Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

A minor point about the criticism section

First time on Wikipedia. In the criticism section Wittgenstein is listed as a critic of Hegel. I am almost certain this is not the case. I cannot recall a single reference to Hegel in either the Tractatus or the Investigations, nor in any of the other posthumous writings. I can recall an incident in Ray Monk's biography when Wittgenstein met a russian philosopher who told him to "read more Hegel". The forthright/blunt nature of this advice is supposed to have impressed Wittgenstein, though there is no mention of him ever following it. Unless someone can point to an instance of Wittgenstein actually criticising Hegel (or even mentioning him) I suggest he should be removed from the list of critics. An easy change to make. I would do it myself except that I am new at this and incompetent to do so . . . Toonysoprano (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

A discussion is occurring regarding changing the name of Category: Georg Hegel. Here. Please lend your voice. — goethean ॐ 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pick one

The "Works" section refers to "the Phenomenology of Spirit (or Phenomenology of Mind)." You would think that, by now, we would know which concept was designated by the word "Geist." Its been many years since Hegel wrote this book. As one of the most important works in the world's philosophical history, we should not be denied knowledge of the correct meaning: Is "Geist" a spirit or is it a mind? Admittedly, both are not detectable through the senses. This makes it slightly difficult to avoid saying more than we know.Lestrade (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

I disagree. The German word Geist can mean both, and both are essential to really understand the idea. Different translations of the Phenomenology into English use different titles--the Baillie translation uses mind, and the Miller translation uses spirit. Both are somewhat common, and it's not really up to Wikipedia to pick one.

I'm a little unclear about what you're suggesting. I don't think a parenthetical about an alternate title is confusing at all. If you think translators should pick one, go tell that to Miller or somebody. If you're concerned that scholars have not yet resolved the problem of how to choose the better English translation, consider that distinguishing mind and spirit linguistically prioritizes a certain set of determinations--religious or spiritual versus secular--at the expense of others that suggest identity--related to ideas, for instance. It's not really a big deal--personally, I like mind better, because it avoids implying the least refined version of the argument that Hegel is quasi-mystical nonsense.69.94.192.147 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about what you're suggesting. I guess that there is no point in trying to have the Wikipedia article on Hegel employ non–ambiguous words. After all, readers are not really looking for information. Distinct linguistic priorities are so limiting. It's not really a big deal--personally, I like spirit better, because it is the thesis of the argument that Hegel was an absolute idealist. There must be a synthesis to the antithesis.Lestrade (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, is there anything that we could do to get you to stop trolling this page? — goethean ॐ 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The complaint is really with the German language, not Hegel or edits here, should he have written in English? As 69... seems to note, insisting that there is an ambiguity in German is a philosophical position itself. Hard to see how the informative choice of both in the article could be improved, or how this has to do with improving the article.John Z (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity is usually resolved by appealing to context. Is there anyone who has read this book and knows the correct translation of "Geist" by the context in which it is used?Lestrade (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

No, context will not do it. Hegel seems to intentionally be utilizing the ambiguity of the term Geist to mean "mind," "soul" and even "spirit" in the sense that we often talk about "team spirit" or the collective identity and enthusiasm of a community. The Phenomenology of Spirit should be translated as "spirit" but not because Hegel didn't mean mind, rather because Spirit is ambiguous enough to capture most of his meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.232.213 (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wwmargera's additions

User:Wwmargera is edit warring over his addition of unsourced and unhelpful material to this article. [1][2]. His additions should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The material that was unsourced earlier had been sourced before Goethean made this claim here. Schopenhauer's quote and Hegel's statements were sourced to begin with. The only other change was to ask for citation for a blatantly POV piece of text. It is obvious who is edit warring here. Wwmargera (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing includes information like page number and publication edition, not merely the title of a book. Please see WP:V. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you do not ask for all these details elsewhere. However, the page numbers, etc. are quite easy to find and I have put them in. Wwmargera (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Each of User:Wwmargera's edits constitute WP:OR and should be removed. — goethean ॐ 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Each of those statements is well-known and easily verified. Wwmargera (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You have claimed that Hegel is a racist and a sexist, not based on the writings of any Hegel scholar, but based on quotatons from Hegel. That is a perfect example of WP:OR. Your edit should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is well known that Hegel was both a racist and a sexist. I have added more secondary sources for this to sink in. Wwmargera (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you are willfully lying. Kaufmann's complete sentence is: [3]

Popper’s most ridiculous claim — and the last one to be considered here — is that the Nazis got their racism from Hegel. In fact, the Nazis did not get their racism from Hegel, and Hegel was no racist (see section 5 above).

