What is the truth-content of Hegel's system? I think it's fair to say none of us are Right Hegelians today, and Left Hegelians are dominant, although even they cherrypick things they like from Hegel and read Hegel as a kind of proto-pragmatist/proto-Rawlsian. So as Croce said, "what is living and what is dead in the philosophy of Hegel?" Rudolf Steiner said that Hegel, in trying to supersede the night-in-which-all-cows-are-black "abstract universal" absolute of Schelling and restore the concreteness of the fully developed Concept to it, ended up creating a kind of panlogicism that is ironically grey and abstract in a different way, and that he needs to be superseded again by a higher Schellingeanism. But he also said there was great value in training our minds by studying Hegel's Logic anyway.To me, the most dated and hard to accept parts of Hegel's system are his Philosophy of History and his Naturphilosophie. The former reads like a just so story, particularly in its "march from Asia to Europe / rising and setting of the sun" aspect, although it has brilliant bits, and the core narrative of Freedom becoming first abstractly universal and then concrete (in Sittlichkeit) is still compelling. The latter reads like bootleg Schelling, and is just as boring to us (in a very Hegelian sense of the term) as Schopenhauer's own Naturphilosophie in World as Will. However I don't think Naturphilosophie should be jettisoned entirely as a method - like Steiner says, maybe we can recover it at a higher level, perhaps by trying to find things in Goethe's Naturphilosophie that Hegel missed. So how can we build a true Right Hegelianism today, or at least a Left Hegelianism that is more ambitious than pragmatist cherrypicking? For me the most compelling elements of Hegel's system are: >the restoration of Neoplatonic procession/reversion and its modernization via the "temporalization" of Being, so that the temporal world of Becoming is more than a "shadow" of Being but actually somehow necessary for Being's full actualization >Spirit as Freedom>actualization as necessary for the Absolute (even if this initial "lack" is left mysterious and weirdly un-Hegelianly undetermined) >Freedom as attained only in Sittlichkeit, not in the Moralität of "beautiful souls" >similarly, insight being attained only in concreteness, and not being the preserve of rare Platonic/Schellingean sages>the function of the State and its correlation with Civil Society, as a counter to both Anglo individualism and abstract rights republicanism
>>24772767>think it's fair to say none of us are Right Hegelians today, and Left Hegelians are dominant.Because its illegal to be one
>>24772767>Rudolf Steiner said that Hegel, in trying to supersede the night-in-which-all-cows-are-black "abstract universal" absolute of Schelling and restore the concreteness of the fully developed Concept to it, ended up creating a kind of panlogicism that is ironically grey and abstract in a different way, and that he needs to be superseded again by a higher Schellingeanism. But he also said there was great value in training our minds by studying Hegel's Logic anyway.You hear this general sort of vague criticism of his logic a lot but I don't know how fair it is. I can't be that intelligent here I've only read PoS and am working on the greater logic. I don't think Hegel is eliminating the 'contingency' and particularity of the concrete and individual at all, he's just pointing out that this is not ultimate. Isn't that almost trivially true? Don't all philosophies say this in one way or another? And ofc Hegel makes this very point in one of the remarks in the SoL. I don't understand his system well enough yet to be confident but I'm skeptical of this whole "Hegel gets rid of difference"/"Hegel thought he knew everything and the world was just this logical machine" line. It seems clear to me that the particular and the Notion are intimately related, just like in Aristotle.>Philosophy of History Yeah I have trouble with this too. I think it's an unwarranted assumption that the Notion/Concept would externalize itself linearly. But if you forget about that aspect, maybe it will be easier to accept what's left over, the relations of these concepts.>his NaturphilosophieAll I know of this is what he says at the end of PoS but it seems to have a strong Fichtean element alongside the obvious Schellingian. Nature as the negative limit of consciousness and 'under' the Idea is very Fichtean, where in Schelling they're side by side. I look forward to studying it but would not be surprised if it has many problematic elements for a modern person.Most everything else you mention is beyond me for now unfortunately, appreciated the not-shitpost.
