Hegel & Marxism

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: December 23rd, 2020, 3:06 pm My problem is that my experience with "the hegel affair" has functioned as a negation, constructing and enriching my knowledge of Hegel. I will certainly never be able to think about Hegel the same way again after this. I'm actually far more interested in pursuing that aspect rather than the original topic about that Marx bloke. Probably privately, to avoid controversy.
What do you mean "the hegel affair"? Is it that you are entertaining the bizarre idea that Hegel, the zenith of German Idealism, might be a materialist? If so, sorry, that's not a road I would go along with you.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

Elsewhere in the thread others point out that "Materialist" is an "empty" term. There is no Cosmic precise definition of Materialist. For me it feels like the Crusaders and Saracens who fought each other fighting for "God". Each had their sacred academic schools which gave the definition and to think otherwise was purely ridiculous. You pays your money you takes your road.

But my thoughts aren't really about that anyway. Around the world there are a few cathedrals in war zones, where they keep bomb and gun damage from various wars which they don't repair. The bullet holes are negative examples of peace, truth and love in a sense and yet they are kept because their error enrichens and strengthens the truth of the Cathedral. Indeed to repair them would weaken the Totality of the Church.
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

Asgeir Theodor:

In philosophy I am best described as a dialectical materialist, not in the orthodox Marxist sense but rather in the sense of Slavoj Žižek, grounded in his unusual materialistic interpretation of Hegelian idealism

Ouch, Zizek apparently also things Hegel was a materialist. That might actually hurt poster hegel and I's position as frankly I find Zizek incomprehensible.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: December 24th, 2020, 8:29 am Elsewhere in the thread others point out that "Materialist" is an "empty" term. There is no Cosmic precise definition of Materialist. For me it feels like the Crusaders and Saracens who fought each other fighting for "God". Each had their sacred academic schools which gave the definition and to think otherwise was purely ridiculous. You pays your money you takes your road.
What is a "cosmic precise definition"? That seems to be looking for eternal essences dwelling in a transcendental realm. I think it would be a plus for materialism by not seeking for truths there.

There might be different "flavors" of materialism, as so there are about almost every philosophical school. That doesn't mean all of them are futile attempts to find truths, what matters for they being worthy of discussion is that they are rational, coherent systems, consistent in their central tenets. I that sense, materialism can be very well defined and put in relation with other views, either next to each other in a spectrum or in the extremes. It is against this relative position of views that we can value a philosophical conception: if idealism stands as the only other alternative to materialism, it stands only as an inferior, limited, problematic conception.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: December 24th, 2020, 2:44 pm Asgeir Theodor:

In philosophy I am best described as a dialectical materialist, not in the orthodox Marxist sense but rather in the sense of Slavoj Žižek, grounded in his unusual materialistic interpretation of Hegelian idealism

Ouch, Zizek apparently also things Hegel was a materialist. That might actually hurt poster hegel and I's position as frankly I find Zizek incomprehensible.
Zizek is Hegel + Lacan. He reads Hegel through Lacan's psychoanalysis and as one would expect with such explosive combination, spends a lot of time correcting his erratic moves. He once said Hegel was a post-Marxist. That should give you an idea of the territories where he wanders. In any case, even if Zizek thought that the traditional view of Hegel's idealism is to be challenged and given a more heterodox interpretation, one would expect that he would make a case for it engaging with that traditional view, not summarily dismissing it as if was not a philosophical fortress to tear down, but a free pass through an open door.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

Here's some big Guns disputing Hegel that was actually an Idealist. Cambridge University website:

Cambridge Uni website : Wont let me post link but its

core/journals/hegel-bulletin/article/abs/what-kind-of-an-idealist-if-any-is-hegel/D1874BB8F5F9FB00E3340C79D821D0E2

What Kind of an Idealist (If Any) Is Hegel?

