Goethe's Problem With Hegel

Goethe was friends with Hegel, but held a negative opinion of Hegel's philosophy. In this video, we discuss the comments Goethe that made about Hegel, and the numerous interactions between the two men: such as when Goethe invited Hegel over for lunch in order to see what his daughter-in-law would say about him. She concluded that he was either brilliant or a madman. Goethe also asserted that Hegelian philosophy and its ponderous, complex language was ruinous for one's writing style when adopted as an influence. This tension culminates in a conversation at a tea party when Hegel, who has a tendency to monopolize the conversation, is finally shut down by Goethe, who coins a wonderful phrase: "Those made ill by dialectics would find healing in the study of nature.”
Buy my book: www.blackrosew...
Patreon: / untimelyreflections
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
#nietzsche #philosophypodcast #thenietzschepodcast #history #philosophy #historyofphilosophy #goethe #hegel #hegelianism #faust

[@raphbiss1]

This is basically the same criticism, though in a milder form, that Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, etc. have of Hegel. Too much philosophy becomes a barrier to "faith", or "existence" or "being", or "interiority", or "the knowledge of nature", or "mystical truths", or "subjective experience", etc.

[@Mcgif21]

Yeah I get addicted to THINKING about metaphysical things which is why I enjoy Hegel, but the other half of that is the meditative and direct experience (which Hegel unfortunately denounces or has little appreciation for in Phenomenology)

[@Formscapes]

It's a tad misleading to make this out ad though it was some sort of rivalry though. Hegel himself praised Goethe's naturalistic phenomenology and credited Goethe for ensuring that he never became lost in intellectual abstractions. So Hegel saw the danger that Goethe was pointing towards and took it very seriously, though I think Goethe would argue (correctly) that Hegel never reeeeeally got the point.

[@alecmisra4964]

Ironic that heidegger should make such a point.

[@somekindofstranger9612]

@@alecmisra4964 what's ironic in that?

[@PierreLucSex]

@@raphbiss1 same bullshit everytime

[@azeemquraishi5669]

So Goethe basically told Hegel to touch grass

[@UntitledDoc]

Jaw dropped when you said Hegel's daughter in law was Schopenhauer's sister, cant believe I never heard that. Awesome video, you've earned a subscriber.

[@untimelyreflections]

It's actually incorrect; video has been edited to remove that. Adele Schopenhauer was best friends with Ottilie von Goethe, his daughter-in-law. I misread the bio I was using as a source and the similarity in the names tripped me up. So, long story short: Adele was probably the first one to hear of the story from Ottilie, but she actually wasn't Goethe's daughter-in-law. My mistake. Sorry!

[@UntitledDoc]

@@untimelyreflections ah I see, still loved the video!

[@untimelyreflections]

@@UntitledDocthanks!

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

@@UntitledDoc and I'm blind with googly grey eyes literally retarded I just wanted to do it again

[@Erl0sung]

Schopenhauer and Goethe were still acquaintances. Goethe had sympathy for the young Schopen and they even collaborated in their theories of color.

[@nezar-6889]

8:47 "What we agree with leaves us unmoved; dissent is what makes us productive." I agree with this

[@nezar-6889]

Yes, please give likes because irony!

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

What we agree builds what we dissagree disolves, form is the reality disolution is ignorance.

[@raymundo2302]

This is dialectics

[@kevinmbtbass]

I disliked to progress the dialectic :)

[@nezar-6889]

@@kevinmbtbass I liked your dislike

[@Lampredi4]

I suppose one problem with considering the reception of Hegel on Goethe would be that the two didn’t quite belong to the same generation or worked off the same premisses. Ernst Cassirer’s “Rousseau, Kant, Goethe” gets into how the only part of Kant’s system that Goethe quite vibed with was the 3rd critique on aesthetic judgement, and not at all the 1st critique on epistemology which Schiller in his immediate circle had been fond of this. I think this’d be a great barrier for him in terms of making sense of Hegel given Goethe was somewhere around Thomas Reid’s common sense realism on epistemology while Hegel was having to grapple with the aftermath of Hume and Kant on the subject. If you take Charles Taylor’s read on Hegel’s system as broadly correct, then most of Hegel’s and Goethe’s aims and interests coincide. Hegel was trying to, from within the Kantian system of pure bifurcation of phenomena and noumena (the extent is overstated because Kant was quite willing to admit in works like the Grundlegung that man straddles both), get back to the outside world from Kantian idealism in a tendency that was quite Spinozist. Both further shared the same cherishing of a Greek innocence, though Goethe was in it more for the oneness with nature while Hegel was in it more for the oneness of the community an in how the self was lived through the community constitutive of it. Hegel was further, in his own right a naturalist focused on geology and a mathematician, his lifelong focus was to, in Geuss’ reading, break out of Kant’s straitjacket on epistemology and to - via the movement and development of thought and concept through its necessity as each concept falls into contradiction - get at the unity of subject and object that allowed for his work as a naturalist. Goethe, as someone who didn’t vibe with Kant’s 1st critique, was just never going to understand what Hegel was doing, and how much younger Hegel was - my favourite heuristic to get the sense is that Goethe began writing the Ur-/comic Faust a year before Hegel was born and finished the Aeschylean act 3 of part II (the last part to be finished) a year after Hegel died - meant that he was going to be primed to be dismissive here.

[@william6223]

I am much appreciative of your reply. One of my main projects is to elucidate the distinctions between tribes/communities/partisans/zealots. The dogma/ideologies of any group, and the precepts of that group, too often will ignore other opinions. This is a failing of human nature which we need to overcome. To do otherwise is to accept decline and detachment from reality. Attempting to manifest human providence, by taking into account human nature, is encouraged by Goethe's views. Do we starve guiding our lives via the wisdom of Goethe or Hegel?

[@LiamPorterFilms]

Ever heard of a paragraph?

[@Lampredi4]

Read Kant, you don’t use paragraphs when speaking of him :D

[@Jack-in-the-country]

Thank you for voicing this. I couldn't agree more that Hegel and Goethe share very similar aims, even if Hegel took a detour through Kant's transcendental idealism in order to get back to nature.

[@Grizzlekidizzle]

Thanks

[@MrSkypelessons]

Great story, thanks mate. I've always found it fascinating that Spinoza was also a lens grinder, and his lenses were used in the best telescopes of his day. He was not only a rationalist (in theory), but also an empiricist (in practice). A man gotta eat!

[@danilo_milo]

Spinoza is neither a rationalist nor an empiricist, he is the GOAT

[@sylviaowega3839]

Spinoza no doubt had the most profound effect on my thought processes and my whole world view.

[@MrSkypelessons]

@@sylviaowega3839 Me too. Spinoza and Nietzsche opened my eyes

[@SmilingIbis]

Jeeves was fond of spending an afternoon reading Spinoza.

[@vidavieira1595]

It's super weird to refere to Spinoza as a racionalist paring him with Descartes

[@ronald3836]

No criticism of Hegel can be sufficiently scathing to do his contribution to philosophy and mankind justice.

