|
'''Thealogy''' is literally the study of the [[Goddess]] ([[Greek language|Greek]] θεά, ''thea'', "goddess" + λόγος, ''logos'', "study"). In [[1993]], [[Charlotte Caron]]'s definition of '''thealogy''' as "reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" appeared, but the term actually originates in the writings of [[Isaac Bonewits]] in [[1974]].
== should be expanded .. ==
an extra-article about "Hegelianism" is reasonable, considering that the whole USA is based on that principle
==First uses==
: Hi, I've created an article on the [[Hegelian principle]], fyi.<br /><br />
===First(?) usages===
== Much Work Needed on Hegel's Major Works ==
"I've added my most recent edit in order to bring better light to Hegel's major works on Wikipedia. I'll be writing an article on Encyclopaedia III: Philosophy of Mind sometime later this week, so I thought the division of the Encyclopaedia here was an appropriate move."
In "The Druid Chronicles (Evolved)," privately published in [[1976]], Isaac Bonewits used "thealogian" to refer to a Wiccan author ([[Aidan Kelly]], aka "C. Taliesin Edwards," who may have given him the term or vice versa) and "theilogy" (defined as "the study of more than one God"). Bonewits also used "theilogy" (and possibly "thealogy," since he thinks he coined them at the same time) in the pages of the widely-distributed "Gnostica" magazine he edited in 1974 and [[1975]].
If anybody would like to collaborate in writing the Philosophy of Mind (Hegel) article, it would be much appreciated! Let me know on the talk page, or respond to me here. Thank you! [[User:CriminalSaint|CriminalSaint]] 18:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The Druid Chronicles (Evolved)" were a three-year project starting in 1974 and finished (published) in 1976. The article referred to within "The Druid Chronicles (Evolved)" is dated to the summer of 1976. Moreover, this is almost certainly not the first usage; the context of "thealogian" is in citing a work by C. Taliesin Edwards, "Essays towards a Meta''thealogy'' of the Goddess." [stress added] There is, however, a possibility that Bonewits altered the name of the work to fit with his terminology. He is attempting to track this down. Kelley himself has said to Bonewits that he can't remember which of the two of them said "thealogy" to the other first.
: Dear [[User:CriminalSaint|CriminalSaint]],
In [[1976]], [[Valerie Saiving]], ending her "[[Androcentrism]] in Religious Studies" made a much quoted invocation that yearns towards something as yet undefined-
"I've added my most recent edit in order to bring better light to Hegel's major works"
:''it is just possible that the unheard testimony of that half of the human species which has for so long been rendered inarticulate may have something to tell us about the holy which we have not known - something which can finally make us whole.''
Forget about the to "bring better light to Hegel".
::(Saiving 1976:197)
You should better try to bring "a first light to Hegel's German's writings" in the first way.
Once you have done so, then I will be willing to answer your next contribution to this Hegel question. (Read the _old and dead_ Popper, then _think_ a lot, then answer to my posting.)
===Second(?) usage ===
From Kai (hegel.net editor) to the anoymous poster above:
In "The Changing of the Gods" 1979:96, [[Naomi Goldenberg]] selfconsciously introduces the term as a half whimsical possibility, an inspirational comment, not a prelude to exegesis. She does not go on to define what thealogy might be, other than the implicit femininity of the coinage. This lack was perhaps because at that time the very assertion of a serious feminist analysis of religion was virtually unheard of, and the introduction of the concept was an excitingly powerful, but vague, possibility.
If you think that Popper gives an adequate/fair critque of Hegel, have a look at the very famous counter critique
of Walter Kaufmann, online at http://hegel.net/en/kaufmann1959.htm . You may want to rethink your judgment after that.
This is not to say that both Goldenberg and Saiving do not both offer extremely solid chunks of thealogy, but they do not give an overview of something to which they were midwives.
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
===Bonewits again===
:: I'm unable to read German, I'm afraid. I'm relying (in the case of Encyclopaedia III) on the translation presented by Wallace, as I understand it, typically considered the best available. Regardless; the article on Hegel needs work beyond just the german originals; Hegel's work is a phenomenon in philosophy beyond any given language. [[User:CriminalSaint|CriminalSaint]] 07:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also in [[1979]], in the first revised edition of "Real Magic," Bonewits defined "thealogy" in his Glossary this way: "Intellectual speculations concerning the nature of the Goddess and Her relations to the world in general and humans in particular; rational explanations of religious doctrines, practices and beliefs, which may or may not bear any connection to any religion as actually conceived and practiced by the majority of its members." While the last clause was his editorializing, the majority of the definition was adapted by removing sexist assumptions from a dictionary then in his library. Also in the same glossary, he defined "theology" and "theoilogy" (spelled correctly this time) with nearly identical words, changing the pronouns appropriately. He has since dropped the use of "theoilogy" in favor of "polytheology," also first published by him in the 1974 "Druid Chronicles."
:::To Kai (hegel.net editor). Are you really the English Wikipedia Hegel admin ?
"to the anoymous poster above:"
In [[2003]] he pointed out that "thealogy" is an obvious coinage that may have been invented many times, and that feminist scholars are unlikely to have been familiar with his writings.
This comment seems to be addressed to me. Keep in mind that I do never send a posting without my full name and E-mai address to the wiki talk pages, since I do not want to be _anonymous_.
=== Growing usage by Carol Christ and Ursula King ===
By the way, my complete name and E-mai address just follows your latest posting.
[[Carol Christ]] used the term more substantially in "Laughter of Aphrodite" [[1987]].
