Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:03, 10 September 2005

Latest revision as of 11:19, 8 January 2025

(786 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header }}

== should be expanded .. ==

{{Round in circles|search=no}}

an extra-article about "Hegelianism" is reasonable, considering that the whole USA is based on that principle

{{Article history

|action1 = GAN

|action1date = 23:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

|action1link = Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/GA1

|action1result = not listed

|action2 = GAN

|action2date = 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

|action2link = Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/GA2

|action2oldid = 1111879897

|action2result = promoted

|action3 = PR

|action3date = 9 October 2022 (UTC)

|action3link = Wikipedia:Peer review/Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/archive1

|action3oldid = 1114747620

|action3result = reviewed

|currentstatus = GA

|topic = Philosophy and religion

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich|blp=no|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|aesthetics=yes|metaphysics=yes|philosopher=yes|social=yes|modern=yes|continental=yes|logic=yes|ethics=yes}}

{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 5

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(183d)

|archive = Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Age of Enlightenment#Germany|German Enlightenment]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Germany) [[Special:Diff/491071302|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Germany","appear":{"revid":430196571,"parentid":429912451,"timestamp":"2011-05-21T14:19:54Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Germany"]},"disappear":{"revid":491071302,"parentid":490748648,"timestamp":"2012-05-06T21:47:54Z","removed_section_titles":["Germany"],"added_section_titles":["Prussia and the German States"]},"very_different":"24≥7","rename_to":"Prussia and the German States"} -->

}}

== Criticism and legacy --> Early reception? ==

: Hi, I've created an article on the [[Hegelian principle]], fyi.<br /><br />

Hey all,

== 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."

I am considering restructuring the current "Criticism and legacy" section into a section provisionally titled "Early reception". This would have three subsections. The first would be "German reception", which would include the material currently divided between the sections on L v. R Hegelianism and Marxism. The second would be "French reception", which would probably be unchanged. The third would be American reception, which would probably also be largely unchanged from the current section entitled "American pragmatism".

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)

This would leave four sections hanging: (i) "Racism", (ii) "Allegations of authoritarianism", (iii) "Thesis–antithesis–synthesis", and (iv) "Non-metaphysical interpretations".

: Dear [[User:CriminalSaint|CriminalSaint]],

To take these in reverse order:

"I've added my most recent edit in order to bring better light to Hegel's major works"

(iv) This is an academic debate that is widely considered to be over. I wrote most of the section in order to include something that was in the article before I started overhauling it. Looking back now, however, I think just about everything currently included could be simply deleted. This debate is just not something about which non-specialists have any reason to care.

Forget about the to "bring better light to Hegel".

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.)

(iii) The primary reason to include this dated misrepresentation of Hegel's philosophy is to prevent editors who have not studied Hegel and do not know the literature to add it somewhere inappropriate. In the past, for instance, it has even been featured in the lead. Some of the current exposition, I believe, is useful and could be incorporated above, probably into "Dialectics, speculation, idealism", without being a section unto itself.

From Kai (hegel.net editor) to the anoymous poster above:

(ii) None of these allegations are by Hegel scholars. They are more a reflection of the intellectual climate during the Cold War than anything Hegel wrote, said, or actually inspired. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, do they any longer shadow Hegel's legacy.

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.

(i) This section was added by someone who translated it from the German article on Hegel. Best practice is to integrate criticism into the article's presentation of the ideas being criticized, rather than as its own section. In this case, those sections are [[Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Subjective_spirit]] and [[Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#History,_political_and_philosophical]].

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Some of the material currently in this stand-alone section could be incorporated into those sections above in addition to what is already there. Buck-Morss, in particular, is an important addition to the bibliography; for her work on this topic is probably the most cited among scholars.

:: 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)

Writing from the United States as a dude on the pale side of white, however, I want to be sure other folks have a chance to chime in before I make any changes that might unduly minimize the significance of Hegel's particular brand of [[scientific racism|"scientific" racism]]. (Tagging the original contributor, @[[User:Anna.Bonazzi|Anna.Bonazzi]].)

:::To Kai (hegel.net editor). Are you really the English Wikipedia Hegel admin ?

"to the anoymous poster above:"

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_.