[@jonasastrom7422]

The fuck did he and Kant ever contribute? Other than the destruction of progress in society?

[@ronald3836]

@@jonasastrom7422 That is exactly what I mean.

[@jonasastrom7422]

@@ronald3836 I misread it

[@MaksFaks-kl1zj]

@@jonasastrom7422 I do not recall Hegel advocating for troons though, so he good :))))

[@GeraltOfRivia-po4cq]

​@MaksFaks-kl1zj he kinda did tho. Maybe not consciously & directly & intentionally, but he did.

[@Eudaemoniac]

Mephistopheles in Goethe’s Faust says “I am the Spirit who ever Negates”. I wonder if this was influenced by Hegel

[@PierreLucSex]

Probably some ancient greek shit already.

[@TheTheshreyasraj]

Interesting observation

[@wlrlel]

Nope, Goethe wrote it before Hegels works were published. Although it's interesting how many thoughts from Goethes works are similar to Hegels (even though these two were very different in many things)

[@PierreLucSex]

@@wlrlel it's part of the hellenic renaissance. Not THE Renaissance of course. I'm talking about the Iena Circle.

[@vonroretz3307]

@@wlrlelPerhaps it was Hegel who lifted it from Goethe then..

[@phothar93]

Sounds like Goethe brilliantly saw through the dangers of historicism. He is very underrated as a philosopher and deserves to be studied more.

[@mertroll1]

Probably because is not a philosopher

[@jonp3890]

@@mertroll1Goethe lived his life gloriously above the constraints of philosophy, and there’s a lot to be said for that, in and of itself, imo. Otoh, so did Voltaire, another favorite of mine, who never devised any systems to shackle himself with, and yet he’s considered, albeit not usually all that seriously, as a philosopher far more often. Seems like any approach to the “philosophy” of an artist/writer, etc., probably ought to be done from a periphery and considered as more or less a byproduct. “Grey is all theory, but the golden tree of life is green!”

[@coachjay9683]

I started reading the phenomenology yesterday, I could not get through even the preface without getting the sensation that I was falling up a flight of stairs, every bit of progress left me with bruises as I was dragged along by sentences that I feared would never end. Only to be pulled back into the following sentence with hope that it may illuminate with context my growing confusion.

[@pdcdesign9632]

Is "falling up a flight of stairs" the same as "falling down" into the sky?

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

You can listen to the phonetics behind his philosophy, he can't. It's a natural, dualist language. Why a preface to philosophy is bullshit. It's a mix of our as a objective many world interpretation within the philosophy of the mind.

[@Mcgif21]

It’s hardcore metaphysics (not mere philosophy) which my brain can digest pretty well. I enjoy it but it over-intellectualizes things a little too much than is helpful.

[@sussybaka3117]

I recommend just accepting the tautologies, and get used to the fact that hegel says one thing 10 ways to get you thinking around the concept.

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

@@sussybaka3117 we aren't even on the same algorithm

[@SoilInfiltrator]

Wow, just wow. I'm absolutely impressed by the high quality of your work.

[@CPHSDC]

I read philosophy in College until I didn't know what to think. (I did learn how to think.) Then I became a surgeon (12 more years of study) and the answer to these fundamental questions about man, society, nature, and man's role in this world, kept slapping me awake.

[@Dee-ei1xm]

Still reading hegel, taking my time. Its been about 4 years. He is very focused on the relationship of subject and object, to the point where i start relating it to some buddhist ideas. So far my conclusion, even though im not done, is that he is repeating unknowlingly, what many ancient religious ppl had discovered a long time ago. Extremely paradoxical, therefore frustrating but not totally meaningless.

[@carterkauffold4077]

Very true, and insightful. Hegel was, in fact, attempting to finalize the “perennial philosophy” which he believed was an understanding of the universe present in the collective unconscious, and that every religion and philosophy up until him was all expressing different versions of the same story

[@wlrlel]

And still, he doesn't just state those mysterious subject-object relations, but makes them reasonable. By that, they become something pretty different than in buddhism etc. And Hegel never really meant a mystic total identity of subject and object (you may think about the last chapter of the Phenomenology - but there is a reason why he integrated it into his later system in a pretty different shape. To understand Hegel, the Science of Logic is what one has to read)

[@augustosochalm3761]

Those interactions at the end of Goethe's life should turn into a film. They are extremely interesting and this is a fabulous scenario to explore.

[@untimelyreflections]

Yeah, I want this very badly. Or just a film adaptation of Faust

[@thomasgeorggoenitzer]

@@untimelyreflections If you want a film adaptation of Faust, I highly recommend the one by F.W. Murnau, one of Germany's greatest directors. It's a brilliant film.

[@ciprianturta2757]

Treating philosophy as sepparate from the other domains of inquiry and expression is making a metaphisical and epistemological judgement without admiting it and being conscious of it. Those judgements have implicitly into themselves the mediation of the entire history of thought. You cannot escape culture and the ground of it that is philosophy. If you think you do you are not aware of your assumptions

[@alohm]

"Goethe's Problem With Hegel" : Only 18.5 mins long?! Is this part 1/15? ;)

[@kingdm8315]

Been trying to even understand Hegel before I actually get into his primary works and this dude is impenetrable.

[@liamsilveira4757]

At the risk of doing something incredibly presumptive, I’d like to give you a tip for reading Hegel. Please know that I am neither a professor nor even university trained. But I have been in your position, and I think I’ve made real progress in understanding him. As far as I’m concerned, the key to understanding Hegel is in the movement from the “private” to the “public.” Here, I use “public” in a very particular way, the way that Kant used it when talking about “public reason.” Public reason is the common space of discourse, where claims are investigated for their truthfulness and arguments are followed to their conclusions. You or I might hold all sorts of opinions privately. But when we try to articulate what we believe we do so “in public.” If I make a particular claim about this or that historical figure, Hegel for example, the moment I articulate it, it becomes debatable. Even more so, it can be investigated to determine the reasons I might have had for making claiming it in the first place. But Hegel goes even further showing that our private claims are always already public. I can only have opinions about, ex. hegel, because i live in a society that has books about him, access to bookstores etc. At the limit case, even my most private thoughts are formed in a shared language. The example I gave is about the relationship between thought (private) and culture (public.) But the basic logic holds everywhere across his thought. Even what we take for a concrete, “privately” subsistent ontological concept has the same structure. We start by taking for granted that “being” has a clear, self-subsistent meaning; but the second we try to formulate what we think about it we inevitably have recourse to an ever-widening network of concepts (nothingness, becoming, specificity etc.) so that in the end we realize that what we took for immediate and self-transparent is actually just one node in an ever expanding network. As a general rule, the more “public” or “mediated” the concept, the more complete it is. For instance, Hegel prefers a person who actually gets things done even though they might involve themselves in morally questionable acts to a person who has all the right opinions (here opinions are relatively more private than actions, as they dont straightforwardly reveal their relationship to public consequences) but who never actually acts because they are afraid to get their hands dirty (a fear that in the end actually causes more grief than a little bit of moral ambiguity might have.) Lastly, another way of thinking about Hegel is in terms of “already being in the middle of things.” Most philosophers like to act as though they can make an absolute start (what sometimes gets called positing.) What Hegel shows is that every attempt to start always takes place in a world thats already well established, whether that start be the introduction of an ethical position, an ontological concept, a political program etc. hegel tries to show that behind every “first person” perspective is a wider “third person” reality. I hope that helps. Again, my apologies if this seems like a waste of time

[@liamsilveira4757]

I’d recommend Inwardness and Existence by Walter Davis (more or less synonyms for what im calling private and public) and the podcast why theory (cohosted by one of Davis’s former students, Todd Macgowan)

[@igorcapelari]

I really think reading hegel himself is worthless. The only way a non hegel specialist can take anything from his thinking is from comentators.