And here -- for you alone -- exclusively follows my name and E-mai address:
In [[1989]] [[Ursula King]] notes its growing usage as a fundamental departure from traditional male-oriented theology, characterised by its privileging of symbols over rational explanation. She chronicles sympathetically that-
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
:''most writing on the Goddess, when not historical, is either inspirational or devotional, and a systematically ordered body of thought, even with reference to symbols, is only slowly coming into existence.''
PS: I'm waiting for _substantial contributions_ on Hegel from your address.
::(1989:126-127)
== Further expansion of thealogy by Starr* Saffa ==
PPS: "Hegel's work is a phenomenon in philosophy beyond any given language."
OK, then teach me an "ungiven language" so that I can understand Hegel's (and your) writings.
Thank you.
Tahirih Thealogy
:You're misinterpreting me. Hegel is Hegel whether he's in english of german. [[User:CriminalSaint|CriminalSaint]] 22:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The basic Definition of TheAlogy as opposed to Theology means viewing the world incorporating the Female lens which to a great extent in the past has been omitted in Theology.
== Who has an idea of Hegel's writings ? ==
Tahirih TheAlogy is religion beyond religion, politics beyond politics, and spiritual feminism beyond feminism in that it recognizes the Cosmic Christ Spirit in every individual and sets out the pattern of balance for the Sixth Cycle of humanity based on magnetic attraction vs. force and patriarchal constructs.
May I allow to ask who of the contibutors to this Wiki talk page have ever read Hegel's works ? And among those who read Hegel's works, which ones read his works in the original German language ? I did, like Schopenhauer, read his works, and did read his "Phänomenologie des Geistes" in the original language more than one time. Like Schopenhauer, I can only state that this (and not this work alone) gives the reader the feeling of being in a madhouse of the German language and the spirit of philosophy.
During the later part of 2004 Starr* Saffa introduced Tahirih Thealogy and the Tahirih Path in her book entitled “Tahirih Thealogy: Female Christ Spirit of the Age” based on the figure of the 19th Century Iranian born Prophet-Poetess Tahirih who was also known as Qurratu’l-ayn, and the return of Fatima.
usf. usf. usf. [und so fort = and so forth] (One of Hegel's most favourite abbreviations.)
Tahirih taught that inner knowledge is trumps and Starr* Saffa says Tahirih TheAlogy has the potential to unite East and West where everyone can be living Tahirih’s in this day through the continuous flow of Spirit.
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
== Definition by Charlotte Caron ==
: I have read Hegel in the original. If you feel like you are in a madhouse of the German language when you read Hegel, I suggest that you emigrate to America. Your remark suggests that you would be more comfortable with the alternative reality of Bush's America, with Bush's down-to-earth use of the English language. Bush, if he ever bothered to read philosophy, and Hegel in particular, would find it to be a madhouse, too. [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 05:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
---------
Please be aware of the fact that the present administration in the U.S. is "der Gang Gottes in der Welt." Please use Intuitive Reason to comprehend this.
[[User:152.163.100.8|152.163.100.8]] 16:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington
---------
:: Dear [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]],
In [[1993]] Charlotte Caron's definition of thealogy as "reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" appeared in "To Make and Make Again" (quoted from Russell & Clarkson 1996). By this time the concept had gained considerable (though conventionally marginal) status, broadly analogous to Ruether's view of radical feminist theology as opposed to reformist [[feminist theology]].
"Your remark suggests that you would be more comfortable with the alternative reality of Bush's America,..."
=== Melissa Raphael's view ===
Where did you draw this conclusion from ? And how did you draw it ? Did you draw it from my comment ? Where and how did you draw it fom there ? I am not talking about any current political issues, I am talking about the "philosopher" G. W. F. Hegel and his so-called "philosophy". Have I missed something important here ? Have you missed something ? I am not sure that you have read Hegel in the original language. But I may be wrong. If you have read Hegel (not only 100 lines from the Web, but 10,000 lines from the printed books) in the German language, then please let me and all of the other readers know of what you think is the most important contribution from Hegel to philosophy.
In [[1997]] [[Melissa Raphael]] wrote "Thealogy & Embodiment" which put the usage firmly on the map, and which she sustained in her subsequent "Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess" ([[1999]]?). Together with Carol Christ's "Rebirth of the Goddess" 1997 Raphael's work provides a start for the "systematically ordered body of thought" King found lacking in 1989.
I am looking forward to your answer -- and will answer it, no doubt.
== Three interpretations of thealogy ==
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
There are perhaps three distinct interpretations of thealogy, and they are evident in the briefing above.
:It is hard to say what Hegel's most important contribution to philosophy is, since he made contributions in so many different fields, each of which is important in its own right. But let's take that most fundamental field of philosophy, epistemology. Hegel solved the Problem of the Criterion posed by Sextus Empiricus. This problem is to establish a criterion for philosophical assessment or justification without dogmatism, question begging, or vicious circularity. The way Hegel solves this problem is by surveying in his <i>Phänomenologie des Geistes</i> the various epistemological positions that have emerged throughout the course of the history of philosophy, subjecting them to internal critique, and arguing through a process of elimination that his philosophical position is the sole tenable one.
*Christ, King and Raphael focus thealogy specifically on [[Goddess]] spirituality.
*Caron defines a broader field of a female worldview of the [[sacred]].
*Goldenberg's neologism as a political stance that marks the [[androcentrism]] of historical [[theology]] permeates the other two and raises its own issues.
=== Thealogy as Goddess spirituality ===
:In the period roughly 1960-1980, Anglophone philosophers became increasingly aware of the problems with empiricism, and turned to Kant to find a way out. Since then they, most notably John McDowell and Robert Brandom, have turned to Hegel, to avoid the dilemmas that Kant's philosophy, with its transcendental idealism, leads to. Thus Anglophone philosophy is currently in the process of returning Hegel to his rightful place at the center of the European philosophical tradition, a fact of which many Germans, perhaps through the bizzarely enduring influence of Popper in that country, remain unaware.