The reason for these proposed changes is to help protect the page against the sort of arbitrary bloat currently found, for instance, at [[Immanuel_Kant#Influence_and_legacy]] or (at least until somewhat ameliorated by my recent edits) in the [[Aristotle]] article.

By the way, my complete name and E-mai address just follows your latest posting.

There is just no way to cover the legacy and criticisms of such major figures in an objectively principled way. Limiting this section of the article to the figure's initial reception helps to forestall [[WP:UNDO]] or otherwise problematic contributions by well-meaning editors. If something has no place in the Life/Biography or Philosophy/Thought section of the article, it probably does not belong at all (or else one of those sections needs to be restructured, in which case, pls. bring this to the Talk page!).

And here -- for you alone -- exclusively follows my name and E-mai address:

This is a long post. There is no expectation that anyone respond to anymore than one of the points I make. But if you are reading this, please share your views! I am still the primary author of most of this article (apart from the Life section, which required little by way of improvement). That is just to say that I can make these changes very easily without much time or effort. But I'm going to leave this here for a week or so in hopes others might chime in to support this proposal or else to raise qualified or categorical objections.

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 01:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: I'm waiting for _substantial contributions_ on Hegel from your address.

:Sorry for neglecting to follow through on any of this. I am going to now act on (i) and (ii), linking back to this thread in my edit description of the deletions. If I have removed anything of importance, I am happy to discuss and restore as appropriate.

PPS: "Hegel's work is a phenomenon in philosophy beyond any given language."

:Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 17:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, then teach me an "ungiven language" so that I can understand Hegel's (and your) writings.

::I've made these and a few other related edits. If no one speaks up in objection, I will come back to clean up the bibliography in a few days. [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

{{Collapse top| [[WP:TALK#TOPIC]], [[WP:OR]]}}

:You're misinterpreting me. Hegel is Hegel whether he's in english of german. [[User:CriminalSaint|CriminalSaint]] 22:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Can we add this summary of Hegel's Logic to the Science of Logic section? ==

I have written this three paragraph summary of Hegel's Logic which I think will be very helpful to wishing to understand this titanic work. Can we add this to the Science of Logic section? If you approve, I'll gather references, probably from G.R.G. Mure's "A Study of Hegel's Logic," (but I'm also willing to gather from Beiser and Inwood if you'd prefer) to point the reader to scholarship on each point of the summary. The summary is as follows:

== Who has an idea of Hegel's writings ? ==

Being is the sensible, empirical side of reality. It consists of quality and quantity (Aristotle’s ‘poion’ and ’poson’ respectively). Qualia (e.g. shiny, red, apple) constitute the content of sensible reality, but in a form which is generally recalcitrant and unreceptive to combination (shiny cannot be added to heavy). Quanta (e.g. 5, 9, etc.) constitute the combinability of sensible reality, but a formal combinability abstracted from all content (e.g. addition, subtraction, ratio, etc.). Measure is the combination of quality and quantity (e.g. 100 books in a library, 2 atoms of hydrogen), and it constitutes the general structure of the field of sensation and experience. But this field is still the external combination of qualia and quanta. Their inward union is substance, essence.

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.

Essence is the invisible, formal side of reality. It consists of the difference between itself and its manifestation. Essence thus has two sides: on the one hand, essence is pure form, pure inner thinking without content (these are the laws of thought, e.g. A = A); and on the other hand, essence is the sensible content but in the form of abstract laws (these are the laws of nature, e.g. F = ma). As the third to pure essence and essence with content, we have actuality, which is the structure of the organic world in general. Actuality is the pure form (A = A) that has entered into reality and become a real existent (e.g. the seed = the tree; Aristotle’s dynamis and energeia). But this is only a partial unification, because it still has some reality standing outside it. When essence and existence are perfectly united so that all reality is in the essence and essence exists in reality, this is the concept.

usf. usf. usf. [und so fort = and so forth] (One of Hegel's most favourite abbreviations.)

The concept is essence fully entered into being and thus become present to itself. It is thinking, but no longer as merely formal thinking, but a thinking which has all reality in it as its own self-production. This is the ‘I’ of self-consciousness. In itself this is the content of traditional logic (Aristotle’s Prior Analytics). As externally projected, the concept is an object, an objective end apart from itself to which it relates. When this end is brought back into the concept, then we have the end in itself, the idea. The idea is the philosophical method, self-knowing truth, and eternal life. It is the creator of nature, the unity of truth and goodness, the purpose of existence, and the ideal human being. This is the Absolute Idea.