In this paper, I first explore Hegel’s own distinctions between various types of idealism, most of which he explicitly rejects. I discuss his notions of subjective, transcendental and absolute idealism and present the outlines of his criticisms of the first two as well as the motivation behind his commitment to a version of absolute idealism. In particular, I argue that the latter does not share the defining features of what is now commonly called ‘idealism’, as Hegel neither denies the existence of an external world nor even holds that we can only somehow indirectly infer the truth of propositions about the external world from the structure of some given mental material.

Etc. Etc. - this seems to be the source of poster hegels theory.

*******
As said I personally haven't the time to analyse Zizeks, Cambridge University , The history of ideas claims about Hegel's materialism or lack thereof. (I'm too busy actually trying to read Hegel to do that).
But what I would say here is that by bringing in the big guns on both sides the issue is at least respectable to debate. It is not as it seems automatically "ridiculous" to call Hegel a materialist.

I guess it comes down to how we assess claims which come at us out of the blue and contradict our cherished notions of reality. I think the answer to that is if at all possible do not use ridicule, be careful how to deal with seemingly outrageous claims. But its difficult, a thorny issue. But certainly not a simple one.

Merry Xmas!!
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: December 25th, 2020, 8:19 am Here's some big Guns disputing Hegel that was actually an Idealist. Cambridge University website:

In this paper, I first explore Hegel’s own distinctions between various types of idealism, most of which he explicitly rejects. I discuss his notions of subjective, transcendental and absolute idealism and present the outlines of his criticisms of the first two as well as the motivation behind his commitment to a version of absolute idealism. In particular, I argue that the latter does not share the defining features of what is now commonly called ‘idealism’, as Hegel neither denies the existence of an external world nor even holds that we can only somehow indirectly infer the truth of propositions about the external world from the structure of some given mental material.
I'm pretty sure I already addressed that. This does not put in doubt Hegel's idealism, nor pretends to put him among materialists. Hegel's idealism differs from other typical forms of idealism (which are more popular today, i.e. phenomenalism) in which ideas are the product of a thinking mind and there's no commitment to an objective reality. Things as they are conceived have no real existence in a realm outside the mind. These are non-realist idealists, but Hegel advocated for a realist version of idealism (just like Plato), since he believed the Absolute Idea does in fact exist.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 25th, 2020, 8:19 am Etc. Etc. - this seems to be the source of poster hegels theory.
If that was his source, he was confused. Most likely, taking realism for materialism. It would be just as controversial calling Plato a materialist, but the confusion would be based in the same concept.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 25th, 2020, 8:19 am It is not as it seems automatically "ridiculous" to call Hegel a materialist.
Sorry, but yes, it is. First one pays some respect to the basic philosophical canon and THEN one starts humbly, methodically, building the dissident opinions. Showing off while dismissing scholarly conventions right off the bat as useless garbage is entirely ridiculous.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

I think the Hegel's materialism claim is likely to go round in circles.

I think the issue for me here as said is not if his argument is wrong ultimately, but whether it is respectable that is how I think the discussion should be reframed.

You place great emphasis on the scholarly consensus and following conventions of discourse when you are the dissident .

"To start humbly, methodically , building the disident opinion etc."

You say nothing about how the consensus should treat the dissident opinion Am I to assume that it is fine for the consensus to speak to the dissident in the following lines as you did :

"I take it that not only you never read Hegel, but you never read anything about the history of philosophy, what are the major schools of thought, etc. You know, the basics."

To me this is just insults. You want to be treated with humility, and respect and yet its fine for you to pour derision on the other. What then are the rules for treating the dissident opinion. And where is this rule book supposed to be hiding anyway?

Here's my concern. Its very easy to hide behind the "scholarly consensus, history of Ideas", to give yourself an unfair advantage. What if the Hegel Materialists got a bit sly and started saying:

Well.. we know the old fashioned scholarly consensus, they all believed that stuff like sheep, but we are the new contemporary interpretation. They need to come to us with humility and slowly build their case, if we are to give them any credence."