Taking the Goddess variant first, and it seems the commonest to the point where thealogy is typically assumed to be purely Goddess based, a linguistic derivation from the Greek "thea"
:By solving the Problem of the Criterion, Hegel completed the philosophical work of the Enlightenment, since solving the problem gives one rational reasons for holding particular values. The reason I compare you to Bush is that Bush and his "conservative" American followers reject the Enlightenment, and hence rationality. By rejecting Hegel, you reject the possibility of justifying values through reason rather than naked power and violence, and hence in effect end up in Bush's camp. -- [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 07:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(goddess). Goddess systematics inevitably face the question of "god in a skirt" or not, a subtly [[sexism|sexist]] tag that nonetheless carries a genuine issue. This can be viewed as sexist because "in a skirt" defines a subject norm as altered, trivialised, and definitely derivative, much as some have considered the female to have been historically defined in relation to the male. Thealogy specifically aims to counter what its proponents perceive as the massive [[dualism|dualistic]] sexism in the field of religion, by asserting a female [[worldview]] that is not merely reformist or derivative, so its proponents would see this quip as especially destructive.
=== Broad interpretation of thealogy (Caron) ===
:: Dear [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]],
Caron's definition "Reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" holds a caution for feminist theologians and thealogians alike that the female sacred extends beyond the feminist agenda. Often theology or feminist thealogy writes as if the Goddess is a feminist discovery. The "womenspirit" Goddess is a highly selected deity who for thealogians such as Christ has nothing to do with goddess practices such as violent sacrifice, or validating a male conqueror. However, this can be seen to be as inauthentic as the habit of some Christians of disowning the [[Inquisition]] as "not done by real Christians" (see the "[[no true Scotsman]]" [[logical fallacy]]).
As _for the moment_, I would like you to give your own interpretation for the
following statements from Hegel. (I excuse to all readers who are not familliar
with the German language, but you can trust me that even a native German like
me can not make any sense out of what Hegel is saying. He seems to be talking
about "Sound" and "Matter".)
Nor is it a matter only of past history: many members of a huge international organisation like the [[Fellowship of Isis]] would not identify as feminist, nor would a great many [[Pagan]]s. Outside the goddessing of western [[New religious movement|NRMs]] thealogy can recognise and give due respect to the world millions in village and tribal religions who look to goddesses in ways that may or may
Hegel on Sound (original German: Klang):
not be feminist, and Caron's definition allows thealogy to be this widely inclusive.
This broader view accords well with the kind of fluid systematics profiled by [[Cynthia Eller]] when she reports her respondent [[Margaret Keane]] as saying:
"Der Klang ist der Wechsel des spezifischen Auseinanderseins der materiellen Teile und des Negiertseins derselben; nur abstrakte und sozusagen ideelle Idealität dieses Spezifischen. Aber dieser Wechsel ist hiermit selbst unmittelbar die Negation des materiellen spezifischen Bestehens; dieses ist damit ideale Idealität der spezifischen Schwere und Kohäsionswärme."
:''I don't make those kind of distinctions that you hear about, they don't make any sense to me. You can say it's the Great Goddess, and that's the one Goddess, but she's also all of the many goddesses, and that's true. And she's everywhere. She's immanent in everything, in the sparkle of the sun on the sea, and even in an animistic concept. I think certain objects can embody that force and power. So I worship the Great Goddess, and I'm polytheistic and pantheistic and monotheistic too. And I also have a feeling for nature spirits...''
Hegel on Matter (original German: Materie):
::(1993 :132-133)
This broader view has most recently been labelled by [[Michael York]] as "polymorphic thealogy." He also raises the issue of whether thealogy venerates one Goddess or many, which some thealogicians consider a non-question since it arises from a monotheist worldview that they do not hold.
"Die Materie hält sich gegen ihre Identität mit sich, durch das Moment ihrer Negativität, ihrer abstrakten Vereinzelung, auseinander; die Repulsion der Materie. Ebenso wesentlich ist, weil diese Verschiedenen ein und dasselbe sind, die negative Einheit dieses außereinanderseienden Fürsichseins; die Materie ist somit kontinuierlich, - ihre Attraktion. Die Materie ist untrennbar beides und negative Einheit dieser Momente, Einzelheit, aber als gegen das unmittelbare Außereinander der Materie noch unterschieden und darum selbst noch nicht als materiell gesetzt, ideelle Einzelheit, Mittelpunkt, - die Schwere."
However Caron's definition falls short of explicitly allowing for male positions in thealogy.
[Hegel wrote these lines many years after the death of Sir Isaac Newton in 1727 !]
=== A challenge to androcentrism ===
These quotes, which are correct, are taken from:
The third interpretation of thealogy as an assertion of female sacred worldviews is clearly political. The notes above touch on how this usage aims to counter the deeply established dualistic relegation of female as derivative, making the male the norm: as [[Mary Daly]] put it "If God is male, then the male is God."
http://www.skeptischeecke.de/Worterbuch/Kalte_Fusion/Hegelei/hegelei.html
Thealogy has been criticised as [[essentialism|essentialist]] by [[queer theory|queer theorists]] and others.
Please have a look and a _thinking_, before you come up with another "Hegelei".
To a thealogian it is important to explore the female worldview (not only but notably of the sacred) and not be compelled to take off female spectacles when looking at themes beyond female [[psychobiology]]. A speaker may choose to adopt a kind of gender neutral stance insofar as she can, or she may try to empathise with a male worldview, and a male speaker vice versa.
This, however, is not the answer that I promised you -- this one follows later.