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Thanks! [[User:RightHegelian|RightHegelian]] ([[User talk:RightHegelian|talk]]) 05:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

: 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]],

:Hi @[[User:RightHegelian|RightHegelian]],

"Your remark suggests that you would be more comfortable with the alternative reality of Bush's America,..."

:I have some concerns about the accuracy of parts of this description. My primary concern, however, is that Hegel's main/bio article is not the place to provide an exposition of the ''Logic''. The section is already longer than is ideal. People seeking specifically to understand this work should find themselves instead at the ''[[Science of Logic]]'' article.

:This article would, in general, benefit from greater use of [[WP:Summary style]]. The problem is that the existing articles on Hegel's individual works are currently in sorry shape. Otherwise, I would move even some of what is now here out to them.

:What would you think about pursuing these edits on the ''SL'' article, to build that out instead? After the introductory section, it goes into a preposterous amount of detail without any supporting [[WP:RS]]. Anything following any published commentary would be an improvement. At such a time as it comes up to [[WP:B-class]], the coverage of logic in this article could be cut back or moved over to enhance general readability and to send more interested readers to the dedicated ''SL'' article.

:Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 15:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

::The content of the Science of Logic article is accurate. What is presented there is very close to Hegel’s letter, and also very close to the exposition provided in G.R.G. Mure’s “A Study of Hegel’s Logic.” I would be happy to identify the pages in Hegel and Mure that correspond to the content of the current Science of Logic article, and thereby rescue this excellent exposition from possible deletion.

::P.S. I have endeavored to improve my summary of the theory of essence:

::Essence is the invisible, formal side of reality. This form is identity-in-difference. First, essence is formal thinking, the empty formal identity of itself with itself. These are the laws of thought (e.g. A = A). Second, essence is the difference between itself and its manifestation. This is the difference between the formal laws of nature (e.g. F = ma) and their manifestation in sensible being (e.g. the movement of planets around the sun). Third, essence is the identity-in-difference of the form, the law, and its manifestation, its being. This is actuality, the infinite rejoining of essence with itself in its existence (e.g. the seed manifests on the tree in the fruit; seed = tree = fruit). This triune circle, this infinite self-rejoining movement, is the concept. [[User:RightHegelian|RightHegelian]] ([[User talk:RightHegelian|talk]]) 20:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

== "Probably incorrect" ==

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.

Hi @[[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick Welsh]], I see that you reverted my recent edit, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.

I am looking forward to your answer -- and will answer it, no doubt.

I edited the following sentence: "Dewey accepted much of Hegel's account of history and society, but rejected his (probably incorrect) conception of Hegel's account of absolute knowing."

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

I removed the parenthetical statement "probably incorrect".

: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.

My thought process was threefold: 1) It is redundant: if Dewey rejected Hegel's conception, then that means, by definition, that Dewey thought that Hegel's conception was probably incorrect. 2) Since I don't have access to the book cited, I could not confirm if this was a direct quote from the book, or a [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] of what the book says. 3) Absent a direct quote from the book, the parenthetical looked like original research to me.

: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.

I've had this account since 2008, so I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm just getting back into it after an extended absence. I am open to learning, and would appreciate a constructive criticism of my edit. Cheers. [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

: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)

:Happy to clarify—and thanks for using the talk page!

:: Dear [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]],

:As I stated in my edit description, it was obviously a good-faith edit. I'll quote just the most salient paragraph from the page cited, which, as always, would be best read in its larger context:

:<blockquote>The American pragmatist and naturalist John Dewey (1859–1952) could be seen as a Hegelian who accepted Hegel’s account of society and history, while rejecting Hegel’s absolute as he interpreted it. Like Hegel, Dewey argued that individuals and society are mutually self-constituting, and so he rejected any attempt to reduce one to the other. Dewey also believed that knowledge must be understood in terms of what a given society counts as knowledge rather than transhistorical or ahistorical standards. However, he did not accept the concept of an absolute, and he denied that there is necessarily progress in history. Whether there is progress depends on what sort of society people create for themselves.</blockquote>

:What is incorrect is Dewey's interpretation of Hegel's concept of the absolute. I believe this to be established in this article with multiple high-quality references and also by Fritzman's own earlier analysis. The absolute is just knowing what knowing is. History is a mess, as Hegel duly acknowledges—and proceeds to ignore in his efforts to uncover a deeper "logic" (which is not at all the same as a unified narrative of progress) beneath all the noise.

