Thoughts and questions from a very different Magee. RIP.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6404/rip-bryan-magee

Bryan Magee and Peter Singer on 'Hegel and Marx'. 43 mins.

https://youtu.be/C9SUYhdivn0

I'd say the word "good" was forgotten. Hegel is not a good philosopher. :joke:

Really ?
How can this be so - isn't Hegel the epitome of a philosopher's philosopher ?
It is an astonishing and controversial claim made by Magee — Amity

Astonishing and controversial claims is what our idiotic net driven public discourse craves for and will be the ones that are picked up (if written by unknown professor of management from some unknown university, who otherwise wouldn't be heard). Or it might be picked out of context.

Hence the claim isn't astonishing, but simply outright stupid and boring. Another point of view would be if the present we don't see anything important in Hegel's works or something equivalent.

Why is Glenn Magee reading "love of wisdom" as "endless pursuit of something that can never be attained" anyway? Is his love life that bad? Or does he think the only Socrates is a philosopher, and only when he's tongue-in-cheek saying that he doesn't know anything?

"I'm a Mystic Man, I'm just a Mystic Man ... I man don't ... I man don't ... I man don't..." -Peter Tosh

I'd say the word "good" was forgotten. Hegel is not a good philosopher. :joke: — Terrapin Station

What or who is your idea of a good philosopher ?
Or even that boring old question of 'What is a philosopher ?' :yawn:
Why would anyone say Hegel is not a philosopher, good or otherwise ?

Astonishing and controversial claims is what our idiotic net driven public discourse craves for and will be the ones that are picked up — ssu

Yeah, true enough. So, this idiot picked it up through a particular desire to find out more about Hegel.
It caught my eye, as intended. A first sentence leading to more...

Another point of view would be if the present we don't see anything important in Hegel's works or something equivalent. — ssu

Yes. That would be another way to come at Hegel. What is your view ?

What or who is your idea of a good philosopher ? — Amity

See the list of some of my favorite philosophers on my profile.

Ah OK.
Russell, Quine, Hume, Socrates, Davidson, Searle, Reichenbach, Mach, Nozick, Ayer, Feyerabend, Achille Varzi, Foucault, Santayana.

What is it about them that makes them 'good philosophers' - from your point of view ?
And why wouldn't you have Hegel amongst them ?

What is it about them that makes them 'good philosophers' - from your point of view ?
And why wouldn't you have Hegel amongst them ? — Amity

For one, they're what I consider good writers. Clear, coherent, there's a good logical flow to their writing and argumentation most of the time.

It is rather obvious Hegel was considered a philosopher. I don’t recall seeing a list of philosophers in which his name wasn’t included. But I was taken aback by this relatively well-respected philosopher’s opinion on the subject.....

“....It became the fitting starting-point for the still grosser nonsense of the clumsy and stupid Hegel....”, (Schopenhauer, WWR2, Appendix, p16, 2nd ed., 1844)

.....which tends to support the possibility that at least one of his peers didn’t deny Hegel being a philosopher, albeit a thoroughly crappy one. ‘Course, that may not be quite fair play, because ol’ Arthur attacked everybody of German idealist descent, to some degree or another, even its king.

Anyway......coupla cents worth.

Yes, I think the question is - what kind of a philosopher. And what more besides...

Schopenhauer had a personal animosity towards him. Illustrated in a cartoon and brief summary from existential comics.

Schopenhauer was quite bitter about Hegel's success, apparently in part due to a particular incident where both of them had a philosophy seminar scheduled at the same time, and everyone went to Hegel's, leaving his pretty much totally empty. Some choice quotes from Schopenhauer on Hegel:

"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of an whole generation."
- The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 (1844)

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/40

Source of light-hearted thought for the day:
'Sorry, I only date dialectical idealists'.

