Wondering if anyone has read Philosophy of Right and had a good comprehension of it as to explain how others came about to be influenced by it, such as Marx, and what suppose to be taken from it (or what it’s actually leaning towards). Before I read it I had read about Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre to which the author, in reference to Marx and Hegel, said that Marx took his philosophy, turned it upside down, inverted it, and made it materialistic (I don’t remember the quote exactly), which must have really been the case. I’m 50 pages in, and thus far I actually find parallels with his views to that of praxeology and the subjective nature of Austrian economics. Throughout references to Kant are made, and I wonder if people like Menger and Mises took the same from Kant what Hegel did. But in no way can I understand how Marx took influence from Hegel besides Marx believing he was the next in line in the history of philosophy and that his philosophy would be the final in line. Any thoughts on this work of his?
You commented in my recent thread so I felt obliged to give some sort of response to yours. Unfortunately I haven’t yet read any of Hegel (and as you probably could tell, atm am attempting to finish Menger and part of Bohm Bawerk). I have an Austrian School oriented friend however who has been quite interested in Hegel’s philosophy, and I believe sees in it a kind of liberalism. Here’s the link to his site:
http://www.jacobroundtree.com/
In any case, he might be a useful person for you to get in touch with.
I haven’t reached the section on the state yet, which is at the end, but so far when it comes to individuality, free will, and morality, it comes off very libertarian-ish and at this point I’m surprised he hasn’t been discussed much more on the subject of classical liberalism. The link you posted seems pretty thorough.
Haven’t read the particular book in question, but I kind of know Hegel, and I’m familiar with Kant. Kant’s ideas about choice set the ground for the rest of the existentialists, and I read it as a reinforcement of positive liberty instead of just strong negative liberty. Satre has always been my preferred cup of tea though.
I used to have a bit of interest in existentialism, or at least agreed with some of it, til I read Ride the Tiger from Julius Evola. Gives some interesting critiques on Nietzsche and Sartre.
At this point it’d be pretty hard to get me off the existential train, but I’ll give that book a look. What’s the basic premise?
deleted
What’s the basic premise?
You can read about it here, and probably get an idea from the chapter/section titles. He’s a controversial figure though due to his views on culture, race, and politics, which puts him in the “fringe” section of the Traditionalist school, but this actually has increased his popularity.
Mods: Disregard this, I thought I was on my “banned” account thinking the ban was up.
Wow, sounds pretty intense. From glancing it seems pretty reactionary.
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Wow, sounds pretty intense. From glancing it seems pretty reactionary.
Reactionary? Yes. Though I see existentialism a by-product of the modern world, and the modern world is lost and in decay, and trying to find a meaning to an existence already fallen is no more closer to “truth” than the current state. Modern philosophy and sub-cultures are just reactions trying to find a purpose in something that’s far from living, but only pushes itself further away from the truth.
Sounds like nonsense to me.
You’ll assume it’s nonsense without reading it? Elaborate? You won’t be the first to critique Evola without ever reading his works on this forum.
This struck me as nonsense:
So yeah, why should I even bother reading it?
“Wondering if anyone has read Philosophy of Right and had a good comprehension of it as to explain how others came about to be influenced by it, such as Marx, and what suppose to be taken from it (or what it’s actually leaning towards). Before I read it I had read about Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre to which the author, in reference to Marx and Hegel, said that Marx took his philosophy, turned it upside down, inverted it, and made it materialistic (I don’t remember the quote exactly), which must have really been the case.”
This is a really good question. Here is the answer from my understanding.
Both Marx and Hegel both believed in an underlying animus in the development of history. For Hegel is what the “Spirit,” for Marx it was the division of labor. They were both dialectical thinkers which makes they conceived of a systematic model that would explain whole episodes. Now the difference between the two is that Hegel thought in the abstract. The spirit or will exist throughout human history but it isn’t something actually tangible. Marx thought in the material world and had a strong dislike of the abstract. Hegel believed that philosophy could only explain the past while Marx thought it would explain the past, present and future.
A great book on this topic is Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism volume I The Founders or you could also try Robert C. Tucker’s Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx
If you are interested in knowing more about Hegel then I suggest listening to David Gordon’s lecture on him which can be found here
I wouldn’t suggest reading the Philosophy of Right unless you REALLY REALLY want to use a primary source. Hegel’s writing is just terrible and some think he does it on purpose to further obscure the fact he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
“I haven’t reached the section on the state yet, which is at the end, but so far when it comes to individuality, free will, and morality, it comes off very libertarian-ish and at this point I’m surprised he hasn’t been discussed much more on the subject of classical liberalism. The link you posted seems pretty thorough.”