This is only meant to be a _test_ of your understanding of the German language.
== Linguistic twiddling ==
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
Many scholars find the term "thealogy" exasperating, a linguistic twiddling, including some feminist theologians. But the position of women operating within the male worldview of theology, as in most of [[feminist theology]], is more marginal than in the general run of professional occupations these days. The rigidly entrenched sexism in the contemporary academy perceived by some thealogs recalls situations of general Women's Liberation in 1972, rather than society 30 years later (see recent research studies Ofsted UK).
:: Dear Hans (to myself),
==See also==
"Die Materie hält sich gegen ihre Identität mit sich, durch das Moment ihrer Negativität, ihrer abstrakten Vereinzelung, auseinander; die Repulsion der Materie. Ebenso wesentlich ist, weil diese Verschiedenen ein und dasselbe sind, die negative Einheit dieses außereinanderseienden Fürsichseins; die Materie ist somit kontinuierlich, - ihre Attraktion. Die Materie ist untrennbar beides und negative Einheit dieser Momente, Einzelheit, aber als gegen das unmittelbare Außereinander der Materie noch unterschieden und darum selbst noch nicht als materiell gesetzt, ideelle Einzelheit, Mittelpunkt, - die Schwere."
*[[God and gender]]
*[[feminist theology]]
*[[goddess]]
*[[goddess worship]]
==References==
"die Materie ist somit kontinuierlich", "ideelle Einzelheit, Mittelpunkt, - die Schwere."
* Isaac Bonewits "The Second Epistle of Isaac" in "the Druid Chronicles (Evolved)" Berkeley Drunemeton Press, 1974.
*Isaac Bonewits "Real Magic" Creative Arts Book Co., 1979
*Charlotte Caron "To Make and Make Again: Feminist Ritual Thealogy" NY Crossroad 1993
*Carol Christ "Rebirth of the Goddess:Finding meaning in feminist spirituality" Routledge 1997
*Cynthia Eller "Living in the Lap of the Goddess: The Feminist Spirituality Movement in America" Crossroad 1993
*Naomi Goldenberg "The Changing of the Gods" 1979
*Ursula King "Women and Spirituality" Macmillan 1989
*Melissa Raphael "Thealogy & Embodiment" 1997 Sheffield Academic Press
*Melissa Raphael "Introducing Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess" 1999 Sheffield Academic Press
*Letty M. Russell & J Shannon Clarkson "Dictionary of Feminist Theologies" Mowbray 1996.
*Starr* Saffa "Tahirih Thealogy: Female Christ Spirit of the Age" OzForUs Publishing 2004; Zeus-publications 2005.
*Valerie Saiving "Androcentrism in Religious Studies" in Journal of Religion 56:1976:177-97
[[Category:Theology]]
This sounds like the "Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie". I have to think deeper into this.
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
PS: [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] and nobody else needs to answer to this posting. It's out of the range.
:This post is indeed "out of the range". The Wikipedia talk forums are intended for discussion of how one should proceed with the corresponding Wikipedia article, not as a place for individuals to place queries as a means for their education or entertainment. Since you do not seem to derive much benefit from reading philosophy in the form of primary sources (which you need not feel too badly about in the case of Hegel, since he is a difficult philosopher), I would suggest that you look at some of the fine secondary literature that exists in both German and English.
:Even better, why don't you take a philosophy course or two? You seem to have little or no philosophical training, since otherwise you would know that taking one or two quotes which are inscrutable out of context as "proof" that a philosopher is spouting nonsense (as Carnap famously quoted Heidegger's "Nihilation is neither an annihilation of what-is, nor does it spring from negation.... Nothing annihilates itself") is no longer considered to be a valid form of philosophical "argumentation", but merely demonstrates the ignorance and ''Sturheit'' of the person giving the quotation. -- [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 15:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: Vorläufige Antwort auf (a preliminary answer to) [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] in Wiki Talk Page zu Hegel:
(A bit English, a bit German -- sorry.)
Das ist Schaumschlägerei (um nicht zu sagen: Hegelei).
(Böse/persönliche Erwiderung auf Hyperions erste Antwort;
"I have read Hegel in the original."
Reading a chain of German Hegel words is easy.
The problem is to make sense out of the chain.)
1.) Er mißversteht meine Hegel-Zitate als "Beweis" für Hegels Unsinn.
Dabei hat er meinen Hinweis ignoriert, daß diese als _Test_ für seine
deutschen Sprachkenntnisse gedacht sind. (Siehe letzten Satz meiner
ersten Antwort!)
2.) In seiner Antwort verwendet Hyperion gegen mich das sogenannte
"Argument gegen den Mann": siehe hierzu W. C. Salmon, Logik, 191ff.
Siehe hierzu auch:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Attacking_the_Person
"Explanation: Attacking the Person is any argument that, instead of dealing with an
argument, attacks the person making the argument."
http://www.mgmtguru.com/mgt301/301_Lecture4Page1.htm
"Argumentum Ad Hominem ("argument against the man")- Attacking a person's character
instead of the content of that person's argument detracts from the business of analyzing
the argument. For example, "Bob is an alcoholic, so don't take his investment advice too
seriously." "Of course Jones would argue against lowering prices, he is in sales, after
all." The character of someone is information you might want to consider, but it has
nothing to do with the reasonableness of what the person says. For this, we must
critically examine what is stated."
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631228
73X/001-037.pdf
Datei 001-037.pdf auf meinem Desktop.
http://www.uvsc.edu/owl/handouts/revised%20handouts/content%20and%20organization/fallacies
.pdf
Datei fallacies.pdf auf meinem Desktop. Diesen Artikel sollte ich Hyperion zur Lektüre
empfehlen!
