I’ve always valued the Germans more for their criticisms than for their positions. Hume, in my opinion, had it mostly right to begin with. (Which is weird considering that the Germans are known for their positive ideas and Hume for his negative ones.)
Hegel helped us accept the fundamental, historically rooted contingency of everything and in everything. But he also reveled in these transient zeitgeists a little too maniacally. Seriously, it was creepy. Quit calling shit “Spirit.”
This meant that he made tons of strange naturalistic fallacies. The sum of these fallacious instances can be called historicism and holism. These two methodologies lead to a century and a half of travesties: Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, World Wars I and II, the Holocaust, gulags, racism, Mao, 1984 (it’s a travesty that it had to be written, but good that it was), the Khmer Rouge, Ayn Rand (an indirect, reactionary travesty), nihilism, post-modernism, Nietzsche (it’s a travesty that he had to say what he said, but good that he did), Stalin, North Korea, Pete Rose not being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame (just kidding), etc., etc.
Basically what I’m asking is, is it kosher to judge a thinker by the pragmatic consequences of his thought (especially if the judger is a pragmatist)?