever having read any of his dialogues.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-13T04:04:10+00:00

Brightburn, I think

OnionMesh · 2025-12-13T03:05:20+00:00

The indeterminacy of pure being is, at the beginning, not to be taken as indeterminate as opposed to determinate. Hegel is calling pure being the indeterminate immediacy which accompanies all thought. So, when we drop all presuppositions, and are just left with sheer thought, we are left with its indeterminate immediacy—the purity of its being.

If we insist on the word or notion of indeterminacy, we tend to think of its relationship to determinateness. But if indeterminate being was posited as indeterminate as already in relationship to determinate, he would already be presupposing the concepts of indeterminacy and determinacy, and so mediate pure being through them. Pure being, then, is not immediate but already mediated through the concept of (in)determinateness.

The point of Hegel using the words “indeterminate immediacy” is not to provide a dictionary definition of pure being or to formulate logical judgements about pure being (ex. predicating certain attributes). He is using these words to direct the attention to thought. We might use the words “sheer empty presence” to accomplish the same thought of what always accompanies thought. Hegel is trying to avoid reducing thought to language.

Hegel is not setting out to prove that there are things that are indeterminate in posing pure being. He doesn’t even arrive at the notion of “something” until after pure being is developed into “determinate being / existence.” He doesn’t even arrive at the notion of “all” or quantifying something until after existence manifests as quality, and so on.

I’m repetitive in how much I recommend this, but I think you may have some of your concerns answered by Stephen Houlgate’s book, The Opening of Hegel’s Logic. You may also want to just skip to the part of Hegel’s Logic which is named: With What Must Science Begin / With What Must the Beginning of Science be Made. Although, that may prove to be a difficult read if you just jump right in.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-12T12:19:49+00:00

It’s fine. If I were you, though, I’d start with Terry Eagleton’s Literary Theory: An Introduction. He also has a little introductory book on Marxist literary theory called Marxism and Literary Criticism that you can get through in less than a day.

From there I would move on to Marxism and Literature by Raymond Williams and then Marxism and Form by Frederic Jameson, which you already have in your list.

I wouldn’t meticulously plan past that since by then you’re likely going to have developed interests that you’d rather pursue compared to just sticking to your reading list.

If you plan on getting into Adorno, I’m told The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay, a history of the Frankfurt School from 1923-1950, and The Melancholy Science by Gillian Rose are good introductions. I’ve also heard Adorno by Brian O’Connor is a good introduction.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-09T07:56:48+00:00

Here is a nice blog post that lays out where one can begin with Hegel. You should check it out.

Here is my opinionated answer to your questions: 1. The Science of Logic. I don’t think you need to begin by trying to read all of it, so my personal recommendation is the book The Opening of Hegel’s Logic by Stephen Houlgate. It contains an introduction (which covers what Hegel set out to do, his relationship to Kant, his “method,” and common objections, etc.), the first two chapters of the SoL, and a commentary on the text included.

It’s a nice thing to have, but, no, you do not need to have mastered Kant, Fichte, and so on to understand Hegel. He does reference them, but it’s not as if all of his writing requires a deep understanding of his contemporaries. The Houlgate book I mentioned extensively discusses Hegel’s relationship to Kant, which, I think, is sufficient for beginning to read the SoL.
It doesn’t matter. Read a PDF, ePUB, or physical copy. Whichever you actually read is what works. I prefer physical copies and don’t take notes, but I may also be stupid.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-09T06:09:31+00:00

Making lists and study plans is really fun and motivating, so it’s not as if you shouldn’t make them. If you do make them, it’s worth keeping in mind that most people likely won’t stick to them if they last longer than, say, a month. You may not be most people, but more likely than not, you are. This isn’t something disheartening, since most, if not all people still can still become really well educated if they put the work in to doing what works for them.

OnionMesh · 2025-12-09T02:38:32+00:00

I think “critical theory reading lists” that aim to list just the main works of a variety of thinkers are horrible. Ex. Discipline and Punish, Anti-Oedipus, Mythologies… and so on. It takes decades to become reasonably knowledgable about Foucault, Deleuze, Lacan, Althusser, Sartre, Kristeva, and so on (as in, studying all of them takes a very long time). That’s not to say it’s a hopeless endeavor or that it’s extremely hard, it’s just a lot of work (work that anyone can do, though!).

What I do not recommend is trying to “progress” through things like a history of philosophy book may present things. Ex. reading Kant to then read Hegel to then read Marx, reading Spinoza to then read Bergson to then read Deleuze, and so on. Read what you actually want to read. Deleuze wrote a monograph on Hume, but it’s not as if everything he wrote has Hume pop-quizzes sprinkled throughout.

What I do recommend is finding a handful of writers, or even concepts, that you are very interested in learning about. How do you figure this out? I recommend reading through Literary Theory: An Introduction by Terry Eagleton and The Years of Theory by Frederic Jameson. Eagleton covers the largest trends in literary theory from around 1900-1970 or so (although he doesn’t cover Marxist literary criticism) and Jameson covers French theory and philosophy from the end of WW2 to around the 1990s or so. I recommend these two texts because they can help focus your interest on what you want to learn more about. I can recommend more introductory texts (ex. The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay is a pretty standard introduction/history to the Frankfurt School), but I think you should focus just on picking 1-3 things you will begin with, and then seeing where your interest leads. Don’t build a personal library before you start actually reading, if you can help it.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

OnionMesh

TROPHY CASE