[@BlankBey0nd]

@kingdm8315 read zizek. Hegel displaces kants discovery into the fabric of reality. That is, that the reality of reality is that reality is distanced from and split from itself, that reality is in fact the permanence of this split or loss itself. A thing is not immediately itself (a does not equal a), there is an irreducible gap or excess inherent to the object and this gap or excess in the object is the subject itself. Hegel destroys every philosophical position and establishes an understanding of radical freedom.

[@Shamino1]

@@BlankBey0nd How is this just not a fanciful regurgitation that no one and nothing obtains their perfect 'form,' as noted in Platonics?

[@damin1916]

Hegel is very popular among the youngsters these days, very hip topic, I think this video will do well.

[@PierreLucSex]

Better Hegel than clown Peterson

[@OdoItal]

Both are great minds! The irony is that Hegel arguably has had far greater impact on actual events in the world than Goethe. If you count the effect of Hegel via Marx on nations, economies, revolutions. The actual material effect of Hegel is massive.

[@TobEOrN0t2bE]

Marx to Hegal what Aristotle was to Plato. Turned the philosophies of their teachers right side up. From idealism to empiricism

[@SerpMolot]

​​@@TobEOrN0t2bE Marx was not an empiricist in the "British" sense of the word. He did not employ positivistic thinking, instead opting for a dialectical approach to understanding history. Namely, how economic systems replace each other and the cause behind it. He continued the process by theorizing what a future economic system would look like utilizing Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic. He didn't "put Hegel on his feet" by switching from idealistic to empirical, rather from idealistic to materialistic (in a very Marxist sense of that word).

[@Erl0sung]

That's a dishonorable legacy.

[@burnhamsghost8044]

Unfortunately true

[@tonegoober]

⁠@@Erl0sungone could then easily say the same for Hume’s empiricism, as capitalism has a death toll much greater even than communism; we likely have yet to see the full extent of the consequences.

[@christofeles63]

A propos Goethe's [naive] empiricism and nearness to "nature"--it overlooked the very thing that makes the precision of the exact sciences possible--their mathematicization. One wonders if he understood the distinction between giving reasons and causal explanation; between description and explanation. He was in fact far more aligned with Hegel on matters of empiricism than this video suggests, as Hegel himself accepted Goethe's criticism (misunderstanding) of Newton. Though I doubt Hegel would have agreed that natural science is a matter of collecting impressions of nature, he validated Goethe's phenomenology of perception in the matter of the origin/constitution of colors. Goethe did not understand Hegel, and it is questionable whether Hegel always understood himself (viz., the import of his logic's methodological self-implications). Hegel understood Goethe, possibly also in the sense of seeing through him (= understanding his limitations as a thinker). Did either understand the logic of scientific discovery to involve a hypothetico-deductive process as defined by Popper? I think it's safe to say that whatever his speculative focus as a dialectician, Hegel would have understood the natural scientific method about as well as any scientist working in his day, such was his encyclopedic knowledge of things theoretical. He would have understood it as inadequate for the theoretical matters he was interested in. It would be interesting to know more about Goethe and Hegel's understanding of the role of the mathematical in theoretical physics. There are properties of the physical universe which have been discovered by theoreticians (investigators and researchers) firmly ensconced in their armchairs (theoretical ivory towers) purely by thinking in the language of numbers/equations. Numbers are at the heart of nature and exactness in science positively presupposes abstract symbols. Thus a certain realism vis-a-vis numbers has been vindicated, and numbers are as abstract as it gets, using that term in its non-Hegelian sense. For Hegel, not symbols/concepts but perceptions and matter itself are abstract : a handful of dirt is more abstract ('dumb and blind') than a dialectically mediated concept (one whose 'moments' have been explicated). Alas, there will never be a debate between Goethe and Hegel on the nature of the mathematical. Wittgenstein's comments about the "vague schematic outline" below sound a lot like Goethe's general criticism of Hegel. Wikipedia: "Goethe's theory of the constitution of colours of the spectrum has not proved to be an unsatisfactory theory, rather it really isn't a theory at all. Nothing can be predicted with it. It is, rather a vague schematic outline of the sort we find in James's psychology. Nor is there any experimentum crucis which could decide for or against the theory." - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on Colour, paragraphs 70 It is hard to present Goethe's "theory", since he refrains from setting up any actual theory; he says, "its intention is to portray rather than explain" (Scientific Studies). Instead of setting up models and explanations, Goethe collected specimens-he was responsible for the meteorological collections of Jena University. By the time of his death, he had amassed over 17,800 minerals in his personal collection-the largest in all of Europe. He took the same approach to colour-instead of narrowing and isolating things to a single 'experimentum crucis' (or critical experiment that would prove or disprove his theory), he sought to gain as much breadth for his understanding as possible by developing a wide-ranging exposition through which is revealed the essential character of colour-without having to resort to explanations and theories about perceived phenomena such as 'wavelengths' or 'particles'. "The crux of his color theory is its experiential source: rather than impose theoretical statements, Goethe sought to allow light and color to be displayed in an ordered series of experiments that readers could experience for themselves." (Seamon, 1998). According to Goethe, "Newton's error.. was trusting math over the sensations of his eye." (Jonah Lehrer, 2006)." Wikipedia But scientific explanation in terms of laws is precisely a matter of "imposing theoretical statements"--no theory, no perception/facts. Anyone who has properly understood Kant (or Popper) would appreciate that theories are the indispensable first-step in all nomothetic-deductive explanation. Simply amassing observations in support of a 'theory' à la Goethe is more a form of confirmation bias, than natural science. What Goethe was doing in his Farbenlehre--some form of definition by way of observation, intuition, and description--was not pure nonsense = invalid. It was valid (or viable) in its own "experiential" (phenomenological) terms without being experimental. Rather like any work of art. The differences between Hegel and Goethe resolve into their distinct cognitive preferences/styles. Hegel was instinctually intellectual and Goethe spontaneously artistic. Thus we have a case of a nature loving poetic sensibility failing to grasp the theory-dependence of the scientific, with the implication that one can be an "empiricist" (perhaps sensualist would be a better descriptor) without being a scientist. And the instance of an intellect who put his faith not in sight but in insight-gaining, such that nothing human was off-limits to his imperialist, totality-seeking and systematizing reflection, including theology. In Plato's terms: Goethe was more the lover of sights and sounds, Hegel of insight pure.