My bad, the source I used did not clarify if Kaufmann was himself saying this or if he was quoting Popper. No problem, if Popper himself said it this is all the better Wwmargera (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to deceive our readers. — goethean ॐ 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to cover up your idol's faults Wwmargera (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the addition of sources that argue against Hegel being racist/sexist/obscurantist/etc, but why sweep these issues under the carpet? It is obvious that these criticisms of Hegel have been made. Wwmargera (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT this is an article about Hegel, it is legitimate to include criticisms but not at this level. Goethean you are being agressive (remember you made undertakings about this elsewhere), Wwmargera suggesting that another editor is trying to cover up his idol's faults is not addressing content issue its attacking another editor. Would you both stop and lets have a sensible discussion about this. --Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wwmargera has quoted a source (Kaufmann) as saying the exact opposite of what the source says. Kaufmann said:

"Popper’s most ridiculous claim — and the last one to be considered here — is that the Nazis got their racism from Hegel. In fact, the Nazis did not get their racism from Hegel, and Hegel was no racist. "[4]

In the article, Kaufmann is currently quoted as saying:

"the Nazis got their racism from Hegel"

This is misleading and should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you had pointed this out to me, I had changed this to show that Kauffman was paraphrasing Popper, whose words they were. Please check your statements Wwmargera (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The amount of material in the criticism section here seems excessive (and has just become more so) compared with other philosophers of equal repute. How about we reduce it to a summary without the multiple quotes and section headings? --Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of Hegel comes about as a natural consequence of the fact that he really did come in for heavy criticism, which in turn had to do with the fact he was a perverse fraud whose worship of statist authority led almost directly to most of the worst crimes against humanity since his time, from marxism to fascism. However, this is merely my personal opinion and I can see that there is already plenty of criticism on his article and anyone who wishes to explore the matter further on his/her own can easily see through the obnoxious mendacity of this perverse charlatan. Thus I do not object to this removal by you. Wwmargera (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

All philosophers attract criticism, some legitimate, some fails to take account of context. Do I gather that you will have no objection if I summarise the various cited criticisms into a paragraph or two which would balance with the articles on other such figures? --Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, I have no objection. Wwmargera (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

≥≥≥Religion

Hegel's thoughts on the person of Jesus Christ stood out from the theologies of the Enlightenment. In his posthumous book, The Christian Religion: Lectures on Philosophy of Religion Part 3, he espouses that, "God is not an abstraction but a concrete God." "God, considered in terms of his eternal Idea, has to generate the Son, has to distinguish himself from himself; he is the process of differentiating, namely, love and Spirit". This means that Jesus as the Son of God is posited by God over against himself as other. Hegel sees both a relational unity and a metaphysical unity between Jesus and God the Father. To Hegel, Jesus is both divine and Human. Preceding the 'death-of-God' theologians, Hegel further attests that God (as Jesus) not only died, but "...rather, a reversal takes place: God, that is to say, maintains himself in the process, and the latter is only the death of death. God rises again to life, and thus things are reversed." Hegel therefore maintains not only the deity of Jesus, but the resurrection as a reality.≤≤≤ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.179.136 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Works, Difficulty, and the French Revolution

Several years ago, I added a good part of the paragraph in the Works sections that discusses the difficulty of reading Hegel (starting, currently, "Hegel's works have a reputation for their difficulty . . ."). I can't prove it was me, but that's not my concern.

I contributed the part about the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, and while I think I was on the right track in general, I'm actually not sure this section is up to the standards of the entry as a whole. I'm just an armchair philosopher, and I'd fully expected that someone more knowledgeable about Hegel would have, by now, replaced the majority of the paragraph with something of greater philosophical depth and/or historical accuracy.

While I'm honored and humbled at the fact that most of what I wrote is still there, I feel compelled to call out this paragraph as something that either needs to be removed or is is need of serious review/editing by professional philosophers. If I somehow hit the nail on the head despite myself, so be it -- but I can't let the paragraph in question stand without raising the concerns I've just tried to express.

