Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Kaufmann/Nietzsche on Hegel's language and style

I have copied and pasted it here in case an editor deletes it from the criticism section. Hopefully we can find a place for this bit here -- since many have called Hegel's language many things but none have really explained why it is that he wrote the way he did.

Walter Kaufmann has argued that as unlikely as it may sound, it is not the case that Hegel was unable to write clearly, but that Hegel felt that "he must and should not write in the way in which he was gifted." The only person who saw this clearly and stated it beautifully was Nietzsche according to Kaufmann. Though Nietzsche was not a Hegel scholar, Kaufmann, quotes Nietzsche from the Dawn Esprit and Morality:

"The Germans, who have mastered the secret of being boring with esprit, knowledge and feeling, and who have accustomed themselves to experience boredom as something moral, are afraid of French esprit because it might prick out the eyes of morality - and yet this dread is fused with tempation, as in the bird faced by the rattlesnake. Perhaps none of the famous Germans had more esprit than Hegel; but he also felt such a great German dread of it that this created his peculiar bad style. For the essence of this style is that a core is enveloped, and enveloped once more and again, until it scarcley peeks out, bashful and curious - as 'young women peek out of their veils', to speak with the old woman-hater Aeschylus. But this core is a witty, often saucy idea about the most intellectual matters, a subtle and daring connecting of words, such as belongs in the company of thinkers, as a side dish of science - but in these wrappings it presents itself as abstruse science itself and by all means as supremely moral boredom. Thus the Germans had a form of esprit permitted to them, and they enjoyed it with such extravagant delight that Schopenhauer's good, very good intelligence came to a halt confronted with it: his life long, he blustered against the spectacle the Germans offered him, but he never was able to explain it to himself."

Reading Hegel

I have added the following under the reading hegel section. My intention is not to overload the article with references to Kaufmann. I feel he has unique insights and comments that are not expressed anywhere else. Hopefully we can find a place for the following if not under the reading hegel section.

According to Kaufmann, the basic idea of Hegel's works, especially the Phenomenology of the Spirit is that a philosopher should not "confine him or herself to views that have been held but penetrate these to the human reality they reflect." In other words, it is not enough to consider propositions, or even the content of consciousness; "it is worthwhile to ask in every instance what kind of spirit would entertain such propositions, hold such views, and have such a consciousness. Every outlook in other words, is to be studied not merely as an academic possibility but as an existential reality."

Hegel is fascinated by the sequence Kaufmann writes:

How would a human being come to see the world this way or that? And to what extent does the road on which a point of view is reached color the view? Moreover, it should be possible to show how every single view in turn is one-sided and therefore untenable as soon as it is embraced consistently. Each must therefore give way to another, until finally the last and most comprehensive vision is attained in which all previous views are integrated. That way the reader would be compelled – not by rhetoric or by talk of compelling him, but by the successive examination of forms of consciousness – to rise from the lowest and least sophisticated level to the highest and most philosophical; and on the way he would recognize stoicism and skepticism, Christianity, and Enlightenment, Sophocles and Kant.

Many sympathetic commentators have argued that this is surely one of the most imaginative and poetic conceptions ever to have occurred to any philosopher. Kaufmann even argues that the parallel between Hegel's Phenomenology and Dante's journey "through hell and purgatory to the blessed vision meets the eye." He also makes a comparison with Goethe's Faust claiming that "two quotations from ‘The First Part of the Tragedy’ could have served Hegel as mottoes." The first of these passages (lines 1770-75) Kaufmann argues Hegel knew from Faust: A Fragment (1790)": "And what is portioned out to all mankind, I shall enjoy deep in myself, contain; Within my spirit summit and abyss, Pile on my breast their agony and bliss, And thus let my own self grow into theirs, unfettered.

These lines express much of the spirit of the book Kaufmann writes: "Hegel is not treating us to a spectacle, letting various forms of consciousness pass in review before our eyes to entertain us as he considers it necessary to re-experience what the human spirit has gone through in history and he challenges the reader to join him in this Faustian undertaking." Hegel asks readers not merely to read about such possibilities but according to Kaufmann, to "identify with each in turn until their own self has grown to the point where it is contemporary with world spirit. The reader, like the author, is meant to suffer through each position, and to be changed as he/she proceeds from one to the other. Mea res agitur: my own self is at stake. Or, as Rilke put it definitively in the last line of his great sonnet on an “Archaic Torso of Apollo”: du must dein Leben andern – you must change your life.”