The irony for me is that at least from reading Hegel with agreement of Greg Sadler a Hegel expert. Hegel rejects most Idealism, his Absolute Idealism isn't really what we would think of as Idealism anyway. For me at least its an argument over a non-issue, I dont say my claim is the Scholarly consensus of the History of Ideas to give myself an unfair advantage. Others have other opinion - and I respect those opinions as equals.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: December 27th, 2020, 9:31 am I think the Hegel's materialism claim is likely to go round in circles.
I think it meets a dead end.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 27th, 2020, 9:31 am I think the issue for me here as said is not if his argument is wrong ultimately, but whether it is respectable that is how I think the discussion should be reframed.
Sure, that's what I've been saying all the time: there is a way to put forward a challenge to the philosophical canon, which starts by acknowledging the existence of the philosophical canon.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 27th, 2020, 9:31 am You place great emphasis on the scholarly consensus and following conventions of discourse when you are the dissident .

"To start humbly, methodically , building the disident opinion etc."

You say nothing about how the consensus should treat the dissident opinion Am I to assume that it is fine for the consensus to speak to the dissident in the following lines as you did :
I'm all for dissidence. I'm all for the critique of scholarly conventions in all fields. There wouldn't be progress in the history of ideas if some people had not challenged the canonical views of their time. Yet, dissident voices must show competence in the field, have a thorough knowledge of the conceptual structures they are set to demolish, otherwise their critique will appear as mere ignorance. Posturing and bluffing will not achieve much in the pursue of that objective, specially if one arrives dismissing the existing scholarly consensus as not worth any attention. Even less in an internet forum, where anyone can say anything.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 27th, 2020, 9:31 am "I take it that not only you never read Hegel, but you never read anything about the history of philosophy, what are the major schools of thought, etc. You know, the basics."

To me this is just insults. You want to be treated with humility, and respect and yet its fine for you to pour derision on the other. What then are the rules for treating the dissident opinion. And where is this rule book supposed to be hiding anyway?
People should get at most the treatment that they give others. I got the "you never read Hegel" first, which I guess was the start of his whole stance crumbling down, after I had shown several sources that exposed without doubt the canonical view of Hegel as an idealist, a fact that required and was waiting for the proper response. And here is where you see that the underlying problem is not one of knowledge, but of attitude. He could have acknowledged right away the obvious, saying something like: "oh, well, everyone knows that Hegel is largely considered an idealist, but I would like to make the case that he should not...", but his pride could not afford this, so he went down the worst path: to belittle the philosophical canon as "some editors that compile articles", because he was too smart to waste his time on it. Sure.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 27th, 2020, 9:31 am Here's my concern. Its very easy to hide behind the "scholarly consensus, history of Ideas", to give yourself an unfair advantage. What if the Hegel Materialists got a bit sly and started saying:

Well.. we know the old fashioned scholarly consensus, they all believed that stuff like sheep, but we are the new contemporary interpretation.
Assuming there were the so called "Hegel materialists". Yes, that should have happened, but unfortunately, we know that was not what actually happened.
Neil Wallace wrote: December 27th, 2020, 9:31 am
The irony for me is that at least from reading Hegel with agreement of Greg Sadler a Hegel expert. Hegel rejects most Idealism, his Absolute Idealism isn't really what we would think of as Idealism anyway. For me at least its an argument over a non-issue, I dont say my claim is the Scholarly consensus of the History of Ideas to give myself an unfair advantage. Others have other opinion - and I respect those opinions as equals.
I'm not sure what you mean by "what we would think of as Idealism". Who is the "we" here? Apparently, it cannot be anything near a scholarly consensus, since you're arguing against it, so what is it? I think you're also confusing two domains here: one is about the internal disputes among philosophers, such as the disputes among idealists (or materialists, too), and the other is about the scholarly convention that classifies the schools of thought. When Hegel and his counterparts rejected each other's idealism, they did not present their case as a matter of placing their doctrines in opposite ontological battle tents. It was not like the "you're the materialist, I'm the idealist" type of discussion. They remained pretty much within the idealist umbrella. And that is what scholar convention acknowledges without dispute.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

I think it possible to challenge on a few points that may be fruitful (as opposed to challenging on unfruitful conclusions).

