Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

French Revolution

Removing this from Works section where it does not belong. It's accurate, though, so someone may wish to integrate elsewhere:

The French Revolution for Hegel constitutes the introduction of real individual political freedom into European societies for the first time in recorded history. But precisely because of its absolute novelty, it is also unlimited with regard to everything that preceded it: on the one hand the upsurge of violence required to carry out the revolution cannot cease to be itself, while on the other, it has already consumed its opponent. The revolution therefore has nowhere to turn but onto its own result: the hard-won freedom is consumed by a brutal Reign of Terror. History, however, progresses by learning from its mistakes: only after and precisely because of this experience can one posit the existence of a constitutional state of free citizens, embodying both the benevolent organizing power of rational government and the revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality. Hegel's remarks on the French revolution led German poet Heinrich Heine to label him "The Orléans of German Philosophy".

I do think Hegel's interpretation of the French Revolution is important and should be included somewhere in the article (especially since "French Revolution" and "Reign of Terror" are used as examples of thesis and antithesis in the "Triad" subsection of the "Legacy" section). From Susan Buck-Morss: "Hegel, writing The Phenomenology of Mind in his Jena study in 1806, interpreted the advancing army of Napoleon (whose cannons he could hear roaring in the distance) as the unwitting realization of Reason." From Philip Cunliffe: "It is well established that the thrust of [Hegel's] project was an attempt to absorb the impact of modernity by offering a philosophical response to the French Revolution and the unfolding of the modern division of labour." Maybe we can incorporate some of this text into the "Progress" subsection of the "Thought" section? Abierma3 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably belongs in the Thought section, but that whole section is such a mess I don't even what to touch it unless it is to completely rewrite per earlier comment.

New archive

Hi editors,

I created a new Talk page archive (Archive 3) and then removed all the topics that I take to have been resolved. If anyone disagrees, by all means, please restore unresolved section and, if possible, expand upon what issue you believe remains outstanding.

Thanks, PJ

Freedom

I find this section contains many, many weasel words and unsupported conclusions by which I mean, they conclusions are not elaborated on and thus not explained just possed as a given. seemingly the authors conjectures. I didn't notice any referencing. really poor encyclopaedic offering of Hegel's ideas on freedom. this is not an introduction to Hegel's thought on freedom , it contains no framework to situate Hegel's ideas in relation to his philosophy ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgdyason (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That section is not great, I agree. The whole article needs to be improved. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it common Wikipedia policy to give both the correct pronunciation of a name and the one in whatever language this Wikipedia happens to be written in?

When I say "correct", I mean the pronunciation the person used for themselves, and that is quite obviously not ˈheɪɡəl. This is probably the nearest approximation most English native tongues can make of his name, but does that mean it should be set up as sort of a rule here? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me. --91.34.32.10 (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

School

"Hegel's studies at the Gymnasium were concluded with his Abiturrede ("graduation speech") entitled "The abortive state of art and scholarship in Turkey" ("den verkümmerten Zustand der Künste und Wissenschaften unter den Türken")."

This fragment of a sentence does not make any sense as a title in German, nor does the source (Rosenkranz) support the claim that this was the title of his speech. I don't know what Pinkard has to say on this, but this should really be rephrased as long as we don't know the exact title.

Also, I'd be really curious to know what a "German School" is supposed to be. --91.34.32.10 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Just found the Pinkard source online. Pinkard says that Hegel "chose to speak on" this, not that this was the title of his speech. Not to mention the fact that "abortive" is a somewhat strange translation of "verkümmert", and "unter den Türken" means "among the Turks" which is not necessarily the same thing as "in Turkey". --91.34.32.10 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of material