3.) Zum zweiten Satz von Hyperion ("The Wikipedia talk forums are intended...") verweise
ich auf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page
Datei Wikipedia Talk_page.htm auf meinem Desktop.
"What is it used for? On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the
contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges,
excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant
to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play."
Eine _harte_, aber nicht persönlich gefärbte Antwort wird folgen.
Do never attack the person, even if the person attacks you.
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
PS: Bitte erst _genau_ lesen, dann _klar_ denken und überlegen, dann _sober_ schreiben.
Damit wäre ich ganz zufrieden.
PPS: However, if you ever would like to get an insight into what _philosophy_ means, then I can only recommend to read one or the other book from the _philosopher_ John Leslie Mackie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Mackie
This reading will _clean_ your mind and _open_ it to what deserves the name of "philosophy".
----
Protogonus1, you might have noticed that I've stripped down your articles about Hegel to, well, a bare minimum. I suspect you don't quite understand what we're up to here on Wikipedia. A paean to your favorite philosopher, written in his own style, is out of place--we want encyclopedia articles.
:...now recognized as a laborious, exacting, and successful completion of Aristotle’s valiant attempt...
I (just for example) don't recognize it as such, nor do most philosophers. I admittedly don't know much about Hegel (except the simplest of catchphrases and that he's very hard to read :-) ), but I've never heard him compared to Aristotle. In any event, the above is not written from the [[:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], which is why I removed it.
:Informed Wikipedians recognize ruefully that the true encyclopedia is not organized from “A” to “Z” but instead moves in majestic consideration first of its own cognitive tools (the nature of Thought itself as True Being), then in search of the truth behind the often misleading appearances (the nature of Nature), and finally applies the concrete knowledge of Being and Nature to recognize, reconcile, and reform itself in and through the world of the Mind, which is now, after a Titanic struggle with and victory over its opposite, fully possessed of its own eternal reality.
I don't think it's a good idea to refer to Wikipedia in most articles--certainly not, anyway, in an article about Hegel. It's interesting that I know as much about Wikipedia as anybody, but I don't understand the above paragraph!
:Hegel’s particular contribution was to modify the form of the eternally True Philosophy or ''Wissenschaft'' to make it infinitely expandable (the parts remaining always in systematic/organic relation) and to illustrate its stupendous heuristic power in the service of Man. Note also the pertinent truism of the Germans in this regard: “There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” Those who desire to discover and create, regardless of discipline or line of work, must not fail to appreciate this Tool of Tools, whose encyclopedic form was developed in Germany in the period 1808-1831 and continues to this day in the hands of the [[:True Hegelians|True Hegelians]].
I'm not sure that the above can be rendered from the [[:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] or be rendered ''clear'' enough to be of use in an article.
Maybe it will suffice to say that Wikipedia is not a platform to write in praise of Hegel in Hegelian language. We ought to be trying to write as clearly as possible ''about'' what Hegel said, and his life and influence.
--[[:LMS|LMS]]
----
I actually think that the paragraph about wikipedians makes sense if you know the terminology. However, I'm not convinced of its truth, or of it's value in this context. Perhaps it would be valuable in a paper on the epistemology of the wikipedia, but it isn't really about Hegel -- so it doesn't belong here.
I do think the article should at least have some real information about Hegel's work, and that there was content in the deleted portion which could be salvaged, but I'm not up to the task as my 19th century continental philosophy course flew through 300 pages of Hegel in about a week, and I'm pretty sure I only understood about half of those pages, and a few bits and pieces from the rest. Ah, if only I had more time... [[:MRC|MRC]]
----
Unfortunately Protogonus1 deleted his contribution. I don't know him, or the quality of his work, but I am sorry to see him go. I'm fairly certian that the text he wrote is legally ours still, and we could just put it back. However, I went ahead and replaced it, so as to avoid whatever ill will we can. [[:MRC|MRC]]
----
I understand that a long time ago this page was moved from [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] to its current ___location. However, let me assure you that, at least among German speakers, '''no one''' calls the philosopher in question [[Georg Hegel]]. I assume that most educated German speakers would not even recognize him if he were called like that. Now this is different from all those pages concerning British and American people who can be referred to by their first name plus surname only. [[Hegel]] is [[Hegel]], both in educated conversation / oral presentations and in writing (where his '''full''' name or [[G.W.F. Hegel]] may be used as alternatives).
Now the whole thing may be a minor point, but I have disliked the [[Georg Hegel]] heading from the moment I first saw it months ago. I suggest [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] as the main entry, with redirects from [[Hegel]] and [[G.W.F. Hegel]] (and of course [[Georg Hegel]]).
Objections? --[[User:KF|KF]] 15:28 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:No objections for about two weeks, so I've moved the page and fixed the redirects. --[[User:KF|KF]] 03:04 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
The first sentence reads (abbreviated): "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel . . . received his education at the Tübinger Stift . . . where he was friends with the future philosophers Georg Hegel and Friedrich Schelling." He was friends with his future self? I'm confused.
I've read the Introduction to the Philosophy of History, which was actually written by Hegel, as opposed to the rest of the work which was compiled from the notes of his students. I know that he uses both 'thesis' and 'antithesis', which refer roughly to the Idea and this Spirit. While I agree that the thesis/antithesis/synthesis simplification is just that, a simplification, the claim that Hegel never used those terms is, at the very least, misleading.
