making Hegel popular
[ >Kais Hegel-Werkstatt< ]

[ Neues | >zum Programm< | Artikel | Personen | Ressourcen | in english | Sitemap | Hilfe ]

[ Programm | Erklärungen | >making Hegel popular< ]


Nach unten:

Another Hegelian wrote me:

>> As for the popular challenge, it is a viable option to turn to the millions to disseminate Hegel, even though the Academic community will initially resist it with fervor.<<

You raise several interesting questions.

I'm focusing on this subject, because OTOH I agree with you, and think it is important, OTOH I also understand the fears of your "opponents". So let me give you some remarks. I will first give some arguments in favor of popularization of Hegel (1,2) and then add some critical remarks. I will then step into the subject what I think is our task as Hegelians (3,4), ending with a kind of action plan (5) and finally disclose my own motivation (6).

1.

On the first hand, I don't see why anyone would *not* love to see the thoughts he likes spread in the world. So when we can safely assume that HEGEL-L is dominated by people who like Hegel's philosophy, I guess they will agree to the idea to spread Hegel's teachings.

If one would not see any kind of good in having / sharing these kind of thoughts, why would oneself want to have them and why would we want to teach them with others or talk about them on HEGEL-L? (see further comment: a rational argument for the uneasiness of some professors to popularize Hegel)

2.

2a)

I think that the task of popularizing is much underestimated as an intellectual work. I think it is an outstanding challenge to phrase a sophisticated theory like Hegel's into our own, modern, easy to understand terms, without saying something wrong.

2b)

2b1) Hegel, who in the first paragraphs of his Encyclopedia argues against an expectation of easy reading of his readers, and 2b2) who sees the "Vorstellung" (which not necessarily translates into "picture thinking", but stands for picture / sample / (vague) idea as opposite to notion / concept / arguments) as a form of thinking to be overcome by the philosophic mind (see for example his remarks on the Symbolic Art in his lectures on the philosophy of art).

2c)

2c1) OTOH, Hegel admits that when one has a concept / notion, that doesn't mean that one automatically also has the fitting pictures/samples, so this seems to remain an extra step / task to do. 

2c2) The time for this task however should come, after understanding the concept/notion.

2d)

We have today nice samples of popularized but still correct theories / arguments in natural science and in mathematic. Think for same samples about "Scientific American", Martin Gardner's books on mathematics or the books of Steve Hawkins (and I'm sure everyone of you can name your own samples, so even if you don't agree on my samples I hope you will see the point).

I would be amazed if one could argue, why this should, *a priori*, not be possible with Hegel's teachings too.

3.

3a)

As a last, but not least, argument, I think it is important to have such a condensed, popularized version of the essence of Hegelianism for any interdisciplinary work.

Why?

3b)

Most of the participants of the HEGEL-L mailing list are Hegel specialists and / or Philosophers, several of you being Philosophy Professionals (say Professors / Teachers of Philosophy).

3c)

However, as Hegel rightly stated, one can't focus and excel in all topics, one has to limit itself to some tasks.

3d)

OTOH, a philosophy of the type Hegel explains it in the Encyclopedia is meant to be the basic science of all other sciences. To gain or regain such a status of philosophy as the science of science, the king / queen of sciences etc., will only be possible in case one can include at least the most fundamental material/theories of the modern science into Hegelianism in a fruitful (bringing some kind of clarification, order and challenges to them) way.

3e)

This task, as far as I see can only be accomplished in interdisciplinary work, together with scientists of other fields.

3f)

Because of b) and c), this (d) means that we need somehow to comunicate the ideas/concepts of Hegelianism to others (3a).

This is also something common in natural science. Not every scientist knows every field. But he usually can rely on abbreviated/condensed informations in those topics he doesn't needs to concentrate on and relying on that these informations provided are accurate and that (s)he can dive deeper into any subject if he ever feels the need to.

While I feel that today we have good material for such a task, it seems to me (as an outsider to the academic work, I have to admit), that all the Hegel related work is more done on a kind of individual basis, with some kind of cooperation (quoting, discussion etc), but without a similar goal in mind as one can see it in the community of natural scientists, to work together to a systematic picture of the world, with the singular works fitting together. (see further comment)

I find this very astonishing especially for the supporters of the philosopher whom I see as the probably most systematic philosopher of the last centuries (or, in case you, dear reader, can't buy that, we might at least agree on that Hegel was the philosopher with the most systematic aim).

So the aim / task of Hegelianism seems to be not less but more then what Natural science aims at, so our task is even greater and I would like to see and help to provide work into that direction.

I realize that this task involves a tremendous effort / work and can only be done in a cooperation in a big way.

4.

But in case you take my analogy of natural science further, this works for natural science because they have a common ground / foundation to operate upon. So we need to have this also.

That's why I see that we need to come to some kind of agreement on the basic essence of Hegelianism before we even think of any step further.

