Hegel et al. Discussion split from Ask a Red III

[Hygro]

And I have many times stated, but have been largely ignored, that the problem with "the science part" is this:

-His "mistakes" on physics and chemistry and biology are not the mistakes of a researcher who was simply proven by the progress of science; they are the absurd and meaningless inventions of a charlatan. The problem with his science is not that it was wrong, but rather that it is empty verbiage, incomprehensible to anyone at the time or today. If it were simply a matter of being wrong we could certainly overlook it, but being a charlatan is a very big deal for someone who claims to be a philosopher.

The "charlatan" claim is causing people, who always need a moment to organize their thoughts about Hegel, to take a quick breath in, give a little spazzy shake, exhale and sigh with the sound of "ehhhhhh". Here's another way to look at him: he liked history, and he was a philosopher. So he read history and studied philosophy. He extended his passion into realms he sucked at. It doesn't mean within the realm of his talents he wasn't bad.

-His writings on science are not a peripheral part of his work, but rather an important component of his "theory of everything". That's why he wrote a whole book on the subject. That's why his very first dissertation was on the subject. Just because now his followers are embarassed by this part of his work does not mean it is irrelevant or peripheral.


Well, first thank you for actually writing why you think Hegel is relevant as opposed to why you think I shouldn't criticise him.

About machines replacing human labor, I'm afraid 2,000 years before Hegel Aristotle already speculated on the possibility of automatons bringing about human equality and putting an end to slavery by doing all the work for us (in his Politics, book 1, part 4, written in 322 BC). The instruments doing their own work has been a human dream since there were instruments.

I have no idea what you mean by his "superior take on the invisible hand" and would like you to expand.

As for his dialectics, they only seem to me a more confusing (and sorry to use the word again, but dishonest) variant of Heraclitus'. What unique value do you see in them?

As for being a multidimensional thinker, I certainly agree there... though his multidimensional approach reminds me more of an ancient prophet than a philosopher. And I think it's pretty hard to deny that when his most enthusiatic followers can't agree even on the meaning of the preface of his books, there is at least some level of logical inconsitency at play.

Overambition, hoping to be the man with the "theory of everything" does not mean that because the overreach failed in one part extends to the other parts. Additionally all philosophers are completely influenced by other ones. I don't think I've ever read an original thinker that I couldn't trace back to a thinker before him or her until we get to the point of lost records. Aristotle and Plato are the basis of so much of future philosophy... But just because we see Aristotle in almost everything we like about Hegel, Marx, progressivism, and basically anything that believes in substantive freedom, doesn't mean that they were superfluous or plagiarists. Similarly for Plato and such folk as Kant.

As for the "invisible hand", to quote my professor, "Hegel is German for Adam Smith". Adam Smith, who btw only references the invisible hand two to three times and quite likely in jest, wrote a theory of particulars coming together to form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Adam Smith's theory, however, required also a "fellow feeling" component frequently ignored. Aka society outside of economy, outside of price mediation.

His theory of political economy is of course fantastic and holds true today, with of course numerous addendums, rewrites, and added dimensions. Hegel too wrote about political economy in a similar regard, and had extensively presented the same ideas of personal self interest. Particulars. He argued from a different vantage point many of the same things, only he pinned (see what I did there? har har harr) it all together differently.

It was not a hidden hand of a market operating solely as a descriptive aggregate of liberal trade and commerce. It was a society of individuals who aggregate within the framework of overarching society, in which commerce came together to form beneficial markets greater than their sum. But that furthermore, effective aggregation came from effective systems that came from effective thinkers that were trained to understand that.

This is in part why Hegel's take on Civil Society is so compelling. We know that markets were terrible when society infringed on their existence. We also know that markets have been terrible when society hasn't structurally guided them to operate in a healthy way. Laws. Enforcement. Discourse.

Hegel then articulates the realm of society in economy (or rather economy in society) in a way and with a depth opposite of so many like Smith, or Mills, or Ricardo, who bring up the subject in brief only to not explain. They sort of acknolowdge how it is important and then avoid its study and stick to the theory of particulars.

Like how Smith then advocates that if you want to reap the benefits of robust commerce and industry, then liberalize the economy, Hegel takes it a step further and says that such a process should be structured and mediated by civil servants. People who see the full picture, or the universe of society. To be a universalist, trained in the university, in liberal letters and sciences. That there will always be some kind of social mediation and some kind of structure set up by people, and therefore it is important to come to understand what kinds of mediation there are, and how to have one that works effectively according to certain values.