:Even if Dewey is right to reject Hegel's concept of the absolute, he fails (at least per Fritzman) to take seriously the claims central to Hegel's philosophy regarding the ultimate orientation of spirit toward freedom and truth. (Probably he should have aligned himself with [[Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Influences|Herder]] instead, which Hegel deliberately declined to do.)

:Whatever the merits of Dewey's position, this criticism of "Hegel" misses the historical Hegel as preserved for us in his writings and a great deal of secondary literature.

:Cheers, [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for your detailed reply, Patrick.

::Although I found everything you wrote & quoted to be fascinating, I think I might be missing the point.

::If I am understanding you correctly, the "probably incorrect" parenthetical is referring to Dewey's interpretation of Hegel's concept of the absolute. In other words, "Dewey rejected Hegel's account of absolute knowing, but Dewey's conception of that account was probably incorrect."

::Is that right?

::If no, then please forgive me for not keeping up. If yes, I don't see how the passage cited supports the parenthetical in question. Maybe the "high-quality references" and "Fritzman's own earlier analysis" that you mentioned could be cited to support the passage?

::Or perhaps the sentence could be re-worked for clarity? I'm no genius, but the current sentence is confusing to me, so I suspect it may be confusing to others, as well.

::I appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this. [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:::What is incorrect (per my own understanding and Fritzman's as I understood him at the time of reading) is Dewey's understanding of Hegel's concept of the absolute. The concept that Dewey rejects is not Hegel's concept; hence, per the article, {{tq|his (probably incorrect) conception of Hegel's account of absolute knowing}}. As the paragraph cited above states, Dewey rejected {{tq|Hegel’s absolute as he [Dewey] interpreted it}}, which is a major qualification even just in the context of this isolated paragraph.

:::In any event, what needs to be clear is that the absolute rejected by Dewey is not Hegel's absolute. If there's a better way to communicate this without repeating too much of what has been covered above, or unduly elongating the section on American pragmatism, that's would be great. By all means implement yourself or, if you prefer, run a proposal by me and other talk-page followers here.

:::Cheers, [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the clarification.

::::Perhaps we could say something like "Dewey accepted much of Hegel's account of history and society. He rejected Hegel's account of absolute knowing, although several scholars have argued that Dewey misinterpreted it."

::::Then, the relevant works by those scholars could be cited at the end of the sentence. I would defer to you about what the proper sources are, because I am not as familiar with them as you are.

::::That would be a lot more readable, to my eye. What do you think? [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::I guess I would consider the onus to be on Dewey scholars to defend his interpretation as anything other than an obvious misunderstanding contradicted by the majority of recent Hegel scholarship (as documented in the body of the article above).

:::::I might be able to turn up a second supporting source in [[Richard J. Bernstein]]'s ''The Pragmatic Turn'' (just in terms of what's on my shelves about these thinkers in relation to one another), but I'm not seeing a larger problem here. It's no shame on Dewey for getting something wrong about Hegel—especially working in English more than 100 years ago.

:::::Unless there's a more serious problem than I recognize, however, it's on you to provide a more properly nuanced account of James' critical reception of Hegel. While I understand your initial edit, I don't understand the ongoing issue with the section. Dewey learned from Hegel without becoming a Hegel scholar or a Hegelian. That's totally fine. Maybe the [[John Dewey]] article would benefit from a more detailed discussion, but I don't see why it is needed here. [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. It's totally possible that I'm missing something, so if you don't see any merit to the following remarks in this comment, I'll cease and desist unless/until a 3rd editor weighs in.

::::::My issues are that 1) the sentence is written in a confusing manner, and 2) the cited source does not support the parenthetical. My proposed solutions are to 1) re-write the sentence to make it clearer, and 2) cite a source that directly supports the claim (that Dewey misunderstood/probably got wrong Hegel's account of Hegel's absolute).