I am sceptical of your whole notion of a "scholarly consensus". From whence comes this? Is it what an encyclopaedia entry says and therefore it is the scholarly consensus. Where is the rule book that polls scholars and asks if they are in consensus. That's important because there is clearly an advantage to being in the "scholarly consensus". To my knowledge scholars are seldom in consensus.

Even if the scholars are proven to be in consensus, where is the rule book that states how you must approach them as like approaching a Chinese Emperor at court? No such book exists. In reality "Concepts" are thrown at us in hugely disruptive manner like them or not.

In this particular issue "what we would think of as idealism" that comes from Greg Sadler's Half Hour Hegel Youtube video on Reason where he says basically "Hegel's Idealism is not what we would think of as Idealism". So I am persuaded by the argument, so presumably is he. For all know many other people who have read Hegel closely are also of that opinion that Hegel was not an Idealist. On the other hand perhaps there are only 2 people in the universe who believe Hegel was not an Idealist. I am not about to start to ring around universities to ask Hegel scholars their opinion on the matter in order to establish the scholarly consensus. The opponent would simply say "you asked the wrong question" or whatever, we know how the game works.

From my reading of Phen Reason Section. This is my conclusion: that it is unhelpful and misleading to think of Hegel in Materialist/Idealist terms. Something we have gone over in this thread in some depth.

Ironically, as I have stated at length - my claim against your approach was that you were confused by scholarly categorisation and the reality of reading Hegel - but this is old news.

The experts may read this thread and form their scholarly consensus on it. But who cares as my more radical friend would say. From my reading of Hegel, Hegel would be deeply sceptical of "The scholarly consensus" approach. The reason being is that he demands that we work towards truth rather than be presented with it.

In the real world we are wise to use "ready meal pre prepared" type concepts and conventions such as "Don't cross at a red light". But in philosophy? As long as you obey the basic politeness and non violence rules - it appears something of a free for all - like it or not, that's just how it is.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm I am sceptical of your whole notion of a "scholarly consensus". From whence comes this? Is it what an encyclopaedia entry says and therefore it is the scholarly consensus. Where is the rule book that polls scholars and asks if they are in consensus. That's important because there is clearly an advantage to being in the "scholarly consensus". To my knowledge scholars are seldom in consensus.

Even if the scholars are proven to be in consensus, where is the rule book that states how you must approach them as like approaching a Chinese Emperor at court? No such book exists. In reality "Concepts" are thrown at us in hugely disruptive manner like them or not.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm Ironically, as I have stated at length - my claim against your approach was that you were confused by scholarly categorisation and the reality of reading Hegel - but this is old news.
There's no scholarly consensus on the truthfulness of philosophical statements, that is, on their metaphysical, ontological, epistemological and logical implications, but "Hegel is an idealist" is not a philosophical statement, not in that sense, it is a statement of fact about prevailing classifications or conventions in the history of philosophy, which is necessarily the concern of philosophers, too. One might always challenge the factual basis of the convention, which necessarily involves dealing with it directly, but it is a different business to challenge the fact of the convention. There might be different interpretations of Aristotle's philosophy, but is anyone entitled to claim that Aristotle is not to be classified among Greek philosophers? To find that issue controversial would be, as the old saying goes, to seek for the cat's fifth leg.