Hegel's writing style and language has also been a source of criticism.Schopenhauer for example, called Hegel "this Caliban of the spirit." He also spoke of "Hegel's philosophy of absolute nonsense." Abserwitzig meaning insane is a word that recurs frequently in Schopenhauer's remarks about Hegel, along with the claims that Hegel had no Geist at all.

Kaufmann claims that while it is "widely considered bad form to speak irreverently about Kant, disrespect for Hegel is still good form. Many writers and lecturers enjoy making scurrilous remarks about Hegel while others -- and sometimes actually the very same people -- make use of his ideas without giving credit to him." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hegel's Aesthetics?

I think it might be helpful to include something about Hegel's aesthetics, specifically content from Lectures on Aesthetics, under the "Thought" section. What do other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiberius Aurelius (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly (I am writing a dissertation on the topic!). Time permitting, I will pull something together for the site. Honestly though, the whole "Thought" section could use an overhaul. Not that there is anything egregiously wrong with it, but it's weirdly selective in its treatment (my main objection) and sometimes lapses into jargon without adequately adumbrating the terms. Do any others feel this way?

Secondary literature

Hello everyone. I recently added an extensive Hegel bibliography to the external links section. It is much more comprehensive than what is listed on this page and has the additional merit of singling out certain works as either introductory or especially recommended. To me, what is listed on this page is rather useless. The best case scenario, I believe would be to replace it with a selective annotated bibliography of only introductory-level works. For example, H.S. Harris's two-volume Hegel's Development is the most comprehensive account of Hegel's development leading up the PhS, perhaps in any language. But who coming to Wikipedia to learn about Hegel is going to take that on? Let alone technical works in German or French about specific aspects of his philosophy. People coming to this page should be assumed to have a very low level of acquaintance with Hegel. What would be useful to this audience is just a short list of useful introductions with a few words explaining their strengths, weakness, possible biases, etc.

Do others agree? I do not want to presume to delete the whole thing to replace it with a short list entirely of my own devising. I usually recommend Houlgate's intro or Pinkard's intellectual biography to people looking for a general intro. Reason and Revolution may also belong on the list, as it provides a summary of much of Hegel's thought (albeit rather too simplistically for my taste) and situates it in the Marxist tradition, which many will be interested in. I have not read it, but I've heard Rosen's intro highly praised by a scholar hyper-critical of what seems like just about everything written about Hegel in the English language. Apparently it does an especially good job of illustrating the Aristotelean underpinning of so much of Hegel's thought. I could list a few more, but will leave it here for now so that others may weigh in.

Thanks for your consideration. PJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As you will see, I have gone ahead and done something like this, albeit less selectively than I would really like to be in order to avoid controversy (and without the annotations I obviously cannot supply to everything on my own). See the Aristotle or Wittgenstein pages for precedent. Having looked at a sampling of other major philosophers' pages, there seems to be no standard practice. Although this was mostly an act of removal, I also added an introduction much better than some of the stuff up there and two volumes on Hegel's ethical and political thought. (Unfortunately, I do not know of any decent book-length introductory treatments of Hegel's philosophy or art or religion. These subjects, however, are covered in most of the general introductions.)

Overhaul of “Thought” Section?

Okay, so I have no idea whether I’m actually willing to do such an overhaul, but it might be a good exercise for me. And I think I could be successful in soliciting further improvements from other Hegel scholars. If, however, this is just going to outrage everyone who contributed to the current version and be immediately taken down, I definitely will not waste my time.

