Was Hegel a Charlatan?

[Aidan_Mclaren]

Was Hegel a Charlatan?

• Yes.
• No.
• Yes, but he had something useful to say.
• No, he was just a bad writer.
• Bad writing? His writing is excellent!

Was Hegel, the writer of “phenomenology of spirit” a charlatan who only wanted fame and gold? A notorious writer as well, did this help him achieve in his goals for philosophy or bread-making?

[someemofag]

Please read Judith Butler’s first essay in “Contingency, Hegemony, Universality.” You will change your mind regarding Hegal or at least you may see that he has important things to say.

[BlueChicken]

I do NOT claim to be an authority on Hegel by any means, indeed most of my understanding of Hegelianism came out of the reaction to him (I am well read in Kierkegaard and Marx, somewhat with Schopenhauer). But, from what I do know, Kierkegaard’s personal reflection on Hegel remains the most poignant to me:

@Soren Kierkegaard

If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic.

[Nothingness]

I’m not sure many people really read Hegel anymore. I think they usually get their knowledge of him from critiques of marxists, kierkegaard, and schopenhauer.

I can’t call him a charlatan. I really can’t say I get him either. Maybe this is a reason why. He did have some interesting ideas and an interesting thought process. Sartre seemed to have picked out some really good moments.

Whatever he was, many people were inspired to many different interpretations of his thought, though many erroneous and went many directions.

I plan on reading his shorter Logic sometime.

[Aidan_Mclaren]

Hegel makes a fundamental mistake by using “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to suggest that humans induce a Weltgeist, a world-mind-spirit.

[AlternateParallelRea (AlternateParallelReality)]

The more I read Hegel, the more I feel like the kid in The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Personally, while I appreciate that he was a gifted thinker who contributed a lot, I feel like his philosophy of history was some kind of each way bet, waiting to see who wins and then backing that horse. It’s like “who’s side are you on, Hegel” and he responds “the winning side, they’re the one who won!”…and it might be true, but he tends to come across like a kid tracing his way backwards through a maze to solve it.

I also think the whole Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis propostition (not that I’ve ever seen him use those words) is a pretentious way of avoiding syllogistic logic. There’s nothing wrong with the kind of logic everyone else uses, and if he can’t get his point across with it, then I have to be a little suspicious

[Joker]

I despise his dialecticism.

[BlueChicken]

@Joker

I despise his dialecticism.

Indeed many would argue that is the only solid theory he contributed to the tradition. Indeed Kierkegaard and Marx rely on it HEAVILY and Schopenhauer ackowledged it’s purpose.