“....It became the fitting starting-point for the still grosser nonsense of the clumsy and stupid Hegel....”, (Schopenhauer, WWR2, Appendix, p16, 2nd ed., 1844)

.....which tends to support the possibility that at least one of his peers didn’t deny Hegel being a philosopher, albeit a thoroughly crappy one. ‘Course, that may not be quite fair play, because ol’ Arthur attacked everybody of German idealist descent, to some degree or another, even its king. — Mww

Back to Schopenhauer.

The personal animosity is clear but how far apart were they in their thoughts about introspection and the importance of self-consciousness ? I don't know. Does it all come down to 'Know Thyself'...

Something @Wayfarer brought to my attention in the Preface thread, an extract from the SEP entry on Schopenhauer:

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

Among the most frequently-identified principles that are introspectively brought forth — and one that was the standard for German Idealist philosophers such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel who were philosophizing within the Cartesian tradition — is the principle of self-consciousness. With the belief that acts of self-consciousness exemplify a self-creative process akin to divine creation, and developing a logic that reflects the structure of self-consciousness, namely, the dialectical logic of position, opposition and reconciliation (sometimes described as the logic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis), the German Idealists maintained that dialectical logic mirrors the structure not only of human productions, both individual and social, but the structure of reality as a whole, conceived of as a thinking substance or conceptually-structured-and-constituted entity. — SEP article on Schopenhauer

Hegel: a Mystic Man ?

Do you agree with @Wayfarer in his comment:
"I think it is possible to identify aspects the Hegelian 'absolute' with both the 'first mover' of Aristotle, and also with the One of neo-platonism (feasibly a kind of 'world soul')."

What is it about them that makes them 'good philosophers' - from your point of view ?
And why wouldn't you have Hegel amongst them ?
— Amity

For one, they're what I consider good writers. Clear, coherent, there's a good logical flow to their writing and argumentation most of the time. — Terrapin Station

And that would answer my second question.
I share your appreciation of good, clear writing. But there is something of a challenge in trying to work out the meaning of the more obscure.
Hence my efforts to keep up in the Preface thread, murderous as it is...
I am trying to be objective and apply that well-known Principle of Charity. It ain't easy.
I have little patience.
I was re-energised and remotivated by the introduction of Goethe into the discussion by @WerMaat who unfortunately has gone AWOL.
Goethe is a far easier read and I have become interested in the apparent mystical aspect of German idealism linked with literature. I can't believe I just wrote that :chin:
Again, understandably, not to everyone's taste or philosophical leanings.

Of course Hegel is not a philosopher.

If you conveniently define philosophy in such a way as to exclude him, all the better to make provocative, attention seeking claims.

Agreed. Nevertheless, it can lead to other questions...
Isn't that what happens here in the forum. That baited hook in the title of a thread...

Currently in the Preface thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p12

@tim wood
"Hegel is either a dinosaur, interesting but in-himself a quaint piece of history of no direct interest, or, even today the bearer of truths timeless in-themselves, that ought to be known."

Hegel: a Mystic Man ? — Amity

That's what we were discussing in the other thread.

Do you agree with Wayfarer in his comment:
"I think it is possible to identify aspects the Hegelian 'absolute' with both the 'first mover' of Aristotle, and also with the One of neo-platonism (feasibly a kind of 'world soul')." — Amity

Yes, but these terms are very general and vague, they can be interpreted in so many different ways that it's not a very meaningful observation until some particular principles are compared. It's like saying all monotheist believe in "God". it doesn't really say too much.

Do you agree with Wayfarer in his comment:
"I think it is possible to identify aspects the Hegelian 'absolute' with both the 'first mover' of Aristotle, and also with the One of neo-platonism (feasibly a kind of 'world soul')." — Amity

Actually Russell’s chapter on Hegel in History of Western Philosophy makes the comparison between Hegel and Aristotle, so it’s not something I originated. And Plotinus’ teaching of the One (ta hen) was adapted by Greek-speaking theologians to provide a philosophical framework for their theology and thereafter became part of the philosophical landscape of the West.

