Walter Kaufmann - Polemic against Popper (1965)
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
The Polemical Defender
Walter Kaufmann (1921-1980) is a colorful figure—a German émigré, translator of Nietzsche, Princeton professor, of polemical temperament. His book “Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary” (1965) is a direct attack on Karl Popper.[1]
The thesis: Popper had not read Hegel. His critique of Hegel (“The Open Society and Its Enemies,” Vol. 2, 1945) rests on secondary sources, misunderstandings, selective quotations. Kaufmann shows point by point where Popper misquotes, tears passages out of context, or uses texts Hegel never wrote.
Examples:
- Popper claims Hegel deified the Prussian state. Kaufmann shows: Hegel criticized Prussia (censorship, restoration) and was placed under surveillance because of it.
- Popper claims Hegel was a racist and nationalist. Kaufmann shows: Hegel defended Jews, criticized German nationalism, emphasized the universality of reason.
- Popper claims Hegel’s dialectic was dogmatic. Kaufmann shows: Hegel’s method is open—it develops out of contradictions, not out of dogmas.[2]
The method: Kaufmann re-translates Hegel’s texts (with extensive commentary) to show that Hegel is more comprehensible than critics claim. He contextualizes—shows against whom Hegel was writing, which debates he was engaged in, why he chose particular formulations.
Critique: Kaufmann himself tends toward polemic. His defense of Hegel is sometimes exaggerated—he makes Hegel into a liberal, a humanist, almost a democrat. That is one-sided. Hegel was more conservative than Kaufmann admits. But Kaufmann is right: Hegel was no totalitarian, no racist, no anti-democrat—the totalitarianism-theoretical appropriation of him is a caricature.[3]
Systematic significance: Kaufmann shows methodically how reception history functions—and how it goes wrong. Hegel is not read but filtered through prejudices. The task is: back to the texts—not naively, as though one could read “purely,” but critically, as one who can expose clichés.