In Hegel's case, those values stem from his theories on substantive freedom and his disregard for (or upgrade of) Kantian metaphysics. He simultaneously validated and turned classic liberalism on its head. And following in his tradition, the German Historical School of political economy informed and correlated directly with the intense rapid economy successes of late 19th century Germany and Japan. As in, industrializing-Germany's model of economic development, which was emulated by Japan, was founded on political economy logic straight out of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.


I could make a further case that empirically our society sees its biggest gains in substantive freedom when we are governed by liberal arts universalists, trained in public schools and working with a secure salary but no investment in commercial conflicts of interest. However that would be another, or at least later, discussion.

 

[aelf]

Not at all. That the mere word "understand" has a central role under both circumstances by no means implies that it actually refers to the same thing when one talks about understanding Hegel and when one talks about understanding that there is nothing to be understood.
And in fact, this is not the case.
Snarky snark

That was my counter-flame for the day, and let me also say that this thread is quit enjoyable (am not through yet though).

Park addressed this very succinctly early on:

So in other words, because you read someone who didn't understand it, you assume there is no value to it?

You would almost never see a serious academic claim that something is nonsense without a clear demonstration of why it's nonsense, unless it was intended to provoke a reaction. luiz is very clearly doing the latter.

There is really no substantive difference between understanding something and understanding that it's nonsense. The latter entails the former: Understanding that there's nothing to be understood requires understanding of the material concerned. But if one claims that understanding the material is impossible, then one cannot claim that there's nothing to understand.

I invite you to explain why there are two different senses of 'understand' here instead of just giving a not-so-glib answer that doesn't add anything.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I gladly accept your invitation.
Suppose someone, perhaps mentally not very well, in deed is writing thick books full of gibberish. Imagine that the only task this troubled individual is really capable of is clouding the fact that his or her writings are as productive as looking for shapes in a sea of clouds or interpreting ones horoscope.
So we have a situation where nothing is really to be understood except the mental state of the individual. But of course in our scenario we don't know that. We study his or her works, trying to connect the dots and searching for something worthwhile. Looking thoroughly, we even find thoughts we find useful, but we can't really make useful sense of the whole. Can we ever know that it is all in the end gibberish? We can't - that in deed is the dilemma of such a situation. I agree with you so far. But can't we make a reasonable estimate? Can't we make a bet that after a certain degree of indiscernibility it becomes more and more likely that there in deed is nothing to be understood? And I would say - yes, we can. And we absolutely should. Or otherwise we make ourself hostages to whatever nonsense fairly educated but confused people wanne write down.
When it is said that in Hegel is nothing to be understood, I take it as another way of saying "Hegel surpassed the point after which it becomes unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt". Just phrased in a more dense, a more bombastic manner.
Understanding that there is nothing to be understood literally means understanding that it is unreasonable to expect that there is something to be understood.
So yes ParkCungHee got it right, but I am not sure he interpreted it right.
However, that such a point has been surpassed can of course be substantiated by demonstrating what made it seem so. But no, I don't suppose you can prove it.

 

[aelf]

But can't we make a reasonable estimate?

This is not a battle you're going to win because the odds are stacked against you and luiz. In your example of a mentally ill person writing gibberish, we infer from the author's condition that he cannot have written anything substantial and therefore derive our understanding of what he wrote from this knowledge. That is part of the process of interpretation.

In Hegel's case, however, obviously the context is very very different. There is no such convenient way of inferring from the context that what he wrote is probably gibberish. Therefore, the only way to make such a claim credibly is to demonstrate why it's gibberish. Not only that, it's not sufficient to produce one or two passages to make the point (if that's case you're going to make, then almost everyone writes gibberish). Further, this route would be rendered even more unfeasible if you claim that the material cannot be understood.

 

[Leoreth]

There is really no substantive difference between understanding something and understanding that it's nonsense.

So you really think I first have to figure out what the fang timecube was supposed to be about to conclude that it's mainly incoherent ravings?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If your beef is that luiz lacks substance I am really not the one you need to argue with. I am merely commenting on weather it can be understood that there is nothing to be understood.

 

[aelf]

So you really think I first have to figure out what the fang timecube was supposed to be about to conclude that it's mainly incoherent ravings?

What part of context do you not understand?

 

[luiz]

Hygro, I'll answer your post in detail when I have more time. I appreciate and thank your effort but think you're reading way too much in Hegel, and giving him way too much credit on what were essentially later intepretations.

This is not a battle you're going to win because the odds are stacked against you and luiz. In your example of a mentally ill person writing gibberish, we infer from the author's condition that he cannot have written anything substantial and therefore derive our understanding of what he wrote from this knowledge. That is part of the process of interpretation.

