Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Criticism and legacy --> Early reception?

Hey all,

I am considering restructuring the current "Criticism and legacy" section into a section provisionally titled "Early reception". This would have three subsections. The first would be "German reception", which would include the material currently divided between the sections on L v. R Hegelianism and Marxism. The second would be "French reception", which would probably be unchanged. The third would be American reception, which would probably also be largely unchanged from the current section entitled "American pragmatism".

This would leave four sections hanging: (i) "Racism", (ii) "Allegations of authoritarianism", (iii) "Thesis–antithesis–synthesis", and (iv) "Non-metaphysical interpretations".

To take these in reverse order:

(iv) This is an academic debate that is widely considered to be over. I wrote most of the section in order to include something that was in the article before I started overhauling it. Looking back now, however, I think just about everything currently included could be simply deleted. This debate is just not something about which non-specialists have any reason to care.

(iii) The primary reason to include this dated misrepresentation of Hegel's philosophy is to prevent editors who have not studied Hegel and do not know the literature to add it somewhere inappropriate. In the past, for instance, it has even been featured in the lead. Some of the current exposition, I believe, is useful and could be incorporated above, probably into "Dialectics, speculation, idealism", without being a section unto itself.

(ii) None of these allegations are by Hegel scholars. They are more a reflection of the intellectual climate during the Cold War than anything Hegel wrote, said, or actually inspired. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, do they any longer shadow Hegel's legacy.

(i) This section was added by someone who translated it from the German article on Hegel. Best practice is to integrate criticism into the article's presentation of the ideas being criticized, rather than as its own section. In this case, those sections are Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Subjective_spirit and Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#History,_political_and_philosophical.

Some of the material currently in this stand-alone section could be incorporated into those sections above in addition to what is already there. Buck-Morss, in particular, is an important addition to the bibliography; for her work on this topic is probably the most cited among scholars.

Writing from the United States as a dude on the pale side of white, however, I want to be sure other folks have a chance to chime in before I make any changes that might unduly minimize the significance of Hegel's particular brand of "scientific" racism. (Tagging the original contributor, @Anna.Bonazzi.)

The reason for these proposed changes is to help protect the page against the sort of arbitrary bloat currently found, for instance, at Immanuel_Kant#Influence_and_legacy or (at least until somewhat ameliorated by my recent edits) in the Aristotle article.

There is just no way to cover the legacy and criticisms of such major figures in an objectively principled way. Limiting this section of the article to the figure's initial reception helps to forestall WP:UNDO or otherwise problematic contributions by well-meaning editors. If something has no place in the Life/Biography or Philosophy/Thought section of the article, it probably does not belong at all (or else one of those sections needs to be restructured, in which case, pls. bring this to the Talk page!).

This is a long post. There is no expectation that anyone respond to anymore than one of the points I make. But if you are reading this, please share your views! I am still the primary author of most of this article (apart from the Life section, which required little by way of improvement). That is just to say that I can make these changes very easily without much time or effort. But I'm going to leave this here for a week or so in hopes others might chime in to support this proposal or else to raise qualified or categorical objections.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for neglecting to follow through on any of this. I am going to now act on (i) and (ii), linking back to this thread in my edit description of the deletions. If I have removed anything of importance, I am happy to discuss and restore as appropriate.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've made these and a few other related edits. If no one speaks up in objection, I will come back to clean up the bibliography in a few days. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:TALK#TOPIC, WP:OR

