Hegel is not a philosopher. He is no lover or seeker of wisdom — he believes he has found it. Hegel writes in the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, “To help bring philosophy closer to the form of Science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title of ‘love of knowing’ and be actual knowledge — that is what I have set before me” (Miller, 3; PC, 3). By the end of the Phenomenology, Hegel claims to have arrived at Absolute Knowledge, which he identifies with wisdom. — Glenn Magee
I would be interested to hear your views on Hegel and his position on God.
What he means by the Absolute. It seems to change from something mystical to the more concrete.
Perhaps from the real feel to the theoretical ?— Amity
There's a strong element of mysticism in German idealism, particularly Hegel, Schelling and Fichte, and to a lesser extent Kant and Schopenhauer. Now, the very word 'mysticism' is a pejorative to a lot of people, it's seen as the opposite of rigorous philosophy...
...But 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').
- Wayfarer — Amity and Wayfarer
This is a passage from Hegel which I think is particularly relevant, quoted in the book I am reading, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Magee thinks Hegel uses mytho-poetic language to "encircle" or "circle around" his subjects with concrete images to gain speculative knowledge of them, rather than trying to think them in the determinate language of abstract conceptualization. So we get a picture, but no definitive propositional-type claims are made about the subject and there always remains mystery.
I hope this can be opened; I didn't have time to type it out; I'm pretty pressed at the moment.
Attachment
Hegel Passage(344K) — Janus
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.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
I'd say the word "good" was forgotten. Hegel is not a good philosopher. :joke: — Terrapin Station
Astonishing and controversial claims is what our idiotic net driven public discourse craves for and will be the ones that are picked up — ssu
Another point of view would be if the present we don't see anything important in Hegel's works or something equivalent. — ssu
What or who is your idea of a good philosopher ? — Amity
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
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)
“....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
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
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
Hegel: a Mystic Man ? — Amity
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
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
That's what we were discussing in the other thread. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
Likewise Islam and Hinduism distinguish ‘philosophers’ from ‘sages’ (the latter being said to be divinely inspired, the former to be mere ‘book learners’. — Wayfarer
Just like with other giants of philosophy, we tend to forget their main points and likely judge them by today's standards.What is your view ? — Amity
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
Unfortunately, in a group reading it doesn't work that way. — tim wood
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
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
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6214/reading-group-preface-to-hegels-phenomenology-of-spirit-trans-walter-kaufman/p12A 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
The Hermeneutic Circle. What is it ? — Amity
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.