What I have in mind is something like this:

Hegel’s Idealism

• clarify Hegel’s general idealistic thesis as articulated in the Phenomenology and Logic, i.e., explain what he means by "absolute knowing" and the claim that "substance is essentially subject"
• maybe cite one of Pinkard or Pippin’s single-paragraph attempts at a summary of the PhS (which has its own page, but is totally useless)
• explain what the logic is, why there is so much confusion about this (reference to “metaphysical,” “non-metaphysical, “revised metaphysical” accounts)
• cite recent scholarship articulating and defending revisionary metaphysical reading
• elucidate distinction between scientific portion of Hegel’s philosophy (the PhS in its capacity as a “science of experience” and the logic) and the Realphilosophie, which is “its own time comprehended in thought—and so needs to be read and assessed quite differently

Hegel’s System

The Philosophy of Nature

• pretty much just that it exists and is a presupposition of spirit
• the reasons few take it seriously anymore, but noting that some still do

The Philosophy of Spirit

• distinction between subjective, objective, and abs spirit

Subjective Spirit

• very brief description of subjective spirit

Objective Spirit

• Hegel's concept of freedom and how it achieves actuality in Ethical Life
• the doctrine of world history and its problems

Absolute Spirit

• present the concept of the beautiful ideal, why Greek sculpture is most perfectly beautiful art
• explain infamous claim about “passing away” of art to clarify that Hegel does indeed secure an ongoing place for art in the modern world
• present concept of religion
• brief explication of Hegel’s interpretation of Lutheranism as “consummate religion” in which spirit, knowing itself, knows god
• logic as mode of spirit most at one with itself, but entirely in thought—hence ongoing need for art and religion

Sections on his intellectual context and his pre-Jena writing would also be valuable, but I am not in the position to write them without reviewing more material than I have time for.

Do people like this idea? Is there anything conspicuously missing? I can provide citations to primary sources and recent scholarship to establish that I am not doing “original research.” There's no question that this is how the system is organized, and broad scholarly consensus about what he took himself to accomplish (albeit, of course, massive disagreement about the extent which he actually succeeded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why multiple template boxes?

These seem redundant. I think the list of influences and people influenced should be updated on the top box to match my updates of the lists below (probably with some further edits from others), and then we should delete the bottom one. It contains nothing not already in the above or prominently presented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I moved the external links up above the notes because I feel they are more important and of greater use and interest to readers. Crucial to have the notes, obviously, but most folks are going to access them via mouse hover-over in the body. Only someone familiar with the current state of Hegel scholarship would have any reason to give it direct attention. I also moved the "See also" to the bottom and unless someone wants to update this, I really think it should just be deleted. The principle of selection is utterly unclear, and the listed links seem to me of little value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Astronomy

Hegel's contribution to astronomy and the discovery of Ceres seem to have vanished from the article. See his 1800 effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.22.114 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He argued that it couldn't be there. I'm guessing you're being sarcastic in your use of the term "contribution."137.205.183.86 (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Precursor?

I can't verify these sources. Can somebody tell me how Mr. Hegel was a precursor to these things? Even Marxism? Marx said "Hegel had a rational kernel in a mystic shell". Marx was the Historical Materalist, Hegel was the Idealist, in a historical sense, in that Ideas shape history. I'll find sources for Marx's quote, tommorow 07:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but I can't *verify* them. Am I supposed to buy these books? Or dig them up for myself? I'm not sure. OhWhyNot (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, here. The first person to call Hegel a mystic was Karl Marx, the namesake, and not the precursor, of Marxism.. Why was this allowed in here? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm OhWhyNot (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not clear to me exactly what your problem with this article is. Adding multiple templates to the article seems excessive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, let's leave systemic bias up there then OhWhyNot (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I don't think the term "precursor" is the best word choice here. My understand is that Hegel's dialectic logic influenced the development of Marx's dialectic materialism, but we have to keep in mind Marx considered his dialectic to be different from Hegel's. Here are a couple of quotes from OhWhyNot's link:

• "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."

• "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."

Hegel's dialectic wasn't a precursor to Marxism, but I think the second quote shows Hegel certainly had a noteworthy influence on the logic of Marxism.

Is the only issue being debated for bias? If so, we should rewrite this sentence in the lead and the "School" infobox to better convey Hegel's influence without calling him a "precursor" then remove the systematic bias tag. Abierma3 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Systemic Bias?

The article is tagged as NPOV due to Systemic Bias but there is no discussion on the talk page. I have looked over the article and nothing in particular seems to me biased. Has there been any discussion elsewhere or is this more drive by trolling about Hegel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.241.151.66 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion regarding the Systemic Bias tag is under the "Precursor" heading above. For reasons explained in my post under that heading, I have made to following changes:

• Changed the lead from saying that he "served as an important precursor" to saying that he "was influential to"
• Added source for Hegel's influence on Marxism
• Added citation needed tag for Hegel's influence on Continental philosophy and historism
• Removed "Precursor to historism and Marxism" from school of philosophy section of infobox

These edits should address the concerns that were brought up by the editor that tagged the article for Systemic Bias, so I have removed the tag. Abierma3 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Foucault quote

In response to Abierma3's modification of my qualification of Rorty's quote, I would refer that editor back to the Foucault text, of which it is a liberal interpretation. That should be acknowledged or else the whole thing should be removed.