Can we add this summary of Hegel's Logic to the Science of Logic section? I have written this three paragraph summary of Hegel's Logic which I think will be very helpful to wishing to understand this titanic work. Can we add this to the Science of Logic section? If you approve, I'll gather references, probably from G.R.G. Mure's "A Study of Hegel's Logic," (but I'm also willing to gather from Beiser and Inwood if you'd prefer) to point the reader to scholarship on each point of the summary. The summary is as follows: Being is the sensible, empirical side of reality. It consists of quality and quantity (Aristotle’s ‘poion’ and ’poson’ respectively). Qualia (e.g. shiny, red, apple) constitute the content of sensible reality, but in a form which is generally recalcitrant and unreceptive to combination (shiny cannot be added to heavy). Quanta (e.g. 5, 9, etc.) constitute the combinability of sensible reality, but a formal combinability abstracted from all content (e.g. addition, subtraction, ratio, etc.). Measure is the combination of quality and quantity (e.g. 100 books in a library, 2 atoms of hydrogen), and it constitutes the general structure of the field of sensation and experience. But this field is still the external combination of qualia and quanta. Their inward union is substance, essence. Essence is the invisible, formal side of reality. It consists of the difference between itself and its manifestation. Essence thus has two sides: on the one hand, essence is pure form, pure inner thinking without content (these are the laws of thought, e.g. A = A); and on the other hand, essence is the sensible content but in the form of abstract laws (these are the laws of nature, e.g. F = ma). As the third to pure essence and essence with content, we have actuality, which is the structure of the organic world in general. Actuality is the pure form (A = A) that has entered into reality and become a real existent (e.g. the seed = the tree; Aristotle’s dynamis and energeia). But this is only a partial unification, because it still has some reality standing outside it. When essence and existence are perfectly united so that all reality is in the essence and essence exists in reality, this is the concept. The concept is essence fully entered into being and thus become present to itself. It is thinking, but no longer as merely formal thinking, but a thinking which has all reality in it as its own self-production. This is the ‘I’ of self-consciousness. In itself this is the content of traditional logic (Aristotle’s Prior Analytics). As externally projected, the concept is an object, an objective end apart from itself to which it relates. When this end is brought back into the concept, then we have the end in itself, the idea. The idea is the philosophical method, self-knowing truth, and eternal life. It is the creator of nature, the unity of truth and goodness, the purpose of existence, and the ideal human being. This is the Absolute Idea. Thanks! RightHegelian (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Hi @RightHegelian, I have some concerns about the accuracy of parts of this description. My primary concern, however, is that Hegel's main/bio article is not the place to provide an exposition of the Logic. The section is already longer than is ideal. People seeking specifically to understand this work should find themselves instead at the Science of Logic article. This article would, in general, benefit from greater use of WP:Summary style. The problem is that the existing articles on Hegel's individual works are currently in sorry shape. Otherwise, I would move even some of what is now here out to them. What would you think about pursuing these edits on the SL article, to build that out instead? After the introductory section, it goes into a preposterous amount of detail without any supporting WP:RS. Anything following any published commentary would be an improvement. At such a time as it comes up to WP:B-class, the coverage of logic in this article could be cut back or moved over to enhance general readability and to send more interested readers to the dedicated SL article. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) The content of the Science of Logic article is accurate. What is presented there is very close to Hegel’s letter, and also very close to the exposition provided in G.R.G. Mure’s “A Study of Hegel’s Logic.” I would be happy to identify the pages in Hegel and Mure that correspond to the content of the current Science of Logic article, and thereby rescue this excellent exposition from possible deletion. P.S. I have endeavored to improve my summary of the theory of essence: Essence is the invisible, formal side of reality. This form is identity-in-difference. First, essence is formal thinking, the empty formal identity of itself with itself. These are the laws of thought (e.g. A = A). Second, essence is the difference between itself and its manifestation. This is the difference between the formal laws of nature (e.g. F = ma) and their manifestation in sensible being (e.g. the movement of planets around the sun). Third, essence is the identity-in-difference of the form, the law, and its manifestation, its being. This is actuality, the infinite rejoining of essence with itself in its existence (e.g. the seed manifests on the tree in the fruit; seed = tree = fruit). This triune circle, this infinite self-rejoining movement, is the concept. RightHegelian (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Probably incorrect"

Hi @Patrick Welsh, I see that you reverted my recent edit, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.

I edited the following sentence: "Dewey accepted much of Hegel's account of history and society, but rejected his (probably incorrect) conception of Hegel's account of absolute knowing."