In the history of ideas, a distinction is sometimes made between ‘the God of the philosophers’ and ‘the God of Isaac, Abraham and Moses’ (for example, in Karen Armstrong’s book History of God.) This reflects the multivalence of ‘the idea of God’ in various domains of discourse. Likewise Islam and Hinduism distinguish ‘philosophers’ from ‘sages’ (the latter being said to be divinely inspired, the former to be mere ‘book learners’. Actually the word ‘pundit’ is derived from the Sanskrit ‘pandita’ who was a teacher of grammar and dialectics, etc, and distinguished from ‘rishis’).

So I imagine that if Hegel sought to distinguish himself from being a ‘mere’ philosopher, he might have had something like the ideal of ‘the sage’ in mind. In fact, Kant has been referred to as ‘the sage of Konigsburg’, and I’m more inclined to grant him the distinction. ;-)

That's what we were discussing in the other thread. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I know.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p11

I thought it worth pursuing outwith the reading of the Preface. To be able to explore this in greater depth.
Perhaps I was wrong.

these terms are very general and vague, they can be interpreted in so many different ways that it's not a very meaningful observation until some particular principles are compared. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. I think it would require some in-depth reading of Aristotle and his 'first mover'.
Interpretive difficulties abound, no doubt...

So I imagine that if Hegel sought to distinguish himself from being a ‘mere’ philosopher, he might have had something like the ideal of ‘the sage’ in mind. In fact, Kant has been referred to as ‘the sage of Konigsburg’, and I’m more inclined to grant him the distinction. ;-) — Wayfarer

I am not sure that Hegel did seek to distinguish himself as such.
Did he ?
But perhaps his thoughts were 'divinely inspired' ? As well as being a 'book learner'...

Likewise Islam and Hinduism distinguish ‘philosophers’ from ‘sages’ (the latter being said to be divinely inspired, the former to be mere ‘book learners’. — Wayfarer

Perhaps it was what the Glenn Magee quote was driving at. I really must try and get hold of that book. The preface is online https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

Yes. I think so. However, I have only quickly scanned the material.
Thanks again.

Is Willie Mays a baseball player? And as to Hegel's being or not being anything, like a hermetic thinker, that is a question for historical research to answer as a matter of historical interest and perhaps debate. What we have is a set of texts. In real time right now. Do they have substantial value; are they worth the candle? Or mainly accidental aphoristic value? Or a trip to nowhere?

Commentary and secondary literature on Hegel - or any topic - must be viewed with some suspicion. It can certainly aid reading primary material, as a map can assist a hike. Inevitably though it skews it or colours it - and in some cases be plain wrong about it.

The first tasks, however, are to make a most preliminary determination as to what the text is, to determine the kind of reading and the effort appropriate:

"“Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few are to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.” -Francis Bacon.

Having decided to chew and digest with diligence and attention, then the task is to read the text straight through, no stops (How to Read a Book, Mortimer Adler). And this because in terms of understanding most of us are ruminants; it has to get to at least stomach #1 before digestion proper begins. This of course means analytic reading - Adler's book lays out exactly how to do it. Unfortunately, in a group reading it doesn't work that way.

Anyway, imo Hegel is by any measure a philosopher. And certainly by any general measure of obscurity.

What is your view ? — Amity

Just like with other giants of philosophy, we tend to forget their main points and likely judge them by today's standards.

Perhaps it's fitting here to say that Hegel himself said: every philosophy... belongs to its own time and is caught in that time's restriction.

What we have is a set of texts. In real time right now. Do they have substantial value; are they worth the candle? Or mainly accidental aphoristic value? Or a trip to nowhere?