One piece of internet meme advice re: Hegel which has become current is that the Phenomenology of Spirit isn't ackshually very important, it's immature, Hegel hardly ever talks about it again, etc. Like an overreaction against people who focus on it exclusively. I don't think you can understand what the Logic is even about without grasping absolute knowing, Hegel himself says as much in the introduction to that work. The other meme advice is that the Phenomenology is so heckin' difficult that you have to work through Hegel backwards and read it last. It's not as bad as it's made out to be. I'll look at modern scholar's readings and as soon as I see them getting filtered by one of the first three chapters, for example thinking that the properties in perceptions are concepts/universals, or that the inverted world is about Christianity, etc, I wonder why I should read any more of him.
>>24772959Or another one I saw, I want to say it was Pinkard, reading the master/slave dialectic as concerned with 'norm-setting' and whose 'sets of norms' will be dominant. Seriously? It's about the fear of death and the self-sufficiency of the object and the emptiness of the mere satisfaction of desire, it's not about 'norm setting' at all. It's like some of these guys grab on to one aspect of the work and try to read everything in terms of it. Brandom straight skips the entire section on Religion and Absolute Knowing because he thinks they aren't important. So there's another piece of meme advice, Hegel is supposed to be so heckin' difficult that you should just read these modern commentaries and use them to understand the primary text. I call bullshit, if you don't read the primaries on your own, you won't be in a position to evaluate the secondaries.
>>24772934I was about to comment that no other philosophic tradition has the balls to beat their wife for being an egghead who complains on reddit but apparently this is just a meme edit and if I want to engage with such a vital, powerful strain of thought I need to play more Nintendo Switch.
>>24772968>It's about the fear of death and the self-sufficiency of the object and the emptiness of the mere satisfaction of desire, it's not about 'norm setting' at allThat's all you came away from Master-Slave with? I thought you read and re-read this stuff. How do you miss the consequences of the Master being related immediately to both and mediately to each through the other? "They must raise their certainty of being for themselves to truth, both in the case of the other and in their own case." Did your brain just switch to pretending you were reading about pure metaphysics when the consciousnesses of other people cropped up? Holy hell.
Test
>>24773372>That's all you came away from Master-Slave with?Not at all, but as I said it's not about a conflict of 'norms'. Nothing else in your post is anything I didn't know and I wasn't pretending to give a comprehensive analysis, you're just being a dick for the hell of it. Master-Slave sets up the sublated conflict that is 'the I that is we', it presages the outcome of conscience and absolute knowing itself. It is also essential for understanding the different imperfect relations to God, in unhappy consciousness and faith; also in pure insight matter takes on the role of the master, etc. There's quite a lot going on, it's an especially dense section, but it's not primarily understandable as a conflict about norm-setting.
>>24772934Lmfao based hegelchad
>>24773386Pinkard doesn't reduce it to norm-setting, he recognizes all the rest of the same points you do, so what's the point of lying and pretending he does? Did you read a redditor summarize it that way and never imagine that they didn't understand Pinkard?
>>24772959The first part is true, Kojève considered the Phenomenology to be the preface to the system
>>24773407I'm not even sure that it was Pinkard where I read it. Based on what you say, it probably wasn't. Do you want to talk about Hegel or do you want to start catfights about nothing? Also I was retarded for characterizing 'matter' as standing in a master-like relationship to spirit in pure insight, the negative absolute doesn't take on a genuinely master-like relation - abstract negation - until absolute freedom, though the seeds are obviously there in utility and the moments leading up to it. I'm a hobbyist, a pseud. I just want to talk about German idealism with my internet frens ;-;
>>24772767The thing that takes flight at dusk sees perfectly well at night. Nighthawks forgetting it's not day and they aren't eagles introduces difficulties.>>24772959>absolute knowingDoubtless possession of necessity. Logic is metaphysics.>>24772968>Lord, Bondsman>Beholder, Beholden
>>24772787What's another name for a Right Hegelian?