I've just undone the removal of an enormous amount of material from the article by PatrickJWelsh, who made no attempt to explain his changes on the talk page. I accept that the changes were in good faith, but the removal of so much material at once requires more explanation than PatrickJWelsh has so far provided. Many of the changes I undid seemed to be based in nothing more than personal opinion. A typical example is this, the removal of material cited to Walter Kaufmann, which was done with the comment, "Kaufmann's "existentialist" reading has been broadly discredited. Hegel's central concern is not with "human reality," but with the true. This paragraph is misleading at best." The problem there is less the total absence of evidence that Kaufmann's view has been discredited than a misconception about the basis on which Wikipedia includes content in articles. Whether a given view is mentioned in an article or not has nothing to do with whether it is true or not, and it certainly shouldn't depend on what individual editors personally believe to be true. See WP:NOTTRUTH, which is a useful essay explaining the policy WP:VERIFY. Kaufmann was a notable Hegel scholar, his view is worth mentioning as an example of what Hegel scholars have rightly or wrongly deemed to be true. It is not of consequence whether his views are universally held among Hegel scholars, and it's certainly beside the point whether individual editors agree with them or not. The result of editors removing things they personally don't agree with is always an impoverished article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I also have to note this unfortunate edit, which appears to be a case of deliberate vandalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

With Hegel, as with many philosophers, so much has been written as one could cite published work to present him as propounding anything at all. What I removed was justified on the basis of topical irrelevance (an editorial decision) or because it misrepresented Hegel's position (a professional judgment).

Also, when I wrote that Hegel's concern was with the true, I meant that that is his official topic: the unfolding of die Sache into its intelligible conceptuality, i.e., the true, das Wahre. If you were qualified to be editing the content of an entry on Hegel, this would have been obvious. You would also know that, as important as Kaufmann was in the early days of the Anglo-American "Hegel Renaissance," he has been superseded by subsequent scholarship. "Human reality," for instance, is a very loose gloss of Hegel's concept of spirit, and, moreover, the claim is manifestly false. Nowhere does Hegel describe his philosophical project in any such terms. Here's "counter source"—just because I can't help myself:

The most widely known and read proponent of an existential reading of Hegel was certainly Walter Kaufmann. He shared with Mueller the cardinal virtue of seeking consistently for the historical Hegel, but his book exemplified the perils of this concern even more vividly than Mueller's (which first appeared in German, and had to wait ten years for an English abridgement). To those of us who revere Hegel as a great systematic philosopher, Kaufmann's boasted "reinterpretation" appears to be all bits and scraps. The insights are almost lost to sight in a pot-pourri of biographical data, cultural allusions, statistical notes on the space Hegel gives to this or that topic, and polemics against every anglophone interpreter who followed the lead of Hegel's first editors. For Hegel's German editors themselves Kaufmann could find charity, but he had none for Wallace or Josiah Royce. His appreciation of the need for a critical approach to the text, and his consequent understanding of the importance of properly critical editing, must be accounted to him as a virtue. But he did not deal with any text himself in a sufficiently continuous and connected way for me to feel certain what the basis of his proposed "reinterpretation" is. He acknowledged - a little grudgingly - that his thesis that the Phenomenology offers us a "logic of passion" was anticipated by Royce. But when the more radical Ivan SolI insisted that Kaufmann and Royce did not mean the same thing, Kaufmann was a little aggrieved to think that anyone should have believed they did. Actually, I still believe that they meant more or less the same thing. Perhaps SolI himself means something different, since he extends the phrase to embrace the Logic along with the Phenomenology. But until he gets beyond the level of introducing Hegel-which he is certainly very good at-the question must remain unsettled.

Kaufmann's own main thesis about the Logic-that "analysis of categories replaces speculative metaphysics" was already grasped (perhaps) by Wallace, and certainly by Baillie. The essential thing-which Kaufmann did not do-is to develop the thesis in detail: to see just what the move to what Hegel called an "objective" logic (as against Kant's "subjective" transcendental logic) means, and how it is justified. Kaufmann offered us little help toward the overcoming of the deep uneasiness that Baillie had already clearly expressed. One might take Kaufmann's support of Mueller's view that the triadic structure has been foisted onto Hegel, and his (perfectly correct) insistence that Hegel's "tables of categories" are merely "arrangements of external reflection" as tending to show that all categoreal schemes are "subjective." But the despised "table of contents" was all that Kaufmann himself offered us (with page-count statistics and some desultory comments) when he discussed the "contents" of the Logic. Perhaps he held that Hegel was consciously a sort of Nietzsche avant la lettre; but I believe he only held, more modestly, that Hegel was Nietzsche malgre lui- that he yearned systematically for a scientific finality which his own insight and method had shown to be impossible. Needless to say, I do not think that either view is right.