("According to" attributes this as Rorty's interpretation of what Foucault said just as well as "somewhat liberally paraphrases" does.) (undo | thank)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 11:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 

Here is the passage, for anyone who does not have a copy of the text:

A large part of my indebtedness, however, is to Jean Hyppolite. I know that, for many, his work is associated with that of Hegel, and that our age, whether through logic or epistemology, whether through Marx or through Nietzsche, is attempting to flee Hegel: and what I was attempting to say earlier concerning discourse was pretty disloyal to Hegel.

But truly to escape Hegel involves an exact appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It assumes that we are aware of the ex­tent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps, is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us. If, then, more than one of us is indebted to Jean Hyppolite, it is because he has tirelessly explored, for us, and ahead of us, the path along which we may escape Hegel, keep our distance, and along which we shall find ourselves brought back to him, only from a different angle, and then, finally, be forced to leave him behind, once more.

First, Hyppolite took the trouble to give some presence to this great, slightly phantomlike shadow that was Hegel, prowling through the nineteenth century, with whom men struggled in the dark. He gave Hegel this presence with his translation of the Phenomonology of the mind; proof of the extent to which Hegel came to life in this text was the number of Germans who came to con­sult this text in order to understand what, for a moment at least, had become the German version. (1971, 235)

The discussion of Hyppolite continues for two pages. This, however, is the closest to what Rorty attributes to him. Notice, however, that Foucault insists in the end upon leaving Hegel behind once more.

One additional reason in favor of omitting the reference altogether is the extent to which it runs counter to almost everything else Foucault ever said about Hegel. Here is a more typical (and accurate) self-assessment:

For me Heidegger has always been the essential philosopher. I began by reading Hegel, then Marx, and I set out to read Heidegger in 1951 or 1952; then in 1952 or 1953 - I don't remember any more - I read Nietzsche. I still have here the notes that I took when I was reading Heidegger. I've got tons of them! And they are much more important than the ones I took on Hegel or Marx. My entire philosophical development was determined by my reading of Heidegger. I nevertheless recognize that Nietzsche outweighed him. I do not know Heidegger well enough: I hardly know Being and Time nor what has been published recently. My knowledge of Nietzsche certainly is better than my knowledge of Heidegger. Nevertheless, these are the two fundamental experiences I have had. (Politics, Philosophy, Culture, p.250)

Quote should be removed. A "liberal interpretation" by a contemporary philosopher of what another contemporary philosopher said about the philosopher being discussed is not lead-worthy, especially when, like you say, "it runs counter to almost everything else Foucault ever said about Hegel." I agree. Abierma3 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede re-write?

Rereading the first paragraphs, I realize it’s more than just the absurd request for a “citation” to support the claim that he was “influential to” Continental Philosophy, which is essentially defined by whether one took Kant in the idealist direction of Fichte, Schelling, et al. of which Hegel presents himself (controversially, but with a still impressive consensus among those scholars persuaded by that tradition’s criticisms of the Kantian program) or the neo-Kantian route of the Marburg and Baden Schools (Cassirer being probably the most famous representative). As is well known, these two traditions largely developed in mutual contempt with little significant interaction for arguably over a century (British Hegelianism, the primary exception, being a disaster). Fortunately this distinction is fairly well broken down. All of which is just a long-winded way of stating that I think, not only that the claim needs no citation, but that it ought to come down altogether. Also, “historicism,” not really a unified or at all well-defined movement.

What about simply:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (/ˈheɪɡəl/;[2] German: [ˈɡeɔɐ̯k ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːɡəl]; August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher of the late Enlightenment who achieved wide renown in his day and, while primarily influential within the Continental philosophy tradition of philosophy, has becoming increasingly influential in the Anglophone world as well [citation to SEP entry]. Although he remains a decisive figure, his canonical stature within Western philosophy is universally recognized [citation to “Any introductory text to the history of philosophy written in the past century.”].