>>24773423Do you really think that when Hegel says "the properties are universal" in chapter 2 he means "the properties are conceptualizable"? He's talking about the relation of properties to the whole, the salt is white and also bitter and also etc. When Hegel says "x is y" he never means "y is a predicate of x". What non-Hegelians would call a universal or a concept doesn't appear until chapter 3. That chapter focuses on laws, the connection with universal concepts is clearer in Observing Reason. And the inverted world, too, though one of his examples is Christian, is about how consciousness separates the opposition in a law, the north and south poles etc, from the actuality in which only one of them is present. But I don't read secondary sources, I just skim them at work out of boredom, hence the bad citation of Pinkard when it was someone else.
>>24773424You're not a pseud for being wrong you're a pseud for sweepingly dismissing scholars who have spent their entire lives reading Hegel when you started reading him a few weeks ago.
>>24773490Fine, you're right for fuck's sake, I accept the truth of what you say. I got carried away with my pseudness.
>>24773451It implores fascism technically which can get you imprisoned in Europe. In America free speech tangibly exists but any "right Hegelian" organization will get filled to brim with informants because we can't have nice things.
>>24772767They had xl breast implants in ancient india or wtf am i missing here?
>>24773521So Nazi Germany was the incarnation of the Hegelian Idea?
>>24773521>Hegel was actually a proto-NaziI bet you think Fichte was a proto-Nazi too.
>>24773532ironically yes
>>24773532No, Fichte and Hegel were neither left or right. Just because seeds of something is present in one or the other does not automatically make them this or that.
>>24773527Kind of but tempered with influence from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Theres not one particular source but many. Seeds of certain ideas can be found here or there but like I said here >>24773538 it doesn't necessarily imply anything serious.
>>24773538They were both right obviously. Fichte's Rechtslehre and Hegel's Philosophie des Rechts. The left is what is NOT right, i.e., wrong, diabolos.
>>24773527You're a fucking retard. The nazi's generally rejected Hegel's ideas. Right hegelians mostly just supported the Prussian state and orthodox religious institutions. In the time since Prussia dissolved the term lost meaning and it wouldn't surprise me if people are questioning whether there were ever right hegelians at all, mostly due to the fact you have to ask such a question.
>>24773552Sure, I guess i can see that
>>24773440>Lord, BondsmanIt goes without saying that master/slave is, on a superficial level, about the relation of masters to slaves, and I've read Hegel was inspired by the Haitian revolution in writing it. But it's also true that the consummation of this dynamic in absolute terror and the transition to morality doesn't involve the liberation of slaves but the liberation of citizens from an enlightened democracy that has degenerated into tyranny.
>>24773552Fichte was definitely left. In Foundations of Natural Right his ideal state is socialist. He was not at all comfortable with traditional religion. He saw the endgame as an anarchist/communist state. It was his left-wing politics that got him accused of atheism. You can easily rip passages out of context from FNR and especially the Lectures to the German Nation to make him sound like a chud but the man was a radical progressive. However, he was such a progressive that he wanted to progress past the enlightenment, and he criticizes the enlightenment in ways that people on the right would likely appreciate. I'd recommend Characteristics of the Present Age for that.
>>24773582>He saw the endgame as an anarchist/communist state. It was his left-wing politics that got him accused of atheism. Cope. He was definitely right. Read his Way towards the Blessed Life.
>>24773582Only got accused of atheism because of midwit readings like yours.
>>24773623Touché anon I have not read it yet. But isn’t it just a popular rendition of his late metaphysics? Tell me about it.>>24773629I don’t think Fichte was an atheist at all. But everything I said is true, I don’t know what to tell you. The mere fact that he conceives of the state in FNR as a free contract puts him squarely on the left. Not to mention his justifying political revolution in the Ethics. I’m not saying the man was a modern Democrat but he was a leftist.
>>24772767Am I going crazy or does the right one look like a hand-rubbing big-nosed alien?
>>24773543Lol you are retarded bruh
>>24772767Mmmmhhh picrel...