And to me, I think that this can only be done on the base of arguments, not on quoting Hegel, turning his work into a new kind of bible.

We should love Hegel because he says so much true and reasonable, not the other way round to believe something as true and reasonable only because Hegel says so (Hegel once said to a lady watching him at a meal like a groupie: everything what is (only) personal from me as individual Hegel in my philosophy is probably wrong, so Hegel never called his philosophy Hegelianism (he would have thought that calling his philosophy in that way would be a way of implying its only relative truth. OTOH, I think it is okay to call ourselves Hegelians to distinguish or position from others). For me, Hegel aims at higher scientific standards than those common today, not lesser.

5.

So how to proceed:

I think first has to come Hegel research:

5a) We need good editions of Hegel's works and lectures together with adequate background informations like their relations to the other teachings of Hegel's time, how Hegel proceeded etc.

I think we have gained quite good material in that field up to now (at least here in Germany). So while still there is plenty of room for further studies in this area, the ground is solid enough to move into other areas:

5b) based on a) one needs clear comments both on an overall picture and on the details of the specific topics. Also, probably no other philosopher like Hegel will need it so much to always have the architecture of the overall system in mind when examining the details than Hegel (of course, I'm having the Hegel of the Encyclopedia in mind).

Based on the recent German works, I'd rather say that we are amazingly close to these goals. As far as I see, we have decent and clear comments on most parts of Hegel's system available in German (I once posted a short bibliography for that purpose to HEGEL-L). However, these comments are not all coordinated and I'd like to see people to work together much more in filling the holes and fitting everything together.

5c) 

Based on a) and b), we need to come to an outline of Hegelianism for the next step. In practice, we will need to have this evolving even at b), when we want to work together in a meaningful way.

5d)

In the next step, in order for Hegelianism to be meaningful and productive (contrary to pure "L'art pour l'art"), we need to include the knowledge and the theories of the last 160 years or so (since Hegel's death) into the system. (see further comment: has there been philosophy, meaningful to sublate, since Hegel's death?)

This might also very well mean changes to Hegel's System, in order to sublate all these theories in a productive way. (see further comment: which of Hegel's System to use as base?)

It is here were the real fun begins and I see a very joyful and meaningful and productive giant work before us.

(see further comment: what to change in Hegel's system)

6.

My motivation for all this is two fold:

6a)

While with the advance of natural sciences, chances for a, in a Hegelian sense, concrete universal framework of science, a complete system are better then ever (based on the amount of knowledge the scientific community acquires), on the other hand my impression is that on the other hand the foundations of our scientific community are beginning to erodes / falling apart with the success modern deconstructivism and others begin to have by transporting their ideas into the self consciousness of modern scientists.

So towards knowledge / science I don't only see modern science a challenge and enrichment for Hegelianism, but also Hegelianism as an enrichment to modern science, at the least helping to slowdown / stop the erosion of their fundaments, at the best by helping science to realize its own fundaments to flourish.

6b)

In my eyes even more important is the task/challenge to provide a new common ground / foundation to the practical/ethical thought.

This is virulent at least since the erosion of Christianity as the common ground of our western culture in the modern time, but becomes more and more apparent and severe.

How can for example the big tasks like peace keeping, environmental issues, organized crime, hunger and many others be successfully dealt with, if we don't have a common ground of understanding?

Will cultures fall apart into different culture islands, were religious fundamentalism, cultural chauvinism, terrorism and nationalism etc reign otoh, while otoh only wars and police will keep the world together? And, in as a matter of the inner state, how can a democracy function without a kind of consensus? How is this consensus reached? How is it granted to be rational, satisfying?

Hoesle has worked a lot on showing these problems in his books published at C.H.Beck, Munich. He also tries to provide a kind of Hegelian answer in is new "opus magnum": "Moral und Politik: Grundlagen einer polistischen Ethik fuer das 21.Jahrhundert", (a kind of rewrite of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right", under consideration of his arguments and critiques provided in "Hegel's System" and his other articles published at C.H.Beck).

Still a lot remains to be done.

Somehow I'm reminded when I see our intellectual situation of the last days of the Greek culture, and we may do a similar task then Plato and Aristotle. They also had the motivation, when they saw the erosion of the fundaments of their culture, to provide a new foundation. Well, we know, and Hegel realized it as well, that they only partially succeeded (the provided a new foundation but this was not able to stop the decline).

So it is very possible that we may see a similar fate. Still, I think the task is worth doing it anyway (also, we may *hope* that, as now our culture is that universal that we don't really have an alternative in the form of another culture to it, we might have the task to succeed this time).

 

[ >Kais Hegel-Werkstatt< ]
[ Neues | >zum Programm< | Artikel | Personen | Ressourcen | in english | Sitemap | Hilfe ]
[ Programm | Erklärungen | >making Hegel popular< ]

[ Comments on making Hegel popular ]


[Webmaster]