[@wellawoods1660]

u can launder any reality u like with a rage wojak it's great. just have the guy u like appear calm and beatific, and the one u don't like, who secretly confuses and scares u, be the one who's raging. it's honestly better than philosophy.

[@LazyLaw-]

Shitposter’s checkmate

[@ucst4fu5vknihxub6eryreza2]

you can even add a 3rd synthesisjak if you want

[@wellawoods1660]

@@ucst4fu5vknihxub6eryreza2 respectful chuckle

[@KarlKarsnark]

Nothing can teach us more about the nature of Reality than the reality of Nature. All of the Ancients were mathematicians and "natural" philosophers at their core, which is why their work endures across Time. Conversely, Hegel is a creature of (Modern) Academia where loquacious obfuscation, rather than elucidation, is rewarded and praised. The more convoluted and inscrutable the better, or so it seems. Indeed, there are few who say less with more than Hegel. This, of course, is the age old error of the pseudo-intellectual mistaking complexity for insight and the convoluted for the clever.

[@ronald3836]

@@KarlKarsnark Well said.

[@QualeQualeson]

I like that. What better way to rule a space than to construct it yourself.

[@durfdurffigan8680]

Yeah but his philosophy history rocks, so the man’s chill in my books.

[@lucasrinaldi9909]

Your comment is based on assumptions that are so historically incorrect that it's hard to know where to start cleaning up this mess.

[@QualeQualeson]

@@lucasrinaldi9909 Let's hear it. You're just in uni and have some woke nonsense to regurgitate about culture being the governing factor.

[@Formscapes]

Good to see that others are also taking an interest in Goethe. I definitely wouldnt say that Goethe was antiphilosophical per se, even though sometimes his own rhetoric points towards that, so much as he was insistent upon a phenomenological naturalism which was far more radically empiricist than either the British or German philosophical traditions. As I've attempted to argue, his radical naturalism is a big deal - with implications which have been clearly percieved by very few of his own time or after.

[@igorcapelari]

What a great surprise seeing you here

[@claironaut]

funny seeing you here, Gandalf

[@PierreLucSex]

I'm not a Goethe specialist but it seems to me that his "objective study", or study from the pov of the object itself, has both merits (for the plants for instance) and fails (for colors indeed). Hegel, for an idealist, didn't hesitate to plant a tree of freedom at the French revolution at the frontier. They both had underestimated merits, but I can't see the failures of Hegel.

[@untimelyreflections]

I agree with this assessment 100%. I personally find a great deal of philosophical content in Goethe's literary work, and he of course leaves us his maxims. But radical naturalism is a great term for it. Erich Heller discusses this in his work on German poetry, with two great chapters on Goethe.

[@sylviaowega3839]

Goethe was indeed a philosopher, but at the same token wasn’t too found of German idealism and some of Hegel’s notions, like with his Dialectics

[@santacruzman8483]

Outstanding presentation and content....as usual!

[@danieljliverslxxxix1164]

I've heard it said that Hegel is impossible to read but easy to understand. When Nietzsche is arguing against these kinds of scholastic philosophers he is directly talking about Hegel. His philosophy is that of the German university, closed and safe and thus impractical despite its brilliance. I think it is without debate that Schopenhauer was and remains the true heir of Kantian metaphysics.

[@carterkauffold4077]

Agreed, Hegel’s system was much less of a response to Kant and more of a reasonifying, if you will, of Goethe, shelling, and Bohme

[@danieljliverslxxxix1164]

@@carterkauffold4077 Once you know wtf Hegel is on about you either take it as profoundly insightful or dreadfully obvious and mundane. I don't discredit Hegel and it seems apropos Schopenhauer's philosophy of Wil--if Will manifests existence out of a casual necessity then this would apply to history and the movement of evolution. I think Hegel's biggest problem was in trying to describe something that had to be inwardly visualized. I think Fichte and Schelling better actuated how knowledge moves historically than Hegel.

[@PierreLucSex]

"closed and safe" 😂😂😂 let me laugh at this time of european coups and revolutions

[@sylviaowega3839]

What I love about Schopenhauer is that unlike Hegel, he didn’t fall into trap of defending religion, and didn’t have that insatiable to be a Christian apologetic. In my view, ind cannot be a genuine deep thinker if one apologizes for an established religion; or any religion, mind you

[@ismireghal68]

14:00 *HELPLESS DIALECTICIAN GETS SCHOOLED BY FURIOUS GOETHE WITH SCIENCE AND FACTS*

[@captain-chair]

It reminds me of Marx's thoughts on Hegelianism. I think Marx's position of turning Hegel on its head with dialectical materialism was a great solution to the problem. But of course some argue that the Marxist style is too cold and detached from the soul. I think such a criticism is a caricature of Marx rather than an actual truth, it's merely that by todays standards his words are rather dry, but less dry during the period in which theu were made. I think Marx may be the most successful of the modern philosophers, Marx's influence goes far beyond any of the other German or even European philosophers. Marx is a respected figure by many in almost every country in the world to some extend, trancending language and cultrual barriers. Marx isn't popular amongst all these people, but he is certainly respected. Hegel has a point that ideals change history, but Marx posits these ideas are born from actually existing conditions, for it is these conditions which give birth to these ideals. This process is inevitable but never is it deterministic.

[@vsaucyboi7214]

Based Marxism.

[@harshtiwari6893]

The dialectic created here has led to the greatest problems in contemporary philosophy - the inability of both art and philosophy to solve the pains of the human soul and society. Art has become too infected by "the world of ideas", it no longer comforts or expresses - it speculates. Philosophy has become to abstruse to be usable in politics or elsewhere - too infected by the need to critique everything. Ultimately, Goether was right, but, in being right he proved the creator of the dialectic right too.

[@marcinkrocki8114]

Terrific video! Small correction: Plato wants some poets to be accepted by governing bodies, the ‚bad’ ones are to be removed entirely, he does not call for entire removal of musicians. (Republic)

[@CriticallyRealist]

17:03 Please, more videos on this dichotomy.

[@conorkrane7321]

Wow, what an exciting and well researched exposition of a spectacular moment in intellectual history. Thank you!

[@whoaitstiger]

A minor nitpick but apparently (I just looked this up) Adele was actually best friends with Ottilie von Goethe, who was in fact his daughter-in-law. Adele was very close to the family, she is said to have referred to Goethe as father and often visited. So while I believe it was actually Ottilie at the dinner I don't doubt Schopenhauer's sister would have been the first to hear about the encounter. I'm kind of disappointed to learn this detail because I had this whole image in my head of angry Arthur Schopenhauer finding out his sister met Hegel and saying "You see? He is a total fraud, just like I told you!" 🤣

[@untimelyreflections]

Man, this was a huge oversight. I misread something in a biography about Goethe and confused the two of them. I've edited the video to remove those parts that have the incorrect information, the video should reflect the changes as soon as KZbin processes them. Thanks for catching this!