:There is nothing misleading in this claim. The claim in the article is not that he did not use those terms, but that he did not present dialectic as involving "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". He did not do so, so to describe dialectic in such a manner is not to present Hegel's system, but to ''interpret'' it. In any case, when the word "antithesis" appears in the introduction to the ''Philosophy of History'', the German ''Gegensatz'' is better translated simply as "opposite". [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 18:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Believe it or not, it is generally acceptted that Hegel is comparable to Aristotle. I guess find any textbook on philosophy and they will explain . Though i do also question how Hegel "completed Aristotle's valiant attempt". --antichrist
That Hegel influenced Nietzsche is ridiculous. Nietzsche has never bothered about Hegel; Nietzsche has probabily never read anything by Hegel.
== Hegel and Nietzsche ==
I deleted the reference to Nietzsche. I had never heard about Hegel's influence on Nietzsche. Anyone able to prove otherwise?
Nietzsche attacked Kant; that shows Nietzsche read Kant. But Hegel is even more idealistic, more rational, and more obscurant than Kant; yet Nietzsche has never attacked Hegel in any of his book. Nietzsche never bothered to read Hegel.
It is Kierkegaard who read Hegel and attacked him.
Concerning the new corrections: How did Hegel influence the existentialists? And by the way, Arthur Schoepenhauer is not an existentialist.
I'm not sure which changes you're referring to, but (as I understand it) the primary influence of Hegel on the existentialists was by way of Kojeve, whose lectures on the [[Phenomenology of Spirit]] are said to have had a profound impact on Merleau-Ponty and Sartre. Whether he had an impact on Jaspers I'm less sure. And re the above: Nietzsche does attack Hegel in some works, but only in a very general way... whether he actually read anything by Hegel is not clear to me.
On another topic, it seems like the WP would be well-served by a survey article on Hegelianism from St. Louis to Kyoto, apart from this article which really ought to focus on Hegel's own life and work. Something for my to-do list, but if anyone else feels the same way please feel free... --[[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 03:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. I've given that project a start, although just barely. Hope to have a chance to devote the appropriate kind of time and effort to it soon, and hope you help. [[Hegelianism After Hegel]] --[[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 14:07, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Are you serious? Nietzsche's whole philosophical project was a reaction to the Hegelianism that predominated in German/European intellectual circles of the day (including its sub-variants such as Marxism, non-Marxist historicism etc). Therefore, Hegel is THE philosopher to understand to understand Nietzsche, even if he refers to him far less frequently than many other philosophers (Plato etc). A good early book by Nietzsche to read to see this is ''On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life'' (historically most often translated as ''the Use and Abuse of History''). --[[User:Rexrexilius|Rexrexilius]] 10:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here. ''The Use and Abuse of History for Life'' seems to have been reproduced in its entirety on this website. I in no way endorse this translation, which I'm assuming is an older one (how else could they skirt copyright laws on the translation, unless the copyright has lapsed?): [http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/history.htm Use and Abuse of History]. A couple quotes to whet your appetites:
"''I believe that there has been no dangerous variation or change in German culture in this century which has not become more dangerous through the monstrous influence of the philosophy of Hegel, an influence which continues to flow right up to the present''"
"''However, this God became intelligible and comprehensible inside Hegelian brain cases and has already ascended all the dialectically possible steps of His being right up to that self-revelation. Thus, for Hegel the summit and end point of the world process coincided with his own individual existence in Berlin''"
Remember, this is early, early, Nietzsche, so it is far more academic and systematic than his later works, but lacks their charm. But, understanding this early stuff helps to understand his philosophy as a whole.
--[[User:Rexrexilius|Rexrexilius]] 11:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Francis Fukayama ==
I changed the part about (the U.S. conservative) Francis Fukuyama's book, labelled "simplistic and marred by the sort of incompetence and scholarly fraud..." This is POV and not something for an encyclopaedic type project. You can always link to outside websites that expound this view of Fukuyama's thesis. Or you could always go to the Fukuyama page and explain how it is different from Hegel's philosophy. Remember that writers and thinkers can be influenced by different philosophers and are not bound to apply their theories in a dogmatic fashion. For example, Marx was clearly influenced by Hegel, and yet his theories were sufficiently unique that while he probably shouldn't be relied upon if one is looking to study Hegel, his thought is of interest in its own right. Cheers.--[[User:Rexrexilius|Rexrexilius]] 10:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Question of Racism and Slavery ==
I'm noting this for discussion, as I know a direct edit on the issue will be struck down by some partizan:
The article should at least '''mention''' that (1) Hegel was a notorious racist, and developed a racialist justification for European imperialism that had long-term influence/consequence, (2) Hegel's philosophy includes justifications for slavery.
I know this is an encyclopedia article, not an essay, but this is 2005: philosophers who explicitly, and repeatedly (and at great length) wrote racist theories should indeed have this duly noted in their encyclopedia articles --especially when they were influential over persons in power (in Europe) for centuries thereafter.
Hegel's _Philosophy of History_ includes many lengthy passages about how Africans are (supposedly) in a mental state of "perpetual childhood", whereas as "Asiatics" are mentally juvenile, etc., and only Europeans are "mental adults" --this stuff goes on for dozens of pages at a time throughout the book!
I'm not even going to bother to mention the issue of Sexism --but it is rather hilarious when Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have responsible short paragraphs included in their in their Wiki-articles about their (disputed) misogyny, a notorious and blunt misogynist like Hegel gets away unscathed.
Most of the modern proponents of Hegel's philosophy have read very little of his writing in the primary source (they rely on secondary sources); I do think it is important to "mention the unmentionables" --however briefly-- in an article such as this one. In any case, it is more important than notes about his personal/family life!
: Unfortunately, I have to admit that Hegel exhibited sexism in his writings. However, I don't believe that Hegel can be accurately labeled as a misogynist, given that he fathered a child, whom he supported, by his landlady, and later got married (a rarity among first-tier philosophers: neither Locke nor Hume -- the greatest British philosphers -- married; Bertrand Russell did get married, but he ended up putting his wife into a madhouse).
