Why, oh why?

Why do I keep putting off the Republic analysis? My guess is that I have a fear of error or of not covering enough ground as I want. I know, as Hegel might ask, is this fear of error not the error itself? There is no reason, however, to let my anxieties get the best of me. Now temptations are another story. There are so many websites out there that claim to have legit summaries and analyses of the text, and they want to present their interpretation as official. In my view, all perspectives should be rational (or emotional when called for) but only provisional. Truth, as it may seem to many, in my view is an evolving process or project. This is not to say that what I think or say about something, even if it contains flawless reasoning, is an apodictic truth. Kant wanted this kind of thing in his theory of cognition (haha, here I go again!). Kant is surely no enemy of mine, but when I get too close to him I start thinking that what he says about the structure of human cognition is the Truth (I am still making, and will perhaps will be forever making, my way through the vast desert of the first Critique.). This happens to me with Hegel, too. However, for some reason, Hegel (at least in Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic) is more practical and down to earth than most. But, then again, Hegel can seem to be the utmost paragon of the “What I have to say is the God inspired and endorsed Truth” approach to philosophy as can be imagined. Didn’t he say something to the effect (not actually what he said) of the Logic of the/his Concept was like the anatomy and physiology of God displayed out there on the table for all to see. Perhaps I am missing the mark entirely, though.