[@robcrowe11]

There is something to be said re: Goethe's criticism of Hegel concerning "natural science" but his claim and its repetition that Hegel's style is somehow the problem is the least interesting, most obscurantist take on the philosopher. It misses the point that in the Phenomenology Hegel is attempting to demonstrate the movement of thought. In criticisms such as this you can hear Goethe's anxiety that it will George Friedrich rather himself who will be the German writer of the 19th century. It may be with alas (for some) to say it, but Hegel was most certainly that. Belatedly Nietzsche and Rilke changed that, and the fruition of historiography begun in the Romantic period is probably the most influential of the time shared by Goethe and Hegel, and neither had much time for "edification" as that. However it is time for English speakers who profess competence in philosophy to stigmatize Hegel on difficulty of style. Kant, regarded a much greater philosopher now, wrote horrendous German. One can equally say that the insights of Fichte and Schelling are clouded over by their prose. But the fact is starting with Aristotle, philosophy in the west is characterized by the difficulty of style. Compare Spinoza, Leibniz, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc. None write a transparent prose, and Spinoza's Ethics and Wittgenstein's Tractatus are equal to the Phenomenology, a bildung of Geist, as works of philosophy as art. And then read even something Wilfrid Sellars, The Myth of Given or W.V.O Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, which both align philosophy with natural science in their way. Neither will strike a literary reader as clearly written. The charge of obscurity and difficulty when applied to a philosopher of historic standing, such that their work has been read, built upon, refuted but sympathetically or simply enjoyed for what it is, is the cheapest way to tell readers to not even try that book. Because Goethe, a writer of fiction and diaristic observation, does not want to have to pay attention to Hegel, he berates the younger writer on the matter of style. It is one of the oldest ways to play the game of philosophy vs poetry, except Hegel has use for poetry. So interesting Goethe quotes, but do not pretend to be even wrong about Hegel!😂

[@DugongClock]

Seriously this video gave me a reaction I’m sick of at this point. “Oooo a criticism of Hegel? …wait it’s just polemic based on his style.” The fact Goethe thinks Christianity ever fully escaped philosophy, or philosophy escaped religion, shows how little of Hegel he wishes to contend with. Just like Schopenhauer, Russell, Moore, and Nietzsche; they criticize form, not content, and when they attempt to elucidate the content they fail, making a caricature of Hegel and revealing their own ignorance of the text.

[@Cyclopsvision14]

If you want an actual introduction to Hegel don't start with the Phenomenology of Spirit go for the Philosophy of History. It is far more accessible.

[@ciprianturta2757]

I would say that you could do that but in order to read any other work of Hegel and to be closer to the spirit of it you've got to go through The Phenomenology of Spirit because that is the ground work for all the Hegelian thought from Science of logic onwards. Holgate's book on the P of S and GB Sadler video courses on yt should make the text more accesible. But also it is a commitment, like learning a new language

[@Cyclopsvision14]

@@ciprianturta2757 yes of course. PoH is just more worth your time of you're starting out. It gives you a base to think from.

[@ciprianturta2757]

@@Cyclopsvision14 indeed

[@itsdespues]

What an amazing video and discussion…. Goethe sounded jealous of Hegel, if for no other reason than that he could explain that which he perhaps would’ve preferred to keep hidden or have explained himself. The prospect of Hegel’s talkativeness could be a testament to his appreciation for life (I mean, what else compels the spirit of a true philosopher?), though it does not mean that he could not be helped to improve socially. Actually I would say Goethe’s distant acknowledgment of his annoyance with Hegel’s talkativeness and his refusal to actually inform his friend is a critical error as a missed philosophical opportunity.

[@Shamino1]

I can understand the charge that Schopenhauer was jealous of Hegel due to the direct competition for students. I cannot see the charge of jealousy being given to Goethe, or the other German/French/English philosophes that, for all their bluster and haughtiness, found Hegel thrice as blustery and haughty as all of them put together. If your work is indecipherable, when is it the issue of the reader and not the author?

[@itsdespues]

@@Shamino1 I totally agree that there is a charge to make of an author who needlessly dances around topics and perhaps digs too much in the minutiae of a subject to make their point-it’s one of the chief reasons why I struggled to get through Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People-but also to another extent, there are some things which we may not be ready for at the time that it is brought to us. Sometimes, as in Hegel’s case since philosophers tend to have to speak on elementary topics by introducing them arbitrarily in order to make larger points, yes there is blame to be made on the writer for even making the shorter-term point, but still, I don’t think that Hegel’s work would have risen to the level of recognition for relevance if his work was not teeming with relevance. Perhaps in this time it is harder to make the estimation because we celebrate mediocrity of all kinds-but it is clear that Hegel’s work was far from mediocre. Yes, he talked a lot, but was he aloof or pointless? It is obviously difficult to make the charge considering his recognized impact on his society and others who have been blessed to observe his work.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

When you watch a video and know you’re going to be thinking about it for years

[@untimelyreflections]

Pleasure to see you here. Tip of the hat to you, sir.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@untimelyreflections and you. Looking forward to watching more of your work 🫡

[@munayer]

This is what a peak youtube video looks like! Easily earned a new subscriber

[@DugongClock]

Please keep up your study of Hegel. The best English language commentary (and indispensable study tool) I could find on the Phenomenology is Hegel’s Ladder: The Pilgrimage of Reason by Henry Stilton Harris. If Hegel is Aristotle, Harris is our contemporary Averroes. Please don’t use cheap criticisms to cast this apex philosophy aside. It’s too easy. For those who acuse Hegel of being obscurantist nonsense or otherwise unworthy of its historical influence: you’re telling on yourselves. There is no reason to be afraid of the big bad Hegel.

[@markwrede8878]

Making the true false and the false true is the very trade offered to investors by marketing.

[@Endymion766]

I have to agree with Goethe on this one. Not that I've ever disagreed with Goethe, so far. But all the word tyrants do love Hegel and will talk your ear off about nothing and then get mad that you didn't understand how smart they are.

[@Villainilla]

Came for the thumbnail, started for the knowledge

[@markhughes7927]

17:16 How put it? The similarity in respective criticisms of Hegel and Socrates as to their capability of making the true seem false and vice versa does not mean the two ways of thought - tho’ both sharing the word ‘dialectic’ as essential to their character - were themselves similar: Hegel’s was - I believe - a systematic and formalised use of a dialectical method; Socrates’ was truly conversation (dialectic); was analytic of encountered meanings in such conversation; and the whole was subtended by a religious rondeur which made his intuitions profound and of synthetic effect. Hegel exemplifies perhaps the killing effect of Kant’s idealism which is founded - I hope! - in the epistemological error of supposing that perceptions are derived from innate concepts whereas they are built from the relation of perception (transcendentally founded) and experience. This casting out of the role of experience and promulgation of Notion in its place has had devastating effects on general culture and - in our times - has issued in the mechanised mental lacerations of all things (pathetically called) woke..