::::::To be clear, I totally defer to you, a subject-matter expert, on the facts of the matter. If you say that Dewey got Hegel's account of absolute knowing wrong, I believe you. I just wonder if, absent a source to directly support the claim, the sentence may be [[WP:OR]] or [[WP:SYNTH]].

::::::That's all. It's obviously a minor issue, if it's an issue at all, but since I'm trying to exercise my atrophied Wikipedia-editing muscle again, I figured I'd bring it up here per [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Pecopteris|Pecopteris]] ([[User talk:Pecopteris|talk]]) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::::No, I appreciate your close attention to the article. If you still think it would improve the article, go ahead and remove the parenthetical again. The "his conception of" qualifier is more strongly supported by the paragraph cited above, and it should be enough for readers here, as it is there in the source.

:::::::Cheers, [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

== Confusing Marx/Feurbach phrasing ==

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".)

The article reads:

Hegel on Sound (original German: Klang):

"Among the first to take a critical view of Hegel's system was the 19th-century German group known as the Young Hegelians, which included Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, and their followers. The primary thrust of their criticism is concisely expressed in the eleventh of Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" from his 1845 German Ideology: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

"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."

Why would Marx's Theses on Feurbach, a criticism of Feurbach, in which he says all philosophers, including Feurbach, have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it, be the primary thrust of both Marx's and Feurbach's criticism of Hegel?

Hegel on Matter (original German: Materie):

My point isn't philosophical, I just think this is a very confusingly worded sentence for an encyclopedia article to have and might be a factual error.

"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."

Were this article to highlight Marx's critique of Hegel it would probably be better to quote from Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" in [[Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844|the 1844 Manuscripts]], or [[Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]].

[Hegel wrote these lines many years after the death of Sir Isaac Newton in 1727 !]

[[User:Shama From MySpace|Shama From MySpace]] ([[User talk:Shama From MySpace|talk]]) 22:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

These quotes, which are correct, are taken from:

:Hi @[[User:Shama From MySpace|Shama From MySpace]],

http://www.skeptischeecke.de/Worterbuch/Kalte_Fusion/Hegelei/hegelei.html

:I'm pretty sure this is my work, but upon review it does arguably violate Wikipedia policies about not performing any [[WP:synthesis]] and preferring [[WP:reliable]] secondary sources over primary sources (which, yes, is the opposite of the general practice in academic contexts).

:Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements? Just rereading it quickly now, I am inclined to further subsume the Marxism subsection under "L v. R" and try to solve the issue you raise in the process. This article is already quite long, and I think that the best course would be to wikilink folks out to the relevant pages more directly addressing the Hegelian-Marxist legacy.

:If you have something better, please by all means just edit. Otherwise, I hope you will share further thoughts here.

:Thanks for checking in on the talk page!

:Cheers, [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 01:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

::Sorry for the belated reply, and thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't think synthesis / primary sources is the issue. I might take a crack at an edit shortly once I have reviewed the appropriate materials.

::Cheers, [[User:Shama From MySpace|Shama From MySpace]] ([[User talk:Shama From MySpace|talk]]) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

==format in this article==

Please have a look and a _thinking_, before you come up with another "Hegelei".

This article has many textual items such as {{ill|Christiane Luise Hegel|lt=Chistiane Luise|de}}. I guess that perhaps the |de}} somehow refers to a German Wikipedia? I guess that it is a learned and clever format, but it is unfamiliar to me, I don't understand it, and I don't intend to try to nut it out. It seems not to work properly here. Because I don't understand it, I am not going to try to fix it, but I am suggesting that a local expert editor fix it throughout the article.[[User:Chjoaygame|Chjoaygame]] ([[User talk:Chjoaygame|talk]]) 09:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

:: Dear Hans (to myself),

"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."

"die Materie ist somit kontinuierlich", "ideelle Einzelheit, Mittelpunkt, - die Schwere."

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&rsquo;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 &ldquo;A&rdquo; to &ldquo;Z&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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: &ldquo;There is nothing more practical than a good theory.&rdquo; 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>&#2384;</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>&#2384;</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)