: It is also true that Hegel got it wrong with respect to the Asians, most notably the Japanese, with their ability to cultivate high-tech industry.
: As for slavery and Africans however, your remarks are beside the point, since that great father of liberalism who provided the basis for the American project, John Locke, was able to come up with a justification for the enslavement of blacks. -- [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 06:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: Hyperion, your argument is (strictly speaking) spurious. The fact that John Locke held racist views does not mean it is "beside the point" that Hegel held racist views. Hegel stated that Africans were racially limited to a "perpetual mental childhood" --and says that Asian are limited to a perpetual mental adolescence. It is interesting to note (by way of contrast) that he was a big fan of Arabs and Islamic civilization generally --the only non-European civilization to merit much praise in Hegel's books.
:: To say that a man who "fathers a child" is "therefore not a misogynist" is completely absurd. Anyone can get a woman pregnant --be it from love, hate, boredom, or error-- and Hegel's own writing on the matter is completely explicit. Women are incapable of philosophy --even music, art and literature!-- according to Hegel. Their minds are made out to be quite worthless.
:: BTW, your remark about "Japan" being a special exception certainly betrays a prejudicial attitude of your own. Do you know anything about the history of science and technology in China or India? Advanced Metallurgy in India pre-dates the same development in Europe by thousands of years --and any standard text on the history of medicine in Asia will heap scorn on the leach-bleeding "science" of Europe that prevailed up to the 17th century, while all of Asia had highly developed notions of science, medicine, and technology.
:: But then, you don't need to know anything to put an opinion on a Wiki, do you?
:::Concerning Hegel and the Philosophy of History, and the un- PC things said therein - "Quoting" Walter Kauffman from memory: "there are 2 things you should keep in mind concerning this book. First, it is relatively easy Hegel and good one to start your Hegel studies with and get an idea of his theories. Second, Georg W. F. Hegel never wrote or intended to write a book called The Philosophy of History." --[[User:John Z|John Z]] 22:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
== Correction on "Left Hegelians" ==
I hope this isn't too controvertial, but the original text suggested that the so-called "Left Hegelians" actually described themselves as "Hegelians" --for many of the examples named the exact opposite was the case! Men like Stirner poured scorn on Hegel, and never once suggested any sympathy or respect for Hegel's work. In any case, the article now reflects the fact the "Left Hegelian" is a post-period term used by contemporary historians of philosophy, and not a term used by these men themselves. There is also confusion because "die Freien" (which actually was an historical "club") is imagined as if it were somehow a club of people who described themselves as "Young Hegelians" --not at all!
---------------------------------------------
It is important to note that almost none of the so-called "[[Left Hegelians]]" actually described themselves as followers of Hegel, and several of them openly repudiated or insulted the legacy of Hegel's philosophy. Nevertheless, this historical category is deemed useful in contemporary academic philosophy (in part because the critiques of Hegel offered from the "Left Hegelians" form an important part of the literature on and about Hegel) and it includes [[Bruno Bauer]], [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], [[David Friedrich Strauss]], [[Max Stirner]], and most famously, [[Karl Marx]]. Bauer, Marx, and Stirner were members of a political-philosophic roundtable called [[die Freien]] ("the free"), all of whom were familiar with Hegel's work but repudiated it. Although both Stirner's [[anarchism | anarchistic]] variety of [[egoism]] and Marx's version of [[communism]] were briefly "united" by membership in [[die Freien]], this was only a debating club, and the two schools of thought neither have common origins, nor common attitudes toward Hegel.
Regarding Marx and Marxists, this rather overstates the case. Marx famously "proclaimed himself a pupil of that mighty thinker" in Capital, long after H was fashionable, and Engels' and Lenin's appreciation of Hegel was if anything more fervent.--[[User:John Z|John Z]] 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
== Removed: POV criticisms of Hegel ==
This is grossly POV, not to mention a garbled mish-mash:<BLOCKQUOTE>"Furthermore, given that Hegel's political thought synthesizes the respective strong points of liberalism and conservatism, Hegel's philosophy offers an alternative to liberalism, something that is especially relevant given that some see liberalism as presently challenged on its inability to do justice to individuals' need to hold fundamental values."</BLOCKQUOTE>No doubt there ought to be a counterbalance to all the praise of Hegel that immediately precedes it, but his reknown is undeniable, whether one subscribes to his ideas or not. The contrary position is not so clear, and this excerpt certainly does not meet that purpose.
For one, the claims it makes demand more explanation than is appropriate to the succinctness of the header of an article. What are the "strong points of liberalism and conservatism"? Does Hegel truly offer "an alternative to liberalism"? According to whom? Who are the "some" who see liberalism as challenged, and why is their opinion important or relevant? Which individuals have a "need to hold fundamental values"? If the answers to these questions are meritorious of inclusion in this article, they should be examined in a section on criticisms of Hegel, and labelled as such. A summary of those criticisms would then appropriately be included with the lead-in. [[User:Vorpal Suds|Vorpal Suds]] 04:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:I am utterly baffled by this entry. First, the passage in question is not a criticism of Hegel (as the subject heading indicates), but an indication of one of the main reasons why Hegel is relevant for us today. If the mention of why a philosopher has contemporary relevance is not appropriate in the header of a Wikipedia article about that philosopher, I don't know what is. I am thus restoring the sentence in question.
