Hegel was happier dealing with big structures than with individual particulars. He preferred "the state" than individual people: "only in the state does man have a rational existence." A version of totality which all the component parts express the essence of that whole. (Georg Hegel; The Hegel Reader, 414)
According to Walter Kaufmann, From Shakespeare to Existentialism: Studies in Poetry, Religion, and Philosophy, chap.7:
"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. The Nazis’ official “philosopher,” Alfred Rosenberg, mentioned, and denounced, Hegel twice in his best-selling Der Mythus des Zwanzigsten jahrhunderts. Originally published in 1930, this book had reached an edition of 878,000 copies by 1940."
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Yari & readers,
Though the Nazis may not have appealed to Hegel, Hegel is an important part of the background of 20th-century totalitarianism. I regard the new Hegelianisms, which arose in the wake of globalization as one of the low points of recent intellectual-moral developments.
It is traditional to distinguish "right-wing" and "left-wing" Hegelianisms. which pose as opposites but have a good deal in common--enough to make anti-totalizing "liberal" philosophies their common enemy. Hegel was himself of the right-wing variety --praising the Prussian state and becoming Professor at Berlin. Marx's thought is the most famous and influential development of left-wing Hegelian tendencies.
I believe we have learned to be much more skeptical of the capacity of totalizing and rationalistic philosophical systems to maintain sufficient contact with crucial empirical details. They tend to run amuck and run amuck politically in particular.
I submit that Hegelian thought is intrinsically corporatist--as was Fascism; and the "dialectical" conflicts set up by the right-wing and left wing varieties just about always go to the more conservative--who are normally better institutionalized. That is the real and deeper "secret" of Hegel.
H.G.Callaway
H.G. Callaway Well, yes, I agree that Hegel contributed to the Zeitgeist that fed into 20th-century totalitarianisms. But, if one takes a more nuanced approach to Fascism (capital-F, to treat it as a proper noun for Hitler's and Mussolin's particular totalitarianisms), and looks specifically at what distinguishes it from other totalitarianisms, I think the case for Hegelian influence is much weaker. The "blood" of Bismarck's "blood and iron" is not the "blood" of Hitler's "blood and soil". The pseudo-religious ultranationalistic spiritual hooey of capital-F Fascism has its sources elsewhere.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Pfeifer & readers,
I suspect that the general character of 20th-century totalitarianisms is more important for present purposes. We have to understand Hegelianisms in the context of German and European history. Beyond idealizing the Prussian state --and this was well before the time of Bismarck, conservative Hegelianism functioned in the nationalist unification movements of nineteenth-century European nation states.
Hegelianisms are polarizing philosophies; and as the American idealist philosopher Royce once put the matter, the Hegelian "Absolute" is "a man of war." More specifically, it set the particularisms of early 19th-century Germany (recall that land of "poets and thinkers") and the German principalities against each other, which culminated, in Bismarck's wars against Denmark, Austria and France, the domestic "Kulturkampf," and the dominance of Prussian militarism over the German states. Its a matter of "unity" and national strength at the cost of a "dialectic" of exaggerated conflict.
The influence of "left-wing" Hegelianism tended to side with internationalism, but it failed to unite Europe against the stronger nationalist currents evident in the build-up to WWI. But in the form of Soviet policy, they too sponsored world-wide unification at the cost of exaggerated conflict (international class warfare) --culminating in the Cold War.
Of course, there were various sources of Fascism, but I would count Hegel and Hegelianisms importantly to the mix. They set human ideals against each other with exaggeration and puritanical perfectionism.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Well, yes, I agree that Hegel contributed to the Zeitgeist that fed into 20th-century totalitarianisms.
Dear Callaway, I've been reading your material with considerable respect for quite a while. But this Hegel-tangent is remarkably um-researched and uninformed. I've lectured on the subject: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328537805_On_the_Concept_of_Critique
(I'd be most interested to hear in which respect I got it all wrong.)
Best,
fvg
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder & readers,
I've basically followed up on the critique of Hegelianism to be found in the last book William James published during his life time, A Pluralistic Universe.
The Introduction to my edition of the James book is available via the following link:
Book INTRODUCTION: THE MEANING OF PLURALISM, My interpretation of...
The volume is available from various libraries, and book sellers and also from the publisher:
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/a-pluralistic-universe-15
I expect you might disagree on my characterization of the overall role of the "right-wing" Hegelians, but you don't actually say. Can you briefly sketch your contrary position--to motivate a perusal of your linked paper?
My view is the demands of universalism ultimately fail, by proving themselves impractical, and people then rush for unity at a lower level--as in nationalisms. Consider, e.g., how many nationalists suddenly appeared after the fall of the Soviet empire.