I removed the parenthetical statement "probably incorrect".

My thought process was threefold: 1) It is redundant: if Dewey rejected Hegel's conception, then that means, by definition, that Dewey thought that Hegel's conception was probably incorrect. 2) Since I don't have access to the book cited, I could not confirm if this was a direct quote from the book, or a synthesis of what the book says. 3) Absent a direct quote from the book, the parenthetical looked like original research to me.

I've had this account since 2008, so I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm just getting back into it after an extended absence. I am open to learning, and would appreciate a constructive criticism of my edit. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to clarify—and thanks for using the talk page!

As I stated in my edit description, it was obviously a good-faith edit. I'll quote just the most salient paragraph from the page cited, which, as always, would be best read in its larger context:

The American pragmatist and naturalist John Dewey (1859–1952) could be seen as a Hegelian who accepted Hegel’s account of society and history, while rejecting Hegel’s absolute as he interpreted it. Like Hegel, Dewey argued that individuals and society are mutually self-constituting, and so he rejected any attempt to reduce one to the other. Dewey also believed that knowledge must be understood in terms of what a given society counts as knowledge rather than transhistorical or ahistorical standards. However, he did not accept the concept of an absolute, and he denied that there is necessarily progress in history. Whether there is progress depends on what sort of society people create for themselves.

What is incorrect is Dewey's interpretation of Hegel's concept of the absolute. I believe this to be established in this article with multiple high-quality references and also by Fritzman's own earlier analysis. The absolute is just knowing what knowing is. History is a mess, as Hegel duly acknowledges—and proceeds to ignore in his efforts to uncover a deeper "logic" (which is not at all the same as a unified narrative of progress) beneath all the noise.

Even if Dewey is right to reject Hegel's concept of the absolute, he fails (at least per Fritzman) to take seriously the claims central to Hegel's philosophy regarding the ultimate orientation of spirit toward freedom and truth. (Probably he should have aligned himself with Herder instead, which Hegel deliberately declined to do.)

Whatever the merits of Dewey's position, this criticism of "Hegel" misses the historical Hegel as preserved for us in his writings and a great deal of secondary literature.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply, Patrick.

Although I found everything you wrote & quoted to be fascinating, I think I might be missing the point.

If I am understanding you correctly, the "probably incorrect" parenthetical is referring to Dewey's interpretation of Hegel's concept of the absolute. In other words, "Dewey rejected Hegel's account of absolute knowing, but Dewey's conception of that account was probably incorrect."

Is that right?

If no, then please forgive me for not keeping up. If yes, I don't see how the passage cited supports the parenthetical in question. Maybe the "high-quality references" and "Fritzman's own earlier analysis" that you mentioned could be cited to support the passage?

Or perhaps the sentence could be re-worked for clarity? I'm no genius, but the current sentence is confusing to me, so I suspect it may be confusing to others, as well.

I appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this. Pecopteris (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What is incorrect (per my own understanding and Fritzman's as I understood him at the time of reading) is Dewey's understanding of Hegel's concept of the absolute. The concept that Dewey rejects is not Hegel's concept; hence, per the article, his (probably incorrect) conception of Hegel's account of absolute knowing. As the paragraph cited above states, Dewey rejected Hegel’s absolute as he [Dewey] interpreted it, which is a major qualification even just in the context of this isolated paragraph.

In any event, what needs to be clear is that the absolute rejected by Dewey is not Hegel's absolute. If there's a better way to communicate this without repeating too much of what has been covered above, or unduly elongating the section on American pragmatism, that's would be great. By all means implement yourself or, if you prefer, run a proposal by me and other talk-page followers here.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps we could say something like "Dewey accepted much of Hegel's account of history and society. He rejected Hegel's account of absolute knowing, although several scholars have argued that Dewey misinterpreted it."

Then, the relevant works by those scholars could be cited at the end of the sentence. I would defer to you about what the proper sources are, because I am not as familiar with them as you are.

