Talk:Hegelianism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy
	Modern philosophy

Age of Article

This old article (about a century old?) needs an update.

The article may be a century old, but Hegel himself is over two centuries old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.176.130 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I plan to do a bit of reading over the holidays, in addition to what I have read over the past few weeks, to add and update this article. Please, if there is anything specific for me to look for, it would be greatly appreciated. This article is in desperate need of cleaning up and updating. RosarioFreedom

Thomas Watson

Regarding this line Hegelianism in North America was represented by Thomas Watson and William T. Harris. Does anybody know *which* Thomas Watson this refers to? The link currently just takes one to the Thomas Watson disambiguation page, and it's not immediately clear which - if any - of the listed individuals is the one referred to here. --Sprhodes 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

It's not so much the age of this article, as its source - why the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than say 1911 Britannica? Dimwight 09:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel's philosophy of religion

This article doesn't have a section directly addressing Hegel's philosophy of religion and the Absolute. I think it's important to create one, as it's important to know what every philospher thought about one of life's most basic and most important questions. I, for one, would be very interested to know what he believed. Fledgeaaron (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be?

Should not be a section on criticism? There is much say that Hegel is cult-like device. I have no stand but am not particule to any side. Simply for NPOV reasons are EQUAL for BOTH views. So the question is this: we add section on criticism? Unfalsifiable etc. Much love to all for New Year. Linguistixuck (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXTERNAL LINKS

WHERE ARE THEY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.113.210 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE HEGELIAN SCHOOLS

Addition to The Hegelian Schools section --I changed "Otto Strauss" to "David F. Strauss", whose Life of Jesus inaugurated the Young Hegelian episode. While he was a prominent German-language philosopher, Otto Strauss wasn't even born until 1881, almost thirty years after Young Hegelianism dissolved. Davidwestling (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DATES: WHERE ARE THEY?

No dates, no complete bibliography, no Notes, no links, no anything. Lamentable job. Why not look at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a clue on how to construct the article. Or the German Wikipedia article, too. This work is sub-par, I am sorry to report. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bad

Very, very bad stuff. But no surprise here. Most expositions and introductions on Hegel are crap and written by people who are unsympathetic to his philosophy and argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional Tone

Tone is too conversational, particularly under "Stages of History" ("We are, therefore, to understand historical happenings..."). It hardly sounds unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farnk20 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under influence, the statement, "The application of his notion of development to Biblical criticism and to historical investigation is obvious to anyone who compares the spirit and purpose of contemporary theology with the spirit and purpose of the theological literature of the first half of the nineteenth century," is hardly fitting in a serious encyclopedic work.

Internal Citations and lack of diversity in sources

Does anyone think this article could use more sources, as well as internal citations? Also, perhaps a little more accessible? This may be complicated as Hegel is one of the most complex figures in western philosophy NimbleNavigator (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help improve the article

Hi - I plan to do a bit of reading over the holidays, in addition to what I have read over the past few weeks, to add and update this article. What I plan to focus on first is to update the lead summary and overview, which this article lacks. The single paragraph the begins the article is to short to provide a sufficient definition and overview for what Hegelianism means and is. Please, if there is anything specific for me to look for, it would be greatly appreciated. This article is in desperate need of cleaning up and updating. My goals are as follows:

The big goal here is to work to remove the banner at the top
clarify and find citations to back up and endorse the current content or delete the current content and add new content with citation
use a comparable philosophy article that I think would be helpful for this article Ex:(Marx/Marxism; Hegel/Hegelianism), the outline looks really good in the Marxism page
rework some Hegelianism sections
add schools of thought, different interpretations, etc.
history of Hegelianism and what are some off shoot schools of thought
history of people and events that took from and followed in Hegelianism's footsteps
criticism of Hegelianism

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RosarioFreedom (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine of development - issues

Hi all, I happened upon this page out of curiosity, so don't know much about the content but.. In my opinion the section 'Doctrine of development' reads like a transcript from a tutor (+/- opinion/bias) at university speaking to a class of undergrads. I think my qualms are largely in line with Farnk20's, in that the tone is unprofessional/conversational, and in my opinion a bit pompous.

In the same way as "being" and "nothing" develop into the higher concept becoming, so, farther on in the scale of development, life and mind appear as the third terms of the process and in turn are developed into higher forms of themselves. (Aristotle saw "being" as superior to "becoming", because anything which is still becoming something else is imperfect. Hence, God, for Aristotle, is perfect because He never changes, but is eternally complete.) But one cannot help asking what is it that develops or is developed?

I am ignorant of this subject but that's what wikipaedia is for. To me, the above paragraph is cumbersome and doesn't even make sense. It would not be a problem if there were references but there aren't any for this paragraph.

Ending an encyclopaedia paragraph with a rhetorical question?

If you look through the article, the few references there are for this entire page account for a very small proportion of the content written and the majority of them are pretty irrelevant:

Analytic philosopher Robert Brandom introduced a Hegelian phase in analytic philosophy (see Pittsburgh School / analytic Hegelianism).[8][9]

?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwardyboy (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any justification for the existence of this article?

There is only one thing in this almost entirely unsourced article that has not been done better on the main Hegel page or one of the offshoots devoted to specific works or lecture series. That one thing is the lists of major figures who first or most influentially adopted Hegel in various other languages and counties. If that piece were to be expanded and all the rest devoted to an attempted summary of Hegel's thought deleted, that would justify the existence of a page with this name. Otherwise, I think that some other home should be found for that material and this page nominated for deletion. (I have not made just a nomination at this time.)

Thoughts? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think it might be better to redirect instead of deleting - if there's any potential for this to be a separate article someone can always un-redirect it later. I've just redirected it for now. - car chasm (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]