Commentary and secondary literature on Hegel - or any topic - must be viewed with some suspicion. It can certainly aid reading primary material, as a map can assist a hike. Inevitably though it skews it or colours it - and in some cases be plain wrong about it. — tim wood

Yes. There is a set of texts available to read, if we so wish and have the time.
Failing that there is a most useful and substantive SEP article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

The pros and cons of using secondary literature have been discussed elsewhere. In other group discussions. It almost always comes up with some suggestion, or 'suspicion' that it is 'cheating' your own reading of the original text. I argue that if one is using them effectively and with a critical eye, then the benefits can outweigh any potential swaying. Indeed, reading different perspectives might counteract one's own bias or pre-judging.

Unfortunately, in a group reading it doesn't work that way. — tim wood

Group readings in a philosophy forum are notoriously difficult. There are different reasons for this.

Just like with other giants of philosophy, we tend to forget their main points and likely judge them by today's standards.

Perhaps it's fitting here to say that Hegel himself said: every philosophy... belongs to its own time and is caught in that time's restriction. — ssu

I don't think that the main points of giants of philosophy would be forgotten so easily. Especially if they are made clear and understandable. If not by them, then by others.
Yes. It is difficult to appreciate that these old ideas were new at the time. We take so much for granted with our current knowledge and sometimes forget the continued relevance of ideas and values made implicit or explicit in previous times.

Here are two perspectives worth considering, I think.

As Hegel was the first to know, ‘every philosophy ... belongs to its own time and is caught in that time’s restriction’. But that raises a question: how can a philosophical outlook stay alive after its ‘time’ has passed? The answer to this question takes us beyond philosophical argumentation to a deeper penetration of ‘its own time’ and ours. That is why the key to what is alive in Hegel’s thought lies in Marx’s critique of it. — Cyril Smith

Hegel’s own pithy account of the nature of philosophy given in the Preface to his Elements of the Philosophy of Right captures a characteristic tension in his philosophical approach and, in particular, in his approach to the nature and limits of human cognition. “Philosophy”, he says there, “is its own time comprehended in thoughts” (PR: 21).

On the one hand we can clearly see in the phrase “its own time” the suggestion of an historical or cultural conditionedness and variability which applies even to the highest form of human cognition, philosophy itself. The contents of philosophical knowledge, we might suspect, will come from the historically changing contents of its cultural context. On the other, there is the hint of such contents being raised to some higher level, presumably higher than other levels of cognitive functioning such as those based in everyday perceptual experience, for example, or those characteristic of other areas of culture such as art and religion. This higher level takes the form of conceptually articulated thought, a type of cognition commonly taken as capable of having purportedly eternal contents (think of Plato and Frege, for example). In line with such a conception, Hegel sometimes referred to the task of philosophy as that of recognising the concept (Der Begriff) in the mere representations (Vorstellungen) of everyday life.
— Paul Redding

The Hermeneutic Circle. What is it ? Is it a useful concept ? I understand it as a way to understand a text by engaging with it. I know I can Google and I will. However, I am more interested in what others here might think of it, or understand by it. In particular, how it might help gain an understanding of Hegel.

In the Preface Reading Group thread, it was mentioned by @tim wood.

Here is the beginning of the quote:

A modern phrase (first used before Hegel!) suffices here: "hermeneutic circle." More accurately, spiral. in simplest terms, as you go 'round and 'round with a thing, or idea, it makes the more sense. "Circle" referring variously to a "circle" of texts that inform (by successive recourse to) on the text in question. — tim wood

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p12

The image of a circle is latched upon in a certain way. Is it a real engagement with the core text or is it a dance around the periphery ?

The Hermeneutic Circle. What is it ? — Amity

The hermeneutic circle originally referred to the problem of interpretation of texts. The whole cannot be understood without an understanding of the parts and the parts cannot be understood without an understanding of the whole. Each informs the understanding of the other.

The image of a circle is latched upon in a certain way. Is it a real engagement with the core text or is it a dance around the periphery ? — Amity

It is not a circling around the periphery but a circling within the text.