H.G. Callaway
Dear Callaway: i) difficult to see why you should believe that 'the present situation in Philosophy' can simply be taken from a philosopher who knew nothing whatsoever of two world wars; ii) difficult to understand your surprise that after the said world wars philosophers should have come to conclusions at odds with someone writing in 1909;
iii) difficult to understand why I should "sketch my contrary position" (it's not my own but that of philosophers since 1945), when the only effort on your part that is required is to click on a link and then read a text;
iv) difficult to understand why you think it possible to 'briefly sketch' something that a researcher has worked on for fifty years, and took an entire semester to lecture on.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder & readers,
William James supplies a well informed and thoughtful critique of Hegelian philosophy--which I think remains quite valid. He has had a great subsequent influence. At the time he delivered the lectures at Oxford University upon which the book is based, philosophy in GB was more or less dominated by Hegelian figures. James saw beyond their positions.
I have made my own applications of that critique based on much history, prior and more recent, and on elements of political analysis. Perhaps this doesn't interest you. If so, that is o.k. by me.
In general terms, I find Hegelian philosophy quite repugnant. Nothing personal in this. But I decided to briefly give an answer in reply to this question. I see Hegelian philosophy as almost purely an ideology of power.
If you can't give a brief sketch of your views, or offer specific objections to others, which engage the present question, then I doubt very much that your paper would be of much interest for present purposes. Nor would I expect that you would be much interested in discussions here.
H.G. Callaway
Not directly the statment is too strong but it influenced heideggerian ontology.. till the radical critique of totality as confusing same and other in Levinas.but there is a leftist reading of Hegel that would nuance that certainly with the concept of recognition.
Dear Callaway, a bit surprised by the ad hominem - hadn't expected that from you. I read your work with interest. If it's beyond the realm of the conceivable that you'd return the compliment - well, you're not the first to hold strong views on the analytic/continental divide. Goes back to the Anglo-German rivalries from about 1848 onwards. (Anyone can play this game of 'contextualising the other' - I express the hope that' we'll eventually be able to get beyond this tactic of 'putting the other in his/her place'.)
Should you ever get around to actually studying Hegel you will find above all an author whose first and primary concern was the causes of constitutional crises ...
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Baum & readers,
This concept of "recognition" is at present widely under debate and criticism. The problem which I see with it is that it is indefinitely stretched as a matter of practice--and intrinsically open (because excessively vague) to this stretching. In effect it is repeatedly instrumentalized for political purposes. In this way it is much like a traditional concept of "honor" --held to be due to the established "good and great" of a society. Obviously, if something needs to be changed in any given society, then some of the pre-established honorees may need to be demoted. So it is, too, with those demanding immediate recognition.
Genuine recognition, I would suggest is never perfect, builds quite slowly, and will almost inevitably be viewed as presently inadequate by the ambitious. In this way, personal and political ambition, and often a lack of self-restraint, become linked, or apparently linked, to some (real or supposed) great social good --say, adequate recognition of the otherwise ignored or denigrated. In this form it is a polarizing political demand which cannot, in principle be satisfied by political opponents. In consequence it produces unending conflicts --which are then exploited by the powers-that-be.
The particularities of the demand for recognition have a fragmenting effect on opposition to the existing economic and political elites, and in consequence, may be plausibly viewed as, in effect, a policy of "divide and rule" --promoted by economic and political elites and their friends in the media. In addition it tends to produce extreme counter-reactions, say, political nationalism and economic nationalism. To be sure, most people will never be adequately recognized (e.g., for their work) --in an elite dominated society.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder & readers,
I do not argue against a person, but against Hegelian philosophy generally.
Notice that British philosophy was predominantly Hegelian before the first world war. One may suppose they figured out the ideological use of it. James in 1909, in contrast, influenced developments after the war.
H.G. Callaway
I am as a levinasian critical of thé Hegelian notion of recognition. Even in the Hegelian left..represented by Honneth...I was misunderstood or did not make myself clear
The title of this thread (this 'question'), points to something of much more general import - I mean: for RG's policy (non-existent, at the moment, one gathers), on how to deal with 'questions' that have no bearing whatsoever on the current state of scholarship or research. It's uninformed at the level of epistemology and philosophy of science (questioner gives no indication that he's aware that 'causation' in science means something quite different from the same word in other disciplines: history, historiography, or for that matter the history of philosophy); while at the level of politics its simply a vulgar prejudice.
