Thread by @ZoharAtkins

Time for a @threadapalooza on Hegel, the 19th c. thinker everyone loves to hate (and/or hates to love, hates to hate, loves to love). Hegel has been celebrated and accused of pretty much every political ideology, from National Socialism, Communism, and neoliberalism.

Depending on who you talk to, he's a rationalist or a mystic, a secularist who reduces religion to social psychology or a Christian triumphalist who thinks incarnation theology (God becoming Man, Man Becoming God) alone can bring about the resolution of our problems. 2

Hegel is charged with pantheism (everything is God), process theology (the notion that truth is revealed progressively throughout history). Its fashionable to think of Hegel as proto-woke (see here: persuasion.community/p/the-warped-v…) and/but Hegel is also hated for being a Eurocentrist. 3

@FukuyamaFrancis, who is hardly woke, but deeply influenced by Hegel's insight that life is a struggle for recognition sees liberal democracy as the best way to mediate that struggle. 4

Btw, John Grey's excellent review of @MacaesBruno's History has Begun suggests that wokeness is neoconservatism 2.0, an American cultural export...A woke US military shouldn't surprise us...5

Back to Hegel, you probably know him as the person who popuarlized "dialectical thinking" (X is X, but also not X, and also X and not X). The reason he's hard to pin to down largely has to do with the fact that dialectical thought is slippery. 6

Any attempt to reduce Hegel to one thing--you can always counter, in the name of Hegel, "that's one sided." Ie. it's true, but not absolutely true. 7

From what I understand, Clinton, Blair, and a bunch of the third wave politicians of the 90s were loosely Hegelian in their adaptation of "triangulation," the idea that political skill is about taking what's true from partisan extremes and blending into a new synthesis. 8

While we're on the topic of "influence," Hegel is everywhere. He formed Kierkegaard, who took him as his main intellectual opponent. He's influenced Rav Kook and religious Zionism, Ken Wilber and perennial philosophy (the newage idea that we all worship the same God) 9

Franz Rosenzweig and Levinas lambast Hegel for being a "totalizer" (ie a holist), who misses the importance of particularism, but Kojeve thinks Hegel is a porto-existentialist who understands life to organized, at heart, around an original "fight to the death" 10

Without Hegel, it's true, there'd be no Sartre, no Beauvoir, no Lacan, and thus no golden age French cinema, all of which is about the drama of intersubjectivity, the power of the gaze, the sense in which we are both subjects who see and objects who are seen. 11

Plus, self-conscious beings who see ourselves being seeing, which evinces nausea or pride or shame, or something else that you'll find in a