Treepour (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than waiting for a pro to come along, the section can be improved by the addition of citations to reliable sources. And honestly? I haven't been that impressed with the work of those who claim to be pros. — goethean ॐ 14:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

um why don't you just cite some of schopenhauer's tracts about hegel. that should elucidate the obtuse matters of truly investigating the dialectics of the hegelian class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.66.15 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A full four-word name in an article title is against the standard practice of Wikipedia

Wikipedia articles use short versions of complex German names in the titles. Hegel is not a deity and should not be treated in an obsequious manner. Even Germans themselves call him "der grosse Wilhelm Hegel"[5] and do not stoop to cloying servility. In many respectable scholarly sources, the philosopher is named as "Wilhelm Hegel." See those links:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=nwNqAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=1KlDAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=AzVdAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=TYfUAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=4fE9AAAAYAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=5qwHAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=5ecPAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Bioqi_f0uwsC&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://books.google.com/books?id=pRBdAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22Wilhelm+Hegel%22+-Georg+-Friedrich+-%22George+Wilhelm%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

That is why this article should be moved to Wilhelm Hegel. Antichristos (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive and inappropriate moves. Most philosophers refer to Hegel either as "Hegel" or "G.W.F.Hegel". It has nothing to do with Hegel not being a deity. It has to with what his name is and what he is called. The above links prove nothing, as it would be a simple matter to provide many times as many links which call Hegel by other names. If you provide a reliable source which explicitly says that Hegel is not referred to as "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel", then you will have something worth discussing. Until then, please stop now. — goethean ॐ 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not understood the reason of the proposed move. Most educated Germans featured in Wikipedia have multiple forenames. However, all but one of a person's multiple forenames are omitted in article titles. For example, the full name of another German philosopher is Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach. But the title of the Wikipedia article is Ludwig Feuerbach. Do you understand now? It is a matter of Wikipedia's internal consistency. So, please stop your disruptive actions and read about German forenames instead: German_name#Forenames. Antichristos (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar hits:

• [6] Hegel = 451,000
• [7] "G. W. F. Hegel" = 20,000
• [8] "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" = 9280
• [9] "Georg Hegel" = 3430
• [10] "Wilhelm Hegel" 1050. — goethean ॐ 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

see also. — goethean ॐ 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the guidelines for choosing the article title (Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Deciding_on_an_article_title):

• Conciseness – shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.
• Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above. Antichristos (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We usually try to name biographical articles after the subject's name. Hegel's name is Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Deal. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The full name of another prominent philosopher is Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. But the article is named as Friedrich Nietzsche. The article about Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein is named as Ludwig Wittgenstein; about Oswald Manuel Arnold Gottfried Spengler, as Oswald Spengler. Brevity and consistency. Antichristos (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles should be named after how people are usually referred to. Accuracy. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to your own statistics, the incorrect "Georg Hegel" is used thrice more often than the correct "Wilhelm Hegel." Wikipedia is supposed to enlighten people and not to copy and proliferate their errors. Negentropy (useful information) is inversely proportional to volume. So, do not seek the truth in the googled numerical volume of its adherents—it is not there. Antichristos (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the best solution for this article you should observe WP:BRD. After your move was reverted you should have waiting for consensus before moving it again. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Workses

This article has two sections headed "Works". I propose that tne first of these be changed to "Books and other works" and the second be changed to "Partial list of works". Objections? Better ideas? Jo3sampl (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Goethean -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientific racialism

Racial studies

Hegel's philosophy of history was explicitly biased towards Europe, especially the Prussian state, conceived as the ultimate historical achievement, i.e. the End of History. In his chapter on the "Geographical Foundings of Universal History" Hegel said that "each People represented a particular degree of the development of the Spirit", thus forming a "nation"; however, that nationalism is not based upon racial (physical) particularities, rather it concerns the historico–geographic site where the Geister unfold. Informed by Montesquieu's theory of climatologic influence upon cultural mores and law Hegel developed in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), contrasting historical peoples with ahistoric savages:

It is true that climate has influence, in that sense that neither the warm zone, nor the cold zone, are favourable to the liberty of man, and to the apparition of historical peoples. In the same Lectures he said that "America is the country of the future", yet "philosophy does not concern itself with prophecies", but with history.Hegel, ibid., IV, 2, The New World, 4 (1 is the Introduction) "North America and its Destiny," excipit</ref> Hegel’s philosophy, like that of Kant, cannot be reduced to evolutionist statements, nevertheless, it justified European imperialism until the First World War (1914–18). Likewise, some of Montesquieu’s œuvre justified "scientifically-ground" Negro inferiority consequent to the climate’s influence. Hegel declared that:

Africa is no historical part of the world." Hegel further claimed that blacks had no "sense of personality; their spirit sleeps, remains sunk in itself, makes no advance, and thus parallels the compact, undifferentiated mass of the African continent.On Blackness Without Blacks: Essays on the Image of the Black in Germany, Boston: C.W. Hall, 1982, p. 94

Hegel was an advocate of the Asia hypothesis, he claimed the history of the whole world began in Asia, he claimed that no historical evolution had ever occured in Africa.General history of Africa: Methology and African pre-history p. 272

The linguistic basis of the Asia hypothesis developed from the work of the British philologist Sir William Jones who founded the Asiatic Society. Jones published a number of papers claiming that many of the languages around the world can be traced back to Asia. Hegel praised the work of Jones and said it was “the discovery of a new world”.Race and manifest destiny: The origins of racial Anglo-Saxonism, Reginald Horseman p. 33

Any reason this was all deleted? Its well sourced that Hegel had strong links to scientific racialism. Earthisalive (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

christian philosophers

a. Here is a bit of philosophizing about christianity right there in your quote. But it's the tip of the iceberg. Have you read the article by Kainz? It is not very long and expands on Hegel's rational viewpoint in his constant theological undertakings.

b. You misinterpreted and misquoted the sentence from Britannica (Thank you very much for the site!). "Rligious rationalism", isn't meant as skeptical rationalism vs. religion, but as a kind of affirmation of core religious ideas by means of pure thought, with a critique of some institutions. The same source also writes "In such a flux of ideas, with the Protestant tradition seemingly under attack from Protestants, there was naturally a wide variety of approaches, both in philosophy and history. There was an opinion, represented by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), that Christianity should be restated as a form of Idealistic philosophy. This view was influential for a time in Germany and afterward among Oxford philosophers of later Victorian England. Such restatements were subjected to destructive attacks, of which the most powerful were published by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, chiefly because such reasoned philosophy failed altogether to account for the depths and tragedies of human existence." http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5005_31_43.html#460WJ

c. Saying things were halfway was kind of his thing. It doesn't mean he wasn't taking them seriously, though.

d. In the Britannica piece on Hegel,

"It is impossible to exaggerate the importance that this problem had for Hegel. It is true that his early theological writings contain hard sayings about Christianity and the churches; but the object of his attack was orthodoxy, not theology itself. All that he wrote at this period throbs with a religious conviction of a kind that is totally absent from Kant and Hegel's other 18th-century teachers. Above all, he was inspired by a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The spirit of man, his reason, is the candle of the Lord, he held, and therefore cannot be subject to the limitations that Kant had imposed upon it. This faith in reason, with its religious basis, henceforth animated the whole of Hegel's work."

"He accepted the chair at Heidelberg. For use at his lectures there, he published his Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (1817; "Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline"), an exposition of his system as a whole. Hegel's philosophy is an attempt to comprehend the entire universe as a systematic whole. The system is grounded in faith. In the Christian religion God has been revealed as truth and as spirit. As spirit, man can receive this revelation. In religion the truth is veiled in imagery; but in philosophy the veil is torn aside, so that man can know the infinite and see all things in God."

"The lectures on the philosophy of religion are another application of his method, and shortly before his death he had prepared for the press a course of lectures on the proofs for the existence of God. On the one hand, he turned his weapons against the Rationalistic school, which reduced religion to the modicum compatible with an ordinary worldly mind. On the other hand, he criticized the school of Schleiermacher, who elevated feeling to a place in religion above systematic theology. In his middle way, Hegel attempted to show that the dogmatic creed is the rational development of what was implicit in religious feeling. To do so, of course, philosophy must be made the interpreter and the superior discipline."

are just samples. trespassers william (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)