References

I've heard positive things about his translation of the Preface to the Jena Phenomenology, but Kaufmann lives on primarily as a Nietzsche translator and popularizer of existentialism. Hegel scholars no longer consider his monograph as particularly important or at all authoritative—not that he was a nut who got everything wrong, just that he was sufficiently muddled to no longer be worth reading for most people.

Wikipedia's citational conventions simply do not work for articles about philosophers. The "experts" disagree on too many details for a citation to establish accuracy. One can cite peer-reviewed articles and monographs to the effect that Hegel was a Lutherian who believed in the afterlife or that he was an atheist; that the system is radically open or a monolithically closed totality; et cetera, et cetera. An Encyclopedia entry should exclude trivial detail, use Hegel's own technical vocabulary accurately or acknowledge when glossing for a popular audience, and be open about scholarly disagreements rather than presenting any secondary source as authoritative. Kaufmann's, let us say, "partial" reading is massively overrepresented. Search The Owl, The Bulletin, Idealistic Studies, and so forth—and lament the massive neglect of his work among people who have devoted their lives to the study of Hegel.

In any case, I'm not going to further engage you unless you show specific interest in some actual point of fact pertaining to Hegel's thought or have a specific question about the accuracy of claim. I'm expecting not. Please, though, consider asking for justification of changes on the talk page before undoing the work of someone who possibly knows a lot more about the subject than you. Some of my brief justifications may have insufficient, but not all of them. People like you are the reason so very few scholars even bother attempting what could be a quite modest public service of improving Wikipedia entries in their fields of study. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You wrote, "What I removed was justified on the basis of topical irrelevance (an editorial decision) or because it misrepresented Hegel's position (a professional judgment)." This goes to prove my point. You removed material because you disagreed with it. Don't do that. It is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your comment, "Also, when I wrote that Hegel's concern was with the true, I meant that that is his official topic: the unfolding of die Sache into its intelligible conceptuality, i.e., the true, das Wahre. If you were qualified to be editing the content of an entry on Hegel, this would have been obvious" is peculiar and presumptuous, since I never expressed any opinion about what you meant when you wrote that Hegel's concern was with the true. Why presume I misunderstood your meaning when I expressed no opinion about it at all? More importantly, if Kaufmann has been corrected by subsequent scholarship, then by all means add material to the article explaining that. There is no reason to remove mention of his views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you appear to be under-informed about how academic scholarship in the humanities works. Any research library will have a few shelves full of monographs devoted to various aspects of Hegel’s philosophy—to say nothing to the proliferation of (apparently quite lucrative) short introductions. They are rife will all manner of disagreement in most, if not all fields, and especially in philosophy.

Even if it were possible, an encyclopedia article is not the place to refute early scholars who didn’t quite get it right. Each can have his own entry! Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_(philosopher). This entry, however, purports to be about Hegel, and my edits were made to that end.

Give me a mulligan on the (openly acknowledged) snarky comment on “s-a-t” nonsense and present your case for how any other edit degraded the quality of the article. I am quite confident I can justify every one with direct reference to primary sources and, if you perversely believe secondary sources more authoritative, to those as well. If not, I will be grateful for what I learn in being corrected.