That would be a lot more readable, to my eye. What do you think? Pecopteris (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess I would consider the onus to be on Dewey scholars to defend his interpretation as anything other than an obvious misunderstanding contradicted by the majority of recent Hegel scholarship (as documented in the body of the article above).

I might be able to turn up a second supporting source in Richard J. Bernstein's The Pragmatic Turn (just in terms of what's on my shelves about these thinkers in relation to one another), but I'm not seeing a larger problem here. It's no shame on Dewey for getting something wrong about Hegel—especially working in English more than 100 years ago.

Unless there's a more serious problem than I recognize, however, it's on you to provide a more properly nuanced account of James' critical reception of Hegel. While I understand your initial edit, I don't understand the ongoing issue with the section. Dewey learned from Hegel without becoming a Hegel scholar or a Hegelian. That's totally fine. Maybe the John Dewey article would benefit from a more detailed discussion, but I don't see why it is needed here. Patrick (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. It's totally possible that I'm missing something, so if you don't see any merit to the following remarks in this comment, I'll cease and desist unless/until a 3rd editor weighs in.

My issues are that 1) the sentence is written in a confusing manner, and 2) the cited source does not support the parenthetical. My proposed solutions are to 1) re-write the sentence to make it clearer, and 2) cite a source that directly supports the claim (that Dewey misunderstood/probably got wrong Hegel's account of Hegel's absolute).

To be clear, I totally defer to you, a subject-matter expert, on the facts of the matter. If you say that Dewey got Hegel's account of absolute knowing wrong, I believe you. I just wonder if, absent a source to directly support the claim, the sentence may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

That's all. It's obviously a minor issue, if it's an issue at all, but since I'm trying to exercise my atrophied Wikipedia-editing muscle again, I figured I'd bring it up here per WP:BRD. Pecopteris (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your close attention to the article. If you still think it would improve the article, go ahead and remove the parenthetical again. The "his conception of" qualifier is more strongly supported by the paragraph cited above, and it should be enough for readers here, as it is there in the source.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Confusing Marx/Feurbach phrasing

The article reads:

"Among the first to take a critical view of Hegel's system was the 19th-century German group known as the Young Hegelians, which included Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, and their followers. The primary thrust of their criticism is concisely expressed in the eleventh of Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" from his 1845 German Ideology: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

Why would Marx's Theses on Feurbach, a criticism of Feurbach, in which he says all philosophers, including Feurbach, have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it, be the primary thrust of both Marx's and Feurbach's criticism of Hegel?

My point isn't philosophical, I just think this is a very confusingly worded sentence for an encyclopedia article to have and might be a factual error.

Were this article to highlight Marx's critique of Hegel it would probably be better to quote from Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" in the 1844 Manuscripts, or Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Shama From MySpace (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Shama From MySpace,

I'm pretty sure this is my work, but upon review it does arguably violate Wikipedia policies about not performing any WP:synthesis and preferring WP:reliable secondary sources over primary sources (which, yes, is the opposite of the general practice in academic contexts).

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements? Just rereading it quickly now, I am inclined to further subsume the Marxism subsection under "L v. R" and try to solve the issue you raise in the process. This article is already quite long, and I think that the best course would be to wikilink folks out to the relevant pages more directly addressing the Hegelian-Marxist legacy.

If you have something better, please by all means just edit. Otherwise, I hope you will share further thoughts here.

Thanks for checking in on the talk page!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, and thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't think synthesis / primary sources is the issue. I might take a crack at an edit shortly once I have reviewed the appropriate materials.

Cheers, Shama From MySpace (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

format in this article

This article has many textual items such as Chistiane Luise. I guess that perhaps the |de}} somehow refers to a German Wikipedia? I guess that it is a learned and clever format, but it is unfamiliar to me, I don't understand it, and I don't intend to try to nut it out. It seems not to work properly here. Because I don't understand it, I am not going to try to fix it, but I am suggesting that a local expert editor fix it throughout the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)