For Hegel?
No no. Hegel is definitely not a libertarian or even a classical liberal. To him the state is the greatest expression of the will and all must be subservient to that.
Hegel is a very complex thinker. On a personal note he may be the most difficult reading I have ever encountered. He has his own lingo and terminology, and if you are in this to learn “What Hegel was actually thinking”, or you are just trying to “study Hegel” - be prepared for a time consuming hobby. Seriously some people spend the better part of their academic careers just studying the dude. The people who are recommending reading a books (or even worse 1 book) immediately against Hegel – or the “quick and easy libertarian/ Rothbardian dismissal of “The true philosophy of Hegel” ought be ignored as quickly as the recommendation is read. It’s counter productive at this point.
As for Menger:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/austrian_philosophy/CH10.pdf
This is a good start
Also as an inference – Max Weber does have his influence on the Austrian school. He was certainly an idealist, but I think he was more Kantian, though I wouldn’t doubt he was influenced by Hegel positively some way or another.
In regards to your confusion of Marx and Hegel. As I said Hegel is a complex man. And here we are getting into the whole stream of Left-Hegelian. There is a process here and the end result is the three giants of Feuerebach, Stirner, and Marx. All of them used the dialectic and they all used Hegelian terms and concepts (alienation, master-slave, etc). Marx himself also had an evolution of thought where he tended to use less and less direct Hegelian words…but the concepts are still there. The geneology is still there. From Hegel to Marx. If you really want to get into Marx’s relation with the German Idealism maybe read his work “The German Ideology” where it shows his relation with various left-Hegelians and shows a critical moment in his thought process.
As for what comes directly from “The Philosophy of Right”. I don’t know, as I haven’t read it. If you really want I guess I can tell you most of the concepts of Bauer and Feuerbach.; perhaps everything by Stirner, and at least some of the things by Marx. I have enough references at my house to look up what came from where. It would take some time, but it may be a fun little project.
As for the Evola stuff. If you get into this whole dilectic thing, and follow it down to the down and dirtiest of the left-Hegelians - you should see why anything he says will not stand. I think all of these guys in a sense take precedence over not only lightweights such as Dawkins,Comte, Russel or whoever but due to their keen psychologisms, insights on nature(including human), and amazing systematic thinking they are better than the heaviest of the heavy weights be it the postivists or Nietzsche himself (but to be fair I think Mises is probably better at dispelling “spooks” than Nietzsche - so take that as you will). But that’s your own project, and my own two cents on that. I’m not here to argue it, and that will be my last word on such a thing.
I once tried to read Hegel, the thing I could understand is that he has some sick spirit fetish.
I’ll probably check those two books out. I first read about Hegel before reading Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre and I thought it explained his philosophy pretty well. I got sidetracked from reading, but I’m up to the section on civil society, but everything he said about the individual, property, and subjectivity didn’t seem tolitarian or heavily statist. I can understand what people mean in him being rather complex and the way he words things seems overly complex to explain a basic point.
As for the Evola stuff. If you get into this whole dialectic thing, and follow it down to the down and dirtiest of the left-Hegelians - you should see why anything he says will not stand.
What do you mean?
Wikipedia:
Evola believes that the modern world has become totally corrupt and that the institutions and traditions of the ancient world that once allowed a person to fully realize his being have been lost. [Emphasis added.]So yeah, why should I even bother reading it?
Why shouldn’t you bother reading it? I don’t have to argue one position or another, but I agree with that statement.
“I’ll probably check those two books out. I first read about Hegel before reading Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre and I thought it explained his philosophy pretty well. I got sidetracked from reading, but I’m up to the section on civil society, but everything he said about the individual, property, and subjectivity didn’t seem tolitarian or heavily statist. I can understand what people mean in him being rather complex and the way he words things seems overly complex to explain a basic point.”
Well Hegel’s writing is so confused that it doesn’t surprise that someone thinks Hegel leans towards liberal ideas. Keep reading about him, you will come to understand what I mean.
What do you mean?
That the dialectic is the most appropriate method to find any supernatural position wanting. Like I said, that was more of an appendix to anything, and I’m not concerning myself with discussing it any further.
“That the dialectic is the most appropriate method to find any supernatural position wanting. Like I said, that was more of an appendix to anything, and I’m not concerning myself with discussing it any further.”
Well the dialectical model itself is found wanting. So to say that dialectical method finds fault with anything beyond the material is a misnomer.