RG sees itself as a platform for researchers and scientists - I'm not sure they've thought through how they're going to build a 'barrier' to the collective inanities that are marring the more popular social media like twitter and Facebook. 'Scholarship', 'Science', they're indicative of the intention to provide a platform that is shielded from the vulgarities of the vox populi. A so-called 'question' as utterly uninformed as this one really needs to be put to some kind of adjudicating panel: in what respect can it be said that it reflects current scholarship? The more technical platforms have long since put such procedures in place: get rid of the distractions, the ego-trippers, the 'off-topics', the agents provocateurs. It's just 'noise' - it directs energy in a direction that is unproductive, chaotic. If you want to argue at this level, stick to the social media. Though I respect some of the issues that have been raised here, I feel that they need to be carried out under a less prejudicial heading - this is my last 'answer' under this entirely sterile 'question'.
Dear Gelder,
Certainly it would be a great honor having your comments under my so-called "dumb" and "sterile" question, somebody from Frankfurt without any "vulgar prejudice."
Not pretty sure about RG's policy and procedure, but I am sure that RG is not limited to the intellectual elites. Despite your inclination, better to face this fact that all "the masses" are not well-informed "at the level of epistemology." I am afraid that your "last answer" will fulfill my goals as an "ego-tripper".
Thanks and keep up your "energy" in a more productive way.
Hamid Yari
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder & readers,
Perhaps you are unaware that Hegel and his philosophy were chiefly of interest to historians of philosophy, in the English-speaking world, for much of the last century. In my perspective it is only globalization which has brought back any degree of respectability. You may have noted that globalization has now come under intensive criticism.
Perhaps you resent the fact that Hegelian philosophy may once again hit the skids--professionally? I notice your resort to insult and degradation --and the call for the intervention of authority.
Question such as the present one are frequently in need of a long, slow development. More scholarship may need to be brought in. But that is no valid objection to considering the question as it stands. The question may be an appropriate means to more scholarly developments.
I notice that you offer no details of reply to my development of the criticism due to William James. Typical. Might this not suit your ideological purposes?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
A so-called 'question' as dumb as this one really needs to be put to some kind of adjudicating panel: in what respect can it be said that it reflects current scholarship? The more technical platforms have long since put such procedures in place: get rid of the distractions, the ego-trippers, the 'off-topic', the agents provocateurs. It's just 'noise' - it directs energy in a direction that is unproductive, chaotic.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Baum & readers,
I wonder if you could expand on your point below somewhat. What alternative to the Hegelian concept of recognition do you propose and how does it differ? Or, perhaps you would like to explain your criticism?
I am aware of Honneth's departure on the so-call "dialectic of master and slave," (which I regard as a moral failing of Hegel and the Hegelians) and that he has worked on Dewey.
All of this seems to presuppose a degree of organizational deference and social hierarchy which basically makes me quite skeptical --since I agree with Jefferson that just governments and laws are instituted by the "consent of the governed."
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
I am as a Levinasian critical of the Hegelian notion of recognition. Even in the Hegelian left.. represented by Honneth… I was misunderstood or did not make myself clear
Dear readers,
If you wouldn't mind, following the recent answers, measure the differences between Hegelian totality and Althusserian one in details. We know that unlike Hegel, Althusser wouldn't come up with the tenet that art (superstructure) and economics (base) are from the same whole. For him they were "semi-autonomous."
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Yari & readers,
The actual degree of uniformity and the relationship between cultural and economic aspects in any given society will, I think, depend on the degree of economic and political centralization and consolidation in the society. It seems implausible to think in terms of a total determination of one by the other, but it matters whether or not the degree of determination is increasing or not. As centralization and consolidation increase, this tends to produce more pressing cultural or ideological imperatives. "PC" would seem to be a contemporary case in point.
Plausibly, a less consolidated society will have a greater number of more independent cultural developments --each perhaps centered on and varying around particular economic developments or structures. Classical Hegelianisms, including the British Idealists philosophers of the late 19th century, themselves provided a rationalization of unification and centralized control to which the individual and lessor formations must be submitted: E.g., "My station and its duties."
Generally, snow-balling social unification by reference to general economic pressures is just as undesirable as a late stock-market in which people buy just because others are doing so--in the hopes of riding the economic roller-coaster and getting off at the top. It discourages reasoned evaluation and the detailed consideration of alternative courses of action or needed measures of regulation of the large-scale. In terms of the theory behind the American constitution, social unification for its own sake will tend to produce a "majority faction," set on exploiting its position --regardless of the negative effects on the society-- and neglecting the common good. Thus social unification should not be politically forced; and economic formations sponsoring this sort of thing should be broken up --in order to secure the independence of civil society and its significant influence on government and policy.
H.G. Callaway
- Badges
- Science topic