The second paragraph could also be improved, but that is enough from me for now. I’ll let this sit for a while and then make the change in a few days or so if no one objects or wants to tweak it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the rewrite, although I think "English-speaking world" would be better than "Anglophone world" (Anglophone world redirects to English-speaking world article). Abierma3 (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. Re-write implemented with slight changes and with what I hope are some additional improvements to the 2nd paragraph as well. I don't know Wikipedia's policy on this, but I also removed the link from "state," which just seemed totally (and conspicuously) arbitrary, given that there are surely pages on all of the other items in that catalog (psychology, art, etc.). It seems to me that the principle of selection in this context ought to be biographical, historical, or philosophical relevance to Hegel. If anyone disagrees, by all means restore the link or add links to everything. I just find this practice distracting and unhelpful.

Removing this from Works section where it does not belong. It's accurate, though, so someone may wish to integrate elsewhere:

The French Revolution for Hegel constitutes the introduction of real individual political freedom into European societies for the first time in recorded history. But precisely because of its absolute novelty, it is also unlimited with regard to everything that preceded it: on the one hand the upsurge of violence required to carry out the revolution cannot cease to be itself, while on the other, it has already consumed its opponent. The revolution therefore has nowhere to turn but onto its own result: the hard-won freedom is consumed by a brutal Reign of Terror. History, however, progresses by learning from its mistakes: only after and precisely because of this experience can one posit the existence of a constitutional state of free citizens, embodying both the benevolent organizing power of rational government and the revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality. Hegel's remarks on the French revolution led German poet Heinrich Heine to label him "The Orléans of German Philosophy".

I do think Hegel's interpretation of the French Revolution is important and should be included somewhere in the article (especially since "French Revolution" and "Reign of Terror" are used as examples of thesis and antithesis in the "Triad" subsection of the "Legacy" section. From Susan Buck-Morss: "Hegel, writing The Phenomenology of Mind in his Jena study in 1806, interpreted the advancing army of Napoleon (whose cannons he could hear roaring in the distance) as the unwitting realization of Reason." From Philip Cunliffe: "It is well established that the thrust of [Hegel's] project was an attempt to absorb the impact of modernity by offering a philosophical response to the French Revolution and the unfolding of the modern division of labour." Maybe we can incorporate some of this text into the "Progress" subsection of the "Thought" section? Abierma3 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rfc: Turtle Island External Video

Dr. Gregory B. Sadler is a notable Hegel popularizer (undoubtedly a unique demographic!). I don't see the logic of his podcast under the aegis of the Turtle Island Research Cooperative being deleted because it's a "Book presentation," particularly given the provenance of the other two videos as philosophy outreach. The video is not only salient and well within the Wikipedia ambit and mission, it is a fine contemporary example of philosophical engagement and outreach. kencf0618 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A youtube livestream. Informative, perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. WP:ELNO applies. Kleuske (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The whole point of Wikipedia is to be informative. kencf0618 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The whole point is not to shill youtube livestreams. Kleuske (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The two current video links are from Vimeo and C-SPAN, respectively. Worthy discussions, surely! And whatever the animus against YouTube, Dr. Sadler reads, out loud, and discusses at length, The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit paragraph by paragraph. No shilling here! kencf0618 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is a matter concerning article content, for which I cannot see a previous discussion on this page. There is no need to go all the way to RfC: please see WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How could he be 'German'?

He lived before Germany was a thing. Hegel's death = 14 November 1831 . — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read the article nationality, especially the older meaning of nationality. Grimes2 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The opinion of Gauss on astronomy

Gauss's opinion of Hegel should be in the article. Gauss said, "the insanities of Hegel in the Doctoral Dissertation, where he criticizes Newton and questions the utility of a search for new planets are still wisdom if one compares them with his later remarks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:2059:CEF:3D29:4F08 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge Diamond net into Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Please can someone assist with merge of Diamond net into this article as I have no idea where to put the single sentence from the article. Diamond net was last edited in 2009 and should be AfD'd but I want to save the quote. Waddie96 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, although the interpretation given in the Overview needs some corrections (and citations!), this content should be in the main page on Hegel. It is bizarre for it to lack the basic outline of his "mature" system. I would put the material from the other entry at the top of the Philosophical Work section. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)