:The person making this post raises a valid point, however. The claims made in this sentence should be expanded upon in the rest of this article. I shall try to do that in the near future. In the meantime however, I believe that this "teaser" can be left in, especially given how undeveloped the rest of the article is. -- [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 09:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
::I would like to see the sentence in question removed, ''especially'' if no source can be documented. Hegel's thought is important to Nietzsche and underlies a great deal of continental philosophy, including Heidegger, Gadamer, Habermas, Derrida, and Charles Taylor. His relevance is not dependent on an alleged critique of contemporary political liberalism. The sentence reads like agenda-pursuant [[Wikipedia:No Original Research|original reserch]] to me. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 15:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
== Hegel's meaning... ==
Towards the top of this article there is a section which reads:
---
"This reflection of the mind on itself is individual self-consciousness - the polar opposite of the Idea in its general form, and therefore existing in absolute Limitation. This polar opposite is consequently limitation, particularization, for the universal absolute being; it is the side of its definite existence; the sphere of its formal reality, the sphere of the reverence paid to God. - To comprehend the absolute connection of this antithesis, is the profound task of metaphysics."
Therefore, Hegel is stating, albeit in difficult turns of phrase, that metaphysics should be concerned with grasping the mechanics of how the thesis and antithesis are connected in each individual case. To do so would involve comparing examples of events of history with their archetypal forms and trying to understand both the similarities and the differences between them.
---
The top paragraph is a quote from Hegel and the bottom paragraph is an interpretation by the author, (or one of the authors), of this article.
I'm not entirely sure that the interpretation is correct. I've seen language such as Hegel is using here in Gnostic works, and those works were not speaking about interpreting history. If Hegel's writing here is what it appears to be, he may actually be talking about the seperation of human individual awareness from the greater universal awareness due to the human's tendancy to regard itself as self-conscious. In this case, Hegel's "Idea" would actually be the same as the Logos of the Gnostics - which would explain why he keeps capitalizing it.
The reason that Hegel's "turns of phrase" may seem so difficult is because the author is trying to turn them in a different direction than they were meant to go.
That's just my personal observation though, I don't have a doctorate in Philosophy or anything...
[[User:Nortonew|Nortonew]] 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)
== The word "contemporary" ==
I was just reading this for edification (I'm not a philosophy student) and felt a little ambiguity at the paragraph opening "In contemporary accounts of Hegelianism...". "Contemporary" is an annoying word because it admits two practically opposite meanings. In the context of the previous paragraph, I started by wondering if it meant contemporary with the Left Hegelians. I would suggest replacing it with the word "modern" - unless there is some usage, or better word, that's more current within a scholarly community? [[User:DavidBrooks|David Brooks]] 19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
== Optimum World Soul ==
Who was the best World Soul in his time, [[Calvin Coolidge]] or [[Jimmy Carter]]?
:As far as I know, "world soul" is not a Hegelian term or concept. It's primarily Platonic and Stoic, although in Germany apparently Goethe and Herder both used it. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 18:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
::[http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RspJb5QvQhMJ:etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi%3Fid%3Ddv4-74+zeitgeist+hegel&hl=en&lr=lang_en "Hegel took the Zeitgeist] as a spiritual and intellectual reality which is not totally alien to the intellectual exposition present in a philosophical system." [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=zeitgeist+hegel More here]. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>ॐ</big> 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
::"Weltgeist" in German does not mean World Soul, just as "Zeitgeist" does not mean "soul" of the time. "Weltseele" does. "Seele" in German, like "soul" in English, has much more of an emphatically individual, "spiritual" meaning than Geist does. While "Geist" also has "spirit" as one of its meanings, it also means "mind" to a greater extent, and when Hegel says "absoluter Geist", for "absolute mind", or "Zeitgeist", for "the spirit/mind of an era", he is not saying something that has a personalistic or soul-like implication. "Seele" in German is like "psyche" in Greek. So when, as in the quote you gave, it says that the Zeigeist is a "spiritual and intellectual reality", it is not a soul-like reality. That is why the quotation specifically states that in this context Geist "is not...alien to the intellectual exposition present in a philosophical system", which is not usually soul-like. If he had wanted to say world soul, he would have said "Weltseele", since the term existed in German. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 18:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Hm. Thanks. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>ॐ</big> 18:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
==Request for clarification==
I don't fully understand the following sentence in the introductory paragraphs, and would appreciate it if someone could paraphrase it for me: "Hegel might well have noted that the positivist response, that to declare the limits of concepts is to deny freedom of thought, is declared by positivism as an incontestable dogma." [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 19:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
==Revised introduction==
From the previous introduction it wasn't really possible to get a sense of what Hegel's main ideas were, most of it was about his impact. I rewrote it to get the main point of his philosophy across. It overlaps with some material that comes later in the article
I also took out the following conclusion to the introduction (but thought I'd store it here for possible future use), because a) it didn't seem clear (e.g. the Adorno quote wouldn't be easily understandable to a non-philosophical reader), b) had too literary a quality (e.g. "ironically"), and c) seemed too focused on the need to counter-attack positivism, which I actually couldn't completely understand, i.e. the freedom of thought part. Here it is, for the record: "Ironically, Hegel himself was well aware of his 'obscurantism,' or what has also been called 'dialectical thinking,' which has been summarized by [[Theodor Adorno]] in the phrase, 'objects do not go into their concepts without leaving a remainder.' Hegel might well have noted that the positivist response, that to declare the limits of concepts is to deny freedom of thought, is declared by positivism as an incontestable dogma."
[[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 08:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
==Problem with the Hegel quotes==
I believe that the Hegel quotes in the article are a waste. I don't think that any "normal" Encyclopedia reader would be able to comprehend them. I have plenty of trouble with them myself, out of context in this way. I think that a paraphrase of his important ideas would be much better and more appropriate. The other WP philosophy articles I've looked at don't have chunks of difficult quotes like these sticking in the middle of them. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 08:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
| 