In Hegel's case, however, obviously the context is very very different. There is no such convenient way of inferring from the context that what he wrote is probably gibberish. Therefore, the only way to make such a claim credibly is to demonstrate why it's gibberish. Not only that, it's not sufficient to produce one or two passages to make the point (if that's case you're going to make, then almost everyone writes gibberish). Further, this route would be rendered even more unfeasible if you claim that the material cannot be understood.

How can you determine that a person is mentally ill? Isn't mental illness the negation of negation of mental health, that is, indeed, the transubtantiated ideal ideality of sanity and thus an identity with it?

Anyway. So according to you some passages are not enough to establish the author as "full of gibberish". How about a whole book that is just gibberisg? How about whole dissertations? How about making passages upon passages up, not as fantasy, but as supposed rational theory of everything? And I'm not talking of "alchemy-like" nonsense, I'm talking about big words thrown together to deliberately give an air of mental sophistication to what is completely meaningless.

Furthermore, if we are to appeal to authority. On the side "Hegel is nonsense" we have Schopenhauer, Russell, Popper, Ortega y Gasset, Hannah Arendt, and other great ones. On the "Hegel is awesome" side we have Michel Foucault, Slavoj Zizek and aelf. Yeah, I wouldn't appeal to authority if I were on the "Hegel is awesome" is side

 

[aelf]

Anyway. So according to you some passages are not enough to establish the author as "full of gibberish". How about a whole book that is just gibberisg? How about whole dissertations? How about making passages upon passages up, not as fantasy, but as supposed rational theory of everything? And I'm not talking of "alchemy-like" nonsense, I'm talking about big words thrown together to deliberately give an air of mental sophistication to what is completely meaningless.

So, again, how do you know that it's meaningless? I'd like to see some textual analysis, please.

Furthermore, if we are to appeal to authority. On the side "Hegel is nonsense" we have Schopenhauer, Russell, Popper, Ortega y Gasset, Hannah Arendt, and other great ones. On the "Hegel is awesome" side we have Michel Foucault, Slavoj Zizek and aelf. Yeah, I wouldn't appeal to authority if I were on the "Hegel is awesome" is side

That's stupid. As if those who think that Hegel is great are all of 3 people. And of course some philosophers disagree fundamentally with each other. That's not news.

 

[Vertinari118]

luiz will claim he doesn't even know where to start with a textual analysis because it's unintelligible and he'll claim it's meaningless because it's unintelligible. He hasn't realised the core issue, even after your explanation of it, by far the clearest in the thread, that you cannot say a philosopher is meaningless without a sustained attack on his philosophy, unless you reject their work as not being philosophy at all. In order to dismiss it as philosophy you need to explain were it fails as philosophy and merely stating it is unintelligible to me and my authorities does not cut it. Or he has and he's simply being dogmatic, which sort of kills the thread.

You mention Foucault as a "Hegel is awesome" kinda guy without mentioning that most modern French philosophers draw upon Hegelian ideas and thus collapse without him. Maybe they think Hegel's important too? Let's not get started on Marx and how he was massively influenced by Hegel, both rejecting Hegel's metaphysics yet relying on his dialectics, which by the way are not a rehashing of Heraclitus', to critique society. Or the whole school of thought known as Hegelianism... I know your point was glib but still there was no point making it. There is no case to be made there.

 

[Leoreth]

What part of context do you not understand?

The part where you seem to make general blanket statements, apparently.

 

[aelf]

luiz will claim he doesn't even know where to start with a textual analysis because it's unintelligible and he'll claim it's meaningless because it's unintelligible. He hasn't realised the core issue, even after your explanation of it, by far the clearest in the thread, that you cannot say a philosopher is meaningless without a sustained attack on his philosophy, unless you reject their work as not being philosophy at all. In order to dismiss it as philosophy you need to explain were it fails as philosophy and merely stating it is unintelligible to me and my authorities does not cut it. Or he has and he's simply being dogmatic, which sort of kills the thread.

You mention Foucault as a "Hegel is awesome" kinda guy without mentioning that most of modern French philosophers draw upon Hegelian ideas and thus collapse without him. Maybe they think Hegel's important too? Let's not get started on Marxi and how he was massively influenced by Hegel, both rejecting Hegel's metaphysics yet relying on his dialectics, which by the way are not a rehashing of Heraclitus', to critique society. Or the whole school of thought known as Hegelianism... I know your point was glib but still there was no point making it. There is no case to be made there.

+1

The part where you seem to make general blanket statements, apparently.

Like?