|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Age of Article
This old article (about a century old?) needs an update.
Regarding this line Hegelianism in North America was represented by Thomas Watson and William T. Harris. Does anybody know *which* Thomas Watson this refers to? The link currently just takes one to the Thomas Watson disambiguation page, and it's not immediately clear which - if any - of the listed individuals is the one referred to here. --Sprhodes 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much the age of this article, as its source - why the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than say 1911 Britannica? Dimwight 09:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hegel's philosophy of religion
This article doesn't have a section directly addressing Hegel's philosophy of religion and the Absolute. I think it's important to create one, as it's important to know what every philospher thought about one of life's most basic and most important questions. I, for one, would be very interested to know what he believed. Fledgeaaron (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Should not be?
Should not be a section on criticism? There is much say that Hegel is cult-like device. I have no stand but am not particule to any side. Simply for NPOV reasons are EQUAL for BOTH views. So the question is this: we add section on criticism? Unfalsifiable etc. Much love to all for New Year. Linguistixuck (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
THE HEGELIAN SCHOOLS
Addition to The Hegelian Schools section --I changed "Otto Strauss" to "David F. Strauss", whose Life of Jesus inaugurated the Young Hegelian episode. While he was a prominent German-language philosopher, Otto Strauss wasn't even born until 1881, almost thirty years after Young Hegelianism dissolved. Davidwestling (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
DATES: WHERE ARE THEY?
No dates, no complete bibliography, no Notes, no links, no anything. Lamentable job. Why not look at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a clue on how to construct the article. Or the German Wikipedia article, too. This work is sub-par, I am sorry to report. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Very, very bad stuff. But no surprise here. Most expositions and introductions on Hegel are crap and written by people who are unsympathetic to his philosophy and argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Tone is too conversational, particularly under "Stages of History" ("We are, therefore, to understand historical happenings..."). It hardly sounds unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farnk20 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Under influence, the statement, "The application of his notion of development to Biblical criticism and to historical investigation is obvious to anyone who compares the spirit and purpose of contemporary theology with the spirit and purpose of the theological literature of the first half of the nineteenth century," is hardly fitting in a serious encyclopedic work.