At least read one of his books before you criticize — Gregory

Which presupposes I never have.

I didn’t criticize; Schopenhauer did.

Which book did you read? If you didn't understand it you need a commentary. I've read most of Hegel and understood it all. I could write a paragraph by paragraph commentary if I had the time. Schopenhauer attacked Hegel, Schelling, and Fitche because they had the respect of others which he lacked. Their philosophies are all the same, all additions to Kant, which is why they are all called German idealists

Which book did you read? — Gregory

Pinkard’s Phenomenology of Spirit. No commentary needed, thanks.

I read that too. He has another book on Hegel too. But neither are by Hegel

Schelling and Hegel accept noumena as God, of which we are a part. So they accept what Kant says but submerge all phenomena into the ocean of God and us. Hegel emphasizes how everything is logical and Schelling has his philosophy of nature.

It was Kant who cut us off from previous philosophy and the scholastic method. But some are not satisfied with him. Kant added ideas about morality and aesthetics to his philosophy but others have continued to add more and more, although they accept that phenomena is a totality and the transcendent is unproven

But neither are by Hegel — Gregory

Are you saying Pinkard’s translation of Phenomenology of Spirit isn’t Hegel because it should have been translated as Phenomenology of Mind?

I thought you meant Pinkards commentary on that work. But the Phenomenology is not an easy work. I had to read it 4 times before I understood it fully, after which I could go on to Hegel's other books. People dismiss Hegel as "written mental illness" but I can vouch for him by saying that he does not contradict himself and he does make sense; he just uses a difficult style to say what he wants and not many people understand it

I’ve been fortunate enough that my understanding has served me well. I do use commentaries sometimes, to check up on it, though. Sorta like....see if my understanding still works like it used to.

I dismiss Hegel just because I disagree with him, and I guess, in all honesty, I disagree with him because somebody else beat him to being the ground by which everything else of like kind is judged. Guy’s gotta acknowledge his own prejudices, right? Otherwise he’s simply fooling himself.

I don't find much favor with the teleological part COJ either, especially where he brackets Spinoza as an error of theism rather than a challenge to his view of causality.

But maybe the enterprise does reflect upon the distinction between methodology and "speculative" metaphysics that you commented upon previously. He says things like: I can't rule this out on the basis of my previous work but opine thusly anyway.

Whether it's the divine Intellect of Spinoza's writings or an interpretation of Kant, a mind by itself can't have power to act, on it's own or thru a body (as is dualism). It takes physical energy to have "work" (as used in physic's termonology). I like Kant because he helps me understand how mysterious the world which is around us is. Matter is what we are but what is matter then? Idealism raises great questions but I don't interpret any of the German thinkers from Kant until Kierkegaard as denying that matter is real and fundamental. We are just not sure at times what that entails

As I understand it, according to Hegel, nature and humanity are the self-alienation of God and a dialectical process is occurring whereby, ultimately, God is able to recognize and re-integrate his alienated nature in and through the self-consciousness of humanity. Also, this entire process is logical, not temporal. It goes through what are called logical moments.

Question: Why is the divine nature alienated from itself in the first place? Perhaps, as Ludwig Feuerbach claimed, it is humanity's nature, rather than the divine nature, that is alienated from itself.

This latter insight, in a reworked form, became a basic principle of the left-wing Hegelians and, ultimately, of Marxism.

As I understand Hegel, we know about human nature epistemically by learning about God. God is not a consciousness apart from us although with Kant we can think it is. Hegel pushes us to understand human consciousness itself as deeply as possible

When Hegel speaks of Leibniz's Monads, he says the monads are independent of the mind and dependent on them at the same time. This is the heart of Hegel's dialectic. The process in the philosophy of Leibniz is for Hegel "a completely developed contradiction." And he unites Kant with this: "What this also means is that the antithesis of objectivity [noumena] and subjectivity [phenomena] is overcome and it is our business to participate in redemption by laying off our immediate subjectivity and becoming conscious of God as our true essential Self [noumena]... In cognition, what has to be done is all a matter of striping away the alien character of the objective world that confronts us. As we habitually say, it is a matter of 'finding ourselves in the world,' and what that amounts to is the tracing of what is objective back to the Concept, which is our innermost Self."

His point is that we are noumena and thus the Selfhood of God. But this also means we are phenomena and not the noumena of the world as matter. Understanding objectivity and subjectivity in relation to what we "construct" and what we find "read at hand" is a constant process of paradox that never reaches a completion in understanding be needs to higher intellect realizing itself as identical to the Godhead (what the Indians call Brahmin)