(As to early admonishment I check in with the Talk page before making a change, please see above for an idea of how well that works.)PatrickJWelsh (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, PatrickJWelsh, I am not "under-informed about how academic scholarship in the humanities works". I am quite sure that "Any research library will have a few shelves full of monographs devoted to various aspects of Hegel’s philosophy—to say nothing to the proliferation of (apparently quite lucrative) short introductions" and that they are "rife will all manner of disagreement in most, if not all fields, and especially in philosophy". I have no idea why you would presume that I am unaware of these facts. How very arrogant and rude of you. As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly appropriate, as well as possible, for an encyclopedia article to state how scholarly opinion about a subject has evolved. I've no idea why you would suppose that it is inappropriate or impossible, and nor do I really care, since I think its appropriateness and possibility will be clear to most editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you ignore the question of substance: What did I get wrong that was improved by your restoration of (I contend) misleading or outright false claims in this entry? Please, prove you care about the accuracy and usefulness of this entry (at least) as much as your mastery of Wikipedia policy. Many thanks, PJPatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not apologize for responding to rude and insulting comments you made. If your comments were not about "the question of substance", then you should not have made them in the first place. What you got wrong is the purpose an encyclopedia entry, which is to summarize views expressed on a topic by reliable sources, especially those written by scholars, whether individual editors (such as you) happen to agree with those views or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear god, man (am assuming you are a man) — I did not ask you to apologize. I asked you to please educate me with respect to the inadequacy of what it is my professional judgment (not equivalent to "opinion") I messed up with the edits I made. If you present a respectable case, I will apologize to you. If you have no case, you should ask yourself what you're even doing here. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, PatrickJWelsh, I realize that you did not ask me to apologize. I explained that I was not apologizing anyway, even though you didn't do that. Your latest comment is mostly pointless blather, possibly designed to provoke me. I won't take your bait. I explained to you that removing material just because you personally disagree with it is not OK. If you won't accept that, that's unfortunate, but not a reason for me to get sidetracked into an endless argument with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say "expose" rather than "provoke," but that is pointless to argue.

Once again: What edit of PatrickJWelsh did FreeKnowledgeCreator undo that improves the usefulness or accuracy of the entry from the edited version? If you cannot answer this, you discredit yourself.

As Hegel opens the Introduction to his Science of Logic "In no science is the need to begin with the fact itself [Sache selbst], without preliminary reflections, felt more strongly than in the science of logic" (GW 21.27). I have been deliberately avoiding making this about credentials or any institutional markers of "authority" you or me might hold. All I would like to see is a philosophical justification of your editorial high-handedness, which you have yet to show has any grounding in scholarship beyond the purview of Wikipedia. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In regard to your question above, about what edit you made that I undid that was helpful, I believe there was a single unambiguously constructive edit you made, which involved removing content that had been marked with "citation neeeded" since 2008. I restored that change here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Whitewash

Hegel's 1800 effort without Ceres seems to have been passed over in silence, as an attempt at a whitewash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992JHA....23..208C

---

Merge Diamond net into Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Please can someone assist with merge of Diamond net into this article as I have no idea where to put the single sentence from the article. Diamond net was last edited in 2009 and should be AfD'd but I want to save the quote. Waddie96 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: Turtle Island External Video

Dr. Gregory B. Sadler is a notable Hegel popularizer (undoubtedly a unique demographic!). I don't see the logic of his podcast under the aegis of the Turtle Island Research Cooperative being deleted because it's a "Book presentation," particularly given the provenance of the other two videos as philosophy outreach. The video is not only salient and well within the Wikipedia ambit and mission, it is a fine contemporary example of philosophical engagement and outreach. kencf0618 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A youtube livestream. Informative, perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. WP:ELNO applies. Kleuske (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The whole point of Wikipedia is to be informative. kencf0618 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The whole point is not to shill youtube livestreams. Kleuske (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The two current video links are from Vimeo and C-SPAN, respectively. Worthy discussions, surely! And whatever the animus against YouTube, Dr. Sadler reads, out loud, and discusses at length, The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit paragraph by paragraph. No shilling here! kencf0618 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is a matter concerning article content, for which I cannot see a previous discussion on this page. There is no need to go all the way to RfC: please see WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How could he be 'German'?

He lived before Germany was a thing. Hegel's death = 14 November 1831 . — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read the article nationality, especially the older meaning of nationality. Grimes2 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Revise to conform to Wikipedia rules

Wikipedia rules state that 'articles must not contain original research' and'any material...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.'

There are multiple cases in which both of these rules are violated by the editor in question.