As for the existence of a canon of the basic classifications in the history of philosophy, academic compilations, which include encyclopedias, as well as scholar publications and major philosophers' own understanding of other philosophers' views, suffice as evidence. Hegel being an idealist is not controversial. Idealism not being materialism is not controversial either.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm In this particular issue "what we would think of as idealism" that comes from Greg Sadler's Half Hour Hegel Youtube video on Reason where he says basically "Hegel's Idealism is not what we would think of as Idealism". So I am persuaded by the argument, so presumably is he. For all know many other people who have read Hegel closely are also of that opinion that Hegel was not an Idealist. On the other hand perhaps there are only 2 people in the universe who believe Hegel was not an Idealist. I am not about to start to ring around universities to ask Hegel scholars their opinion on the matter in order to establish the scholarly consensus. The opponent would simply say "you asked the wrong question" or whatever, we know how the game works.
You can be persuaded if you want that "Hegel's Idealism is not what we would think of as Idealism". That statement, anyway, points at Hegel being a different kind of idealist, but still an idealist. That's why it does not invoke "Hegel's Materialism", but "Hegel's Idealism".
Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm From my reading of Phen Reason Section. This is my conclusion: that it is unhelpful and misleading to think of Hegel in Materialist/Idealist terms. Something we have gone over in this thread in some depth.
I disagree with whomever denies the Materialism/Idealism dichotomy in the history of philosophy.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm The experts may read this thread and form their scholarly consensus on it.
You had advocated strongly against the existence of a scholarly consensus, so it's mind-boggling that you mention it now.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm But who cares as my more radical friend would say.
I don't know which radical friend you're talking about, but it is very unlikely that someone from this thread recently ejected from the forum could be considered "radical", if by that we mean someone with a knowledge arsenal capable of challenging basic notions.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 1st, 2021, 3:23 pm From my reading of Hegel, Hegel would be deeply sceptical of "The scholarly consensus" approach. The reason being is that he demands that we work towards truth rather than be presented with it.
I would not put Hegel among formal scholars and I don't think he would either. Major figures in philosophy most likely were not, although most of them were knowledgeable enough that they could be considered authorities in their field.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

but "Hegel is an idealist" is not a philosophical statement, not in that sense, it is a statement of fact about prevailing classifications or conventions in the history of philosophy

- This is an assumption and interpretation of an ambiguous statement which has been my claim about your misreading of the statement all along.

If I say "Did you see her dress?"
This statement can be interpreted 2 ways without any other context. It can mean (1) Did you see the dress of the women, or (2) did you see the woman dress and put her clothes on.

With no other context, you cannot say claim 1 is the universal truth of the matter.

"Hegel is an Materialist" is an ambiguous statement. It can be read 2 ways, as explained number of times.
1) Hegel is categorised an materialist in the history of ideas.
2) Hegel's writing suggest he is an materialist

Hence you assume 1) to be the only interpretation of that statement. Which is the opposite of poster Hegel's point which is:
While the history of ideas (encylopaedias) categorize Hegel as an Idealist. The reality is - he isn't. Anyone who reads Hegel to any depth, would know that. This is the crux of the matter, but its apparently going to go round and round in circles.

"You can be persuaded if you want that "Hegel's Idealism is not what we would think of as Idealism". That statement, anyway, points at Hegel being a different kind of idealist, but still an idealist"

Not so. If I say a Dog is not what we would think of as a cat. You cannot jump to the conclusion that A dog is a different type of cat, but still a cat.


I disagree with whomever denies the Materialism/Idealism dichotomy in the history of philosophy.
-As it pleases you. You are free to disagree but you are fighting a Don Quioxote's windmill in that disagreement , because this was never the issue at stake.

the experts may read this thread and form their scholarly consensus on it.
You had advocated strongly against the existence of a scholarly consensus, so it's mind-boggling that you mention it now.
-An element of parody in that statement that didn't get across- probably need to reign in on the "mindboggling"

It appears that we disagree on most things. But it has been a pleasant enough experience, interesting for myself. Would like to thank you for thought provoking and stimulating conversation. Good luck in 2021!
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

Not so. If I say a Dog is not what we would think of as a cat. You cannot jump to the conclusion that A dog is a different type of cat, but still a cat.

- Better:

A wax apple is not what we would think of as an apple -> A wax apple is a different type of apple, but still an apple.

-Afterthought :)
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Count Lucanor »

Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: but "Hegel is an idealist" is not a philosophical statement, not in that sense, it is a statement of fact about prevailing classifications or conventions in the history of philosophy
- This is an assumption and interpretation of an ambiguous statement which has been my claim about your misreading of the statement all along.

If I say "Did you see her dress?"
This statement can be interpreted 2 ways without any other context. It can mean (1) Did you see the dress of the women, or (2) did you see the woman dress and put her clothes on.

With no other context, you cannot say claim 1 is the universal truth of the matter.
The statement was not ambiguous and context was provided. If I say "this dress is an antique" in a conversation about fashion, the intended meaning is pretty clear, as much as it is when someone says "Hegel is a materialist" in a discussion about philosophers.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm "Hegel is an Materialist" is an ambiguous statement. It can be read 2 ways, as explained number of times.
1) Hegel is categorised an materialist in the history of ideas.
2) Hegel's writing suggest he is an materialist
No. Actually both sentences denote the same univocal meaning: "Hegel (because of his philosophical works) belongs in the class of materialists". The class of materialists is an issue of convention in the study of the history of philosophy.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm Hence you assume 1) to be the only interpretation of that statement. Which is the opposite of poster Hegel's point which is:
While the history of ideas (encylopaedias) categorize Hegel as an Idealist. The reality is - he isn't.
That could have been a line of argument from your ejected friend, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't pursue that path, even after I offered him repeatedly the chance to address the issue from that perspective. He summarily dismissed it, belittling such sources as some marginal noise. You are now trying to compensate his failures, but at best it would be your line argument, nothing to do with his, but that's also questionable, since you imply that it was his failed argument that prompted you.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm Anyone who reads Hegel to any depth, would know that. This is the crux of the matter, but its apparently going to go round and round in circles.
No, that's the same preposterous argument. It again dismisses, as lacking any depth, the great majority of Hegel's readings and the basic academic conventions about his work from several centuries.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: "You can be persuaded if you want that "Hegel's Idealism is not what we would think of as Idealism". That statement, anyway, points at Hegel being a different kind of idealist, but still an idealist"
Not so. If I say a Dog is not what we would think of as a cat. You cannot jump to the conclusion that A dog is a different type of cat, but still a cat.
Your analogy is mistaken. The appropriate comparison, if we transpose from the statement about Hegel's Idealism, would be: "my dog's ferocity is not what we would think of as ferocity". Still a dog and still some form of ferocity.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 4:09 pm - Better:
A wax apple is not what we would think of as an apple -> A wax apple is a different type of apple, but still an apple.
Again, wrong comparison and a No True Scotsman fallacy. There's no one that we know of who would be fitted to claim that Hegel's Idealism is some sort of fake imitation (on purpose) of true Idealism. There are many nuanced conceptions of Idealism beneath the broader Idealism umbrella.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:I disagree with whomever denies the Materialism/Idealism dichotomy in the history of philosophy.
-As it pleases you. You are free to disagree but you are fighting a Don Quioxote's windmill in that disagreement , because this was never the issue at stake.
Surely, the Materialism/Idealism dichotomy is not in dispute. As it is not in dispute where the major philosophers as Hegel are to be placed in that classification.
Neil Wallace wrote: January 2nd, 2021, 2:55 pm It appears that we disagree on most things. But it has been a pleasant enough experience, interesting for myself. Would like to thank you for thought provoking and stimulating conversation. Good luck in 2021!
You're welcome. Good luck and nice 2021 for you, too!!
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: Hegel & Marxism

Post by Neil Wallace »

The statement was not ambiguous and context was provided. - disagree.
Not same univocal meaning
Misreading of my statement
Misunderstanding of analogy
Further Misunderstandings and misreadings.
2021 best wishes - correct.

Forgive me for not elaborating further as it will go on for ever. That in itself is a curious phenomena. And probably of more interest than this tennis game which for me is yielding diminished returns.

You can have last word :)

A suggest a new topic be started. That topic is How to Ensure Correct Transmission of Meaning between Reader and Writer.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021