'Hegel is not a philosopher' - thoughts ?

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:

Quoting Amity

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

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

Quoting Terrapin Station

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

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 ?

Quoting ssu

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

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...

Quoting ssu

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

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

Quoting Amity

What or who is your idea of a good philosopher ?

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

Reply to Terrapin Station
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 ?

Quoting 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 ?

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.

Reply to Mww

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'.

Quoting Mww

“....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.

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:

SEP article 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.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover
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')."

Quoting Terrapin Station

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.

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.

Reply to StreetlightX
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."

Quoting Amity

Hegel: a Mystic Man ?

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

Quoting 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')."

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.

Quoting 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')."

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. ;-)

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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

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.

Quoting 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.

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

Quoting Wayfarer

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. ;-)

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'...

Quoting Wayfarer

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

Reply to Amity 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

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Amity

What is your view ?

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.

Quoting tim wood

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.

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.

Quoting tim wood

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

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

Quoting ssu

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.

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.

Quoting Cyril Smith

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.

Quoting Paul Redding

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.

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:
Quoting tim wood

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.

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 ?

Quoting Amity

The Hermeneutic Circle. What is it ?

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.

Quoting 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 ?

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

Reply to Fooloso4
I appreciate your response, Fooloso4 - and that of others in this thread.
I will be taking time out for a bit. To follow up on this and other helpful comments.
Perhaps I'll circle back to Aristotle and his 'first mover'...

.

Quoting Amity

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.

I never thought about relying upon secondary choices as "cheating" or encouraging poor judgment. The tradition of reading I was instructed within recognized that translations and explanations of terms are "secondary" help to being able to encounter the writing "as is" as much as possible. I need the help because I did not get to go to the party the Symposium describes.

The emphasis upon having as little as possible stand between you and a writer is for the sake of having a certain kind of experience. The writer writes to incite a response and the reader accepts those conditions for a little while. This experience inevitably leads to the sensation that different people are reading different texts.

That is where the dialectic starts.

Socrates said that he possessed human wisdom, knowing that he does not know. He contrasts this with divine wisdom, knowledge of the things Socrates desires to know.

Hegel's claim is that the pursuit has successfully come to its end. Philosophy as the pursuit of wisdom finds its realization in obtaining what it loves,desires, and pursues. It has become science.

Nietzsche's Dionysus is the god who philosophizes, that is, one who seeks but does not possess wisdom. It is not only human beings who are not wise, the gods are not wise either. Dionysus is a skeptic, knowing that he does not know.

Can Hegel be a lover of wisdom if he believes he possesses wisdom, or is he unwise like those Socrates criticizes for not knowing their own ignorance? But surely Hegel is not the first philosopher to claim to know. Perhaps it would be better to distinguish between philosophers who claim to know and those who know they do not know. I will leave open the question of whether anyone does have knowledge of the whole or if it is even possible.


Regarding the question of secondary sources: they have their uses and abuses. Commentary is a time honored tradition. I have learned far more from secondary sources than I ever could have learned if I only read primary sources. The problem arises when instead of using secondary sources as an aid to reading a philosopher they are relied upon to the exclusion of the primary material.