|
| |
What is the relation between Hegel and Marx?
Marx used some concepts of Hegel, like some parts of Hegel's work in his works. One can find
echoes of Hegel's logic, Hegel's philosophy of history and Hegel's analysis of the
modern society (like alienation, abstract work).
Marx made some fruitful extensions to Hegel's philosophy of history and Hegel's analysis of modern society. However,
Marx did not have the chances to meet Hegel himself and was far from knowing and understanding Hegel's complete work.
He missed many implications of Hegel's work and misinterpreted completely the basic forces behind Hegel's concepts.
In other context I even mentioned that most errors of Marx
and the Marxists after Marx would have been avoided if
they really had studied Hegel enough.
What is the source of their difference of opinion on the topic of "Dialectical Idealism"
(Hegel) and "Dialectic Materialism" (Marx)?
Marx did not add anything good to Hegel's basic philosophy what was not already in there. All what is good in Marx's
concepts of reality he has from Hegel. All what is obscure wrong and problematic he
(and even worse, the Marxists after him, most prominent Engels and Lenin) added himself.
So, when I want to talk nice of Marx I'd rather say that there exists no such difference, this is difference is purely
Marxist propaganda. It's a fake.
When I talk bad I'd say: you can imagine yourself the Marxist "Dialectic
Materialism" as a very vulgarized and inconsistent form of Hegel's concept
(which Hegel never called "Dialectical Idealism", btw) and so "Dialectical
Idealism" in that context refers to a puppet which the Marxists invented and what they wrongly claim Hegel's
teachings are about.
These last statements may sound just like claims, which won't help you much when you discuss with a Marxist (or
you are one yourself), because an opponent could just claim the opposite, so whom to believe?
One principle of Hegelianism is that there is no truth beyond the reasons for something, the
truth lies in the reasons, so we don't ask anyone to believe us anything, but we try to give
arguments. OTOH, this is a complex topic which might need more exhaustive debates, so I leave the main points to
further questions from you.
Some hints in advance:
- at http://www.hegel-werkstatt.de/english
you can find some more texts from myself in English, trying to debunk some of the mayor myths Marxists
have made about Hegel.
- basically, Hegelianism will claim to include all positions, (say to be "holistic" to call it with a modern
catch word). He discovered: a whole / universal / absolute / non-limited (you can call it god to place the argument in a religious context
if you like / you are religious) that is opposite to something else, doesn't include it, is not a whole, is not complete,
is not universal, is imperfect.
Take as an example science: as long as two different, opposing theories exist about one topic, scientists will not be
content.
The aim is to find a superior theory which includes all what is correct / useful form all theories.
Pluralism also has a place in this concept, as we might be tempted to find wrong "superior
concepts", which only claim that they are superior, but in reality suppressing
those parts which don't fit. That is the root to "totalitarism" (see Pluralism)
So similar, a Hegelian approach also shows what is good in pluralism and unification. That BTW shows another
advantage of Hegel's approach: it is one of the few theories which can be applied to itself.
-
So Hegel called his position "absolute idealism", meaning a position which would include ("sublate" as Hegel called it,
see Sublation (the word) for a discussion of that
term) what people might think of when they hear "Materialism" or "Idealism". I should add that in Hegel's terminology,
"Idealism", "Materialism" etc have other meanings as in the
Marxist terminology, which is more common today.
So it is easy for a Marxist to make Hegel sound silly when they quote a phrase
from Hegel without being aware, that he uses the words different from the Marxists.
-
To know these differences is BTW, another specialty of Hegel (and of classic Philosophy as a whole): when science is
a system of axioms, as modern logicians teach and these axioms can be connected without any
intelligence by a computer, the question remains how to come to the axioms. This is the
question were creativity, intelligence (not in its modern minimalist sense - intelligence
tests and IQs have little to do with intelligence in the sense I am using it here) apply:
How do you come to your axioms, how do you come to your basic words and concepts, what is the reason to use them? When you
know this, you will also know their (only) relative reasons, and are critical to their use, are well informed, not easily
manipulated, can think for yourself and also find new concepts, can make yourself earth shaking
new discoveries, Kuhn's paradigm changes.
In order to unify / include /sublate all theories and cultures, and not in the wrong way of making a big abstraction were all
differences are neglected (BTW, this again has also a theological background: the
Christian God loves each individual in his individual personality, he is concrete - Jesus,
not just a universal abstraction. BTW, the interesting thing with Hegel's religion is that it also answers
the theological questions so is important for religious people but he can also be read without
a theological background. He will give Philosophy a sense to religious people and the other way round, you don't need to be
Christian or religious to be a Hegelian. Not to see this, was one of the causes
that divided Hegelians after Hegel into "left" (no religion) and "right"
(only religion)
Hegelians after Hegel's death. Hegel would have neither been left nor right
Hegelian, as this would be completely against the basic spirit of his teaching (see above).
-
Marxists would claim that Hegel is not really sublating all, because the world as such, the reality,
mankind, matter etc is existing beside any theory / concept. So they claim that their
own concept of "dialectical materialism" is sublating Hegelianism and that Hegelianism OTHO only
attempts to find a complete synthesis, but in reality does not.
This is wrong in many regards, I will name two:
a) Of course Hegelianism not only deals with ideas, sciences, the mind, but with the world also: all topics you can think
of in this regards like natural sciences, medicine, state, society etc. are handled by Hegel.
b) But Hegel is not a Physician or a Professor of Economy. Instead he is teaching the meta science of science, he explains how the
different sciences come to their subjects, he discusses the concepts behind their
axioms, concepts, borders, definitions etc. He
shows the reasons and structures behind the existing
science. As I said, what he does is reflexive in the way
that it also explains what he does himself in his own
science (so there is no need for a meta meta science and a
meta meta meta science etc. pp).
Marxist theory is untrue and inconsistent in the sense that in reality it is also a theory, so it also handles the world
in form of a theory of the world.
|