[@jacobackley502]

While a bit wordy, I agree completely that Experience is left out of the conversation way too much. Especially reading Derrida, and his nonsense about words only referring to other words.

[@sheenapearse766]

Really interesting discussion , and the contest between empiricism and idealism continues. Being totally rational about everything is a special form of madness , an over thinking , which I suspect Hegel suffered from . Interested to see the contact between Goethe and Hume . I had never considered the possibility of Socrates as a sophist - a new set of eyes . Thanks

[@hdog6371]

I waited too long for a video. Upload weekly before my heart fails

[@levinb1]

Goethe seems to be in line with the “empiricism” (not sure if we can call it that) of the US during the 1800’s with the Transcendentalists of Thoreau and Emerson.

[@untimelyreflections]

This is a great comparison, thank you for that. I also did an episode comparing Emerson and Nietzsche (Nietzsche was hugely influenced by him but this is rarely discussed).

[@patrickklepacki4077]

Who did the painting @15:29 ?

[@CriticallyRealist]

All of your late videos have been brilliant. Thank you. I'm trying to contextualize their argument in my (our) contemporary context and I'm wondering who of the two is the "artist" and who is the "scientist". Goethe sounds more like the scientist when he praises the natural world, but more like an artist when he recommend prioritizing your personal experiences of the senses. Hegel sounds more like an academic philosopher when he discusses only in abstract ideas, so in that way he is more of a scientist. Maybe this framing doesn't make any sense. I have never read Hegel so I'm not familiarized with his thoughts.

[@Dunge0n]

I hate life and people more than I can legally describe anymore.

[@Sodeska1000]

Very interesting video. At 7:36 tho it's a portrait of Jacobi not Kant ! (I don't why but google images tends to put it in the first results when you type "kant" on the search bar)

[@philalethes216]

The question remains of how best we can lay ourselves at the feet of nature and become her disciples.

[@robotermann]

Dear sir, do you have like sources so I could quote your quotes in my thesis? This is so interesting and juicy information I could use

[@qq8413]

Hmm it is clear that you don’t understand Hegel very well when you equate his political philosophy to Plato’s. Hegel is clear that he is not prescribing a manner in which to realize an ideal state. In fact, Hegel is critical of Plato for this reason.

[@unknowninfinium4353]

Thank you for your efforts. And thank you even more for reading every comment and liking it. Good day to you. Also dude,the thumbnail. Hahahha.

[@Vincent_Upstate]

Your videos are too high quality to have cringe thumbnails like this

[@yoavco99]

This is a great video. Thanks

[@Scott-et4kd]

Wow. Superb. Thx for this.

[@Theonlyrealcornpop]

Goethe WAS that dude, just an absolute BEATLE in his own right

[@domovoi_0]

Brilliant stuff. Love and blessings!

[@christofeles63]

Goethe's criticism says as much about his own shortcomings as Hegel's genius. His dogmatic refusal to revise his Farbenlehre (theory of colors) is eloquent testimony of his struggles with natural science. Goethe was neither intellectual enough to be a theoretician of Hegel's stature, nor empirical enough to bow to the authority of science where it contradicted his pet theory.

[@XanderFenikkusu]

You're probably a Marxist lol

[@vsaucyboi7214]

@@XanderFenikkusu Based Marxism.

[@tomkat69pc]

I love how the AI translates Goethe's name in the subtitles as "GTO" - the AI has trouble with Goethe - I think, he would like that .. .

[@liammcooper]

tl;dr: Goethe thought Hegelian philosophy was obscurantist sophistry.

[@wheenishere]

Maybe translations to english take the flavor out of german, or maybe Hegel just writes like he's wheezing through a trumpet, but I don't fathom why so many say that the phenomenology's ideas are some pinnacle of rigorous philosophical extraction. Hegel only seems to be hard to read in the absence of his poetic merit. Like a rubber one size too small; it all fits, but good luck enjoying yourself as much as the other guy.

[@PierreLucSex]

Nobody cares about your comfort in the field of philosophy. Nobody.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

I would say that the Christian religion has the same relationship with mysticism as it does with reason - respectful, but independent. I think the foundation is specifically the _personal_ relationship with god, and all else stems from that.

[@Zaphod771]

Somewhere in the roots of Judeo-Christian thought is an attempt to merge faith and reason. Jacob struggled with God and became Israel. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, but was sustained by God miraculously. The Apostle Paul had sermons steeped in logical arguments, but was miraculously blinded on his way to kill Christians, converting that day to Christianity. Christian history is full of men like this who have faith and reason, and are struggling to find the best relationship between those two concepts.

[@QualeQualeson]

The problem the Abrahamic religions (as well as many others) is trying to tackle is precisely the mind construct. That's why faith is key, because the whole purpose is to stop interjecting yourself into everything. God is just a focal point outside your comprehension; essentially nothingness. Zen does it a different way but the end goal is the same; to escape the ego.

[@citoante]

@@QualeQualesonexcept God is somebody, a person, not a concept. When you sin, you sin against Him. You have a relationship with Him. There is no relationship with nothingness. 2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

[@QualeQualeson]

@@citoante Right. I'm glad you set that straight.

[@miguelatkinson]

​​@@citoantesaying god is a somebody has alot philosophical problems that emerge from that notion as it implies a sort of anthropomorphic god which is rejected by Many philosophers and can best be describe as "sky daddy" so it's best not to say such a thing and also god is a concept

[@gulaschnikov5335]

I recognize the voice from the Nietzsche Podcast

[@maximilianthiel8485]

I found this book 2 days ago… in the streets … I’m at page 86 now ….

[@afonsoluis9614]

same

[@maximilianthiel8485]

@@afonsoluis9614 life sure is funny

[@PierreLucSex]

Lol the dream of philosophers

[@alohm]

Would the statement that: "Hegel and Schopenhauer inspired endless philosophers. Hegel was so wrong, and Schopenhauer so brilliant?" be correct in a humorous way, funny and true to a degree... The statement “Hegel and Schopenhauer inspired endless philosophers. Hegel was so wrong, and Schopenhauer so brilliant” can indeed be seen as humorous, given the contrasting reputations and the contentious relationship between their philosophies. Here’s why it can be viewed as funny and true to a degree: 1. **Contrasting Philosophies:** Hegel and Schopenhauer represent starkly different philosophical systems. Hegel’s complex dialectical method and his emphasis on the unfolding of the Absolute Spirit contrast sharply with Schopenhauer’s focus on the primacy of the Will and the inherent suffering of life. This juxtaposition highlights their differences in a way that invites both humor and reflection. 2. **Philosophical Influence:** Both philosophers have indeed inspired countless thinkers. Hegel’s ideas influenced Marx, existentialists, and many others, while Schopenhauer’s pessimism and aesthetics left a mark on Nietzsche, Wagner, and Freud. The statement humorously suggests that despite their opposing views, they both succeeded in shaping philosophical discourse. 3. **Subjective Judgment:** Declaring Hegel “so wrong” and Schopenhauer “so brilliant” is a subjective judgment that playfully oversimplifies their complex contributions. This kind of sweeping statement can be amusing in its boldness and reflects the kind of banter or critique that is common in philosophical debates. 4. **Philosophical Debates:** The rivalry between Hegel and Schopenhauer is well-known, with Schopenhauer famously dismissing Hegel’s philosophy as nonsense. This historical animosity adds an extra layer of humor to the statement, as it echoes the competitive spirit between the two thinkers. Overall, the statement can be appreciated for its playful critique of two influential philosophers, acknowledging their significant impact while also poking fun at their differences and the often polarized views of their respective merits.

[@alohm]

@@eleaticeyes813 It is called a joke, guess it is too 'inside'... ;) beep boop

[@dmh5220]

Goethe is fixated towards the material in the most raw interpretation of what he’s saying but his critique of Hegel don’t hit the mark cause Hegel’s pursuit is beyond that… meaning he serves a different function as opposed what Goethe thinks Hegel should be doing , The critique about the senses has also been addressed

[@aronlazarhargitai8680]

A very interesting criticism of Hegel is that of Franz von Baader, who is a barely known, but historically very important figure. He was a theosopher, philosopher and engineer, and a friend of Schelling and a late friend of Hegel. He criticized Hegel chiefly because he based his philosophy on Cartesianism, and because he-in Baader's view- misused the thought of mystics such as Jakob Böhme. For Baader, Hegel's rationalism was too much, and he shared the views of Jacobi-a fideist like Pascal and Kierkegaard who was also influenced by Baader- who worried about Kant's influence, who prepared the ground for Hegel. Baader also criticized Hegel's statism. I think this topic worth a single video, and I would be honoured if I could help its creation!

[@wlrlel]

Accusing Hegel of Cartesianism isn't really true, although I know what Baader meant.

[@aronlazarhargitai8680]

@@wlrlel Of course, Hegel wasn't Cartesian, he stands closer to Spinoza. Bader meant that Hegel accepted Descartes' Mind-Body dualism and the modern subject-object dichotomy that he refused.

[@wlrlel]

@@aronlazarhargitai8680 yep, kind of a Spinoza plus Kants and Fichtes concepts of subjectivity. But such a way of characterizing philosophers is always a bit misleading. However, it seems like Baader didn't really understand the Science of Logic - otherwise he would have seen that Hegels mind-body-dualism isn't that strict (that shows the whole Begriffslogik) and that Hegel thought about subject and object in a way that is pretty much the middle between Descartes and some mystic total identity of subject and object (that's specifically demonstrated by his Idee des Erkennens). Also, could you elaborate what Baader meant with Hegels statism? I'd be curious if it goes in the same direction as the usual critics of Hegels system as something static, death and so on

[@aronlazarhargitai8680]

Bader's problem with the Logic is that Hegel denied the principle of mutual affection, that was present in their shared source of inspiration, Jakob Böhme. Hegel swept it aside with a single sentence in the Logic. Ironically, physicists, like Feynman, understood the significance of mutual affection, although in a different field. Hegel's sublation is a kind of Aristotelian syllogism, an identification of the particular and the universal. For Hegel only the whole is true, thus the individual is always subordinated. Yes, there is almost a kind of total identity, in a pantheistic way. This was another point of Bader's criticism. Bader was a Catholic liberal, and for him, Hegel's philosophy gave too much power to the secular state. He was for theocracy but he also criticized ultramontanism, and for this he couldn't teach at the university in Munich. He was a very eclectic guy, just like Lorenz Oken, Ludwig Görres and Karl-Friedrich Krause who are more related to him, unlike Hegel, withom he shared many interests (see Böhme or the co-option of Meister Eckhart, they did it together). Kierkegaard also owed much to Böhme and Bader. If I wouldn't know them, I would be a Hegel fan, despite of Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's convincing criticism. Knowing them means that I can get rid of the bathwater without losing the baby. Otherwise, I would have to throw metaphysics away completely.

[@wlrlel]

@@aronlazarhargitai8680 the total identity is just that the logical categories that determine the object are the same as the categories of thinking (but of Hegels thinking). In the empirical world, there never is a full coincidence between object and subject - just when it comes to those structures. Hegel clearly states that. I don't think that critizicing Hegel by trying to find real contradictions in his philosophy works. Although his opinions about the individual (even though they aren't negating it as much as many people think; "the truth is the whole" doesn't man that the whole es everything and the particular nothing, but that both is the whole) can indeed be critiziced; Kierkegaard, Heidegger could be added here - but that doesn't make Hegels system wrong, it just means that it's not totally complete when it comes to the empirical world, and that's quite clear anyways (and Hegel himself wouldn't have denied it).

[@asaiira]

Pray why volume x900% ?????????????????????????????????????

[@samfawlia]

super well written

[@Stake2]

Hegel was too rigid a philosopher, but I think his thought boils down to these two axioms: 1. we are not atomic ("independent") individuals 2. we cannot approach anything empirical empty-minded. The Anglophone world (US&UK) hasn't been that interested to theorize these areas. Hegel establishes the relevance of the social and tries to unpack its workings. Before him, I don't think anyone had tried anything as ambitious because of the ethereal nature of the subject. On social level, Anglophone liberals have had a strong tendency to consider the self as a fundamentally independent entity (lasting at least to the mid-1900s?). Conversely, they have rejected the idea of subservience to any theory or network that "lords over" the self.

[@untimelyreflections]

This is actually a really great and straightforward explanation of the value of Hegel, thank you for that

[@mattd8725]

I thought those "individualist" ideas are more attributed to continental thinkers like Descartes and Nietzsche. While the US might have a huge crush on Nietzsche and his acolyte Ayn Rand you also have to explain Wittgenstein who was opposed to this sort of thing.

[@user-dc5hx9qm1w]

7:33 is a portrait of Jacobi, not Hamann!

[@untimelyreflections]

Jacobi strikes again

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of Goethe's Problem With Hegel momentum 100

[@phpn99]

"GHERTA".... geezus

[@madra000]

@5:01 the date is 1829 or goethe outlived Nietzsche. Your podcast is fantastic

[@redguy2489]

So Hegal is abstract ai and Goethe was a graphic artist

[@m3tamonk3y4]

Keep going.

[@Rainin90utside]

Goethe was wrong about Christianity and Hegel was right. Scripture commands us to know and states we can know even the deep things of God. From Corinthians: God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit "6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”[b]- the things God has prepared for those who love him- 10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”[d] But we have the mind of Christ."

[@Rainin90utside]

Marx and the young Hegelians butchered Hegel's words. Their distortions are still parotted to this day. Hegel is the defender of Christianity and philosophy par excellence. Even the method in its most general outline, as found in the introduction of his Encyclopedia Logic, is not Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis nor just 'the dialectic.' It is trinitarian, involving three moments. Abstract, Dialectical, Speculative. It is the *speculative* method, not the dialectical method. It's the refutation of skepticism and dogmatism and the way of truth. The young Hegelians were fools who did not comprehend what they heard nor read of Hegel. A modern reader has better access to his corpus than most or even all of his contemporaries would. His 1807 Phenomenology was *replaced* by its condensed form in the Philosophy of Spirit. M. J. Petry's translation of Hegel's 1825 lectures known as 'The Berlin Phenomenology' is the more appropriate substitution. Hegel's *actual* account of morality, ethical life, family, civil society, and the state are his Encyclopediac accounts provided in the Philosophy of Right and the relevant lectures. Not the 1807 Phenomenology, which most commentators and leftists refer to. Hegel is a Christian, nationalist, constitutional monarchist, supported market economics and psuedo autarkic national economic policy, a geopolitical realist, heteronormative, political organicist, decentralized statist, anti-democratic, and single-handedly wedded the ancient and the modern political theories into a systematic fusion unparalleled in political thought before or since. I cannot stress enough how brutally distorted by leftists and liberal-democrats Hegel's philosophy and political thought have been. Hegel says God *actually* incarnating in the flesh as Christ is a logical necessity. He isn't joking! His Philosophy of Religion outright says Christ happened and was the real deal, and intends to *prove it.* He is indispensable for the defense of Christianity in the face of the dis-enlightenment that was the result of the enlightenment. To make absolutely clear how hard Hegel breaks with the political ideal of the enlightenment, he says that warfare **isn't even wrong** and perpetual peace leads to the stagnation and selfishness of peoples. He thinks perpetual peace isn't even justifiable.

[@carterkauffold4077]

Also crucial to note that Goethe was a Freemason, super influential on both him and Hegel

[@temperr.haring3508]

The dates on some of the quotes are wrong.

[@noluntas]

Goethe was not an empiricist. His scientific approach to nature was morphological. A whole other thing. Even if he didn't like Kant et al he was still an idealist

[@jackdarby2168]

They both consider beings to be dependent on mind?

[@Theo-iq1bv]

If you want to paraphrase Plato about Poets, you are very mistaken in calling Goethe the same type of poet as Plato criticises. Firstly, the irony of Plato himself being a poet should not be lost on us. Secondly, Plato banishes a certain kind of genre poetry in the context of his own time. Our concept of poetry has changed slightly since 2000 years ago.

[@mznxbcv12345]

3:20 No. Goethe was Muslim (most likely of all), a hefty book was written about it by his most acclaimed biographer, Katharina Mommsen, the man himself wrote his greatest poems in praise of the prophet, "Gesang der Geister über den Wassern" ,Schubert's widely acclaimed as greatest choral work ever devised was inspired by Goethe's Mahomets Gesang.

[@wlrlel]

Oh man...first, Goethe wasn't a muslim despite of the West-Östlicher Divan; he himself states several times that he doesn't really like any religion. Second, Mommsen definitely isn't his most acclaimed biographer, and isn't even a biographer (even though I know which book you are referring to. But that's not a biography).

[@ranro7371]

a very very underrated comment.....!!

[@user-xd4rs6vr4n]

Hegel is literal gibberish. The Emperor without Clothes except he's a "Emperor of Philosophy."

[@verrave9022]

That in particular is why Hegel is so 'esteemed' in the circles of the elite, as his words can be cherry picked to fit whichever narrative a person desires without any consequence as there was no context to understand from his writings to begin with. If Hegel is propped up as a great thinker, and then his work is quoted from or sourced, it gives off the illusion of adding a higher degree of validity to an argument than it actually possesses.

[@theonetruetim]

pearls before swine [will appear as such to so]

[@user-xd4rs6vr4n]

@@theonetruetim “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

[@Poizn0]

Copium

[@user-xd4rs6vr4n]

@@Poizn0 "it does not take many words to speak the truth"

[@rahulthakar8006]

Ughhh thinking bad money pleasure good. Hegel bad - Goethe

[@lonesomealeks4206]

Seriously, is Hegel the most despised philosopher of all time? And rightly so, if I may add.

[@feralcandyGhoul]

Spinoza: not a pantheist but the pantheist for real

[@ciprianturta2757]

Hegel elevated reason from the way it was in previous traditions and for him there is much more dinamism between concepts. So there is not like there is reason and entirely separate elswhere is faith. That is the way in which the consciousness losses from sight all the moments and movement that has made it possible in that way at one point. Faith is a further development of reason and of self-consciousness, intellect perception and sense certanty for what it matters. Hegel did not try to prove God through reason alone, he sought to show how the concept of god developed through the movement of consciousness. As a matter of fact Hegel was agreeing with Pascal that it is futile to seek God through intellect and reason. This view is based on unfunded assumption that reason is an instrument that is sepparate from god and that can know him as he is in itself. You can see there that Hegel to one point agrees with Kant's critique of pure reason. And so on and so on. So in fact Goethe didn't read Hegel as it seems or it only read him superficially.

[@sparkyfromel]

I'll go with Goethe , philosophy is like masturbation with no happy ending

[@justinhartnell6779]

Please please me whoa yeah! Like i please you!

[@Spoonwood]

Goethe wasn't writing on February 4th, 1929. Spinoza's God shall smite ye for this mistake. And please don't blame me for telling you this, since if you love Spinoza's God, you cannot endeavor that God love in you return.

[@MyDenis0]

I know people compare hegel to socrates but they really should not. Since the accusations of insencerity to both come from very different places.

[@midwinter78]

Goethe's work on colour... leaves a lot to be desired. A _lot_. There's a good review by the painter Bruce MacEvoy. Goethe's book was basically a massive screed against Newton, to the extent that the one English translation omits large parts of it, the polemical parts, so the rest can be judged "fairly". Newton was right, Goethe was wrong, white light is a mixture. Goethe may have liked empiricism in theory but evidently he wasn't very good at it.

[@williamgass9242]

Starts 2:00

[@draw4everyone]

What appears to the mind in practice is the final truth. Hegel is the first to propose this truth in this form, but not the last to clarify it. If Hegel were read correctly, he would be so obvious as to be banal and trite.

[@draw4everyone]

The fetish of "clarity" is a knee-jerk stupidity, no better than a child pulling his hand away from a fire. This appears to me all Goethe, and every other critic of Hegel, can offer - childishness.

[@dubidolczektv5278]

@@draw4everyone What appears to my mind is you angrily saying this while holding a child's hand in a fire..

[@draw4everyone]

@@dubidolczektv5278 good - speak and be heard

[@zerotwo7319]

> says he is criticising hegel > has to drink from the geist of the culture around him to make a meme 🤡

[@untimelyreflections]

Absolutely wrecked 😖

[@GreyEyedAthena]

Free young thug

[@davidcunningham2074]

i learnt a lot.

[@x-b5516]

Meanwhile in 2024, empiricism is dead and idealism in its Renaissance 👻

[@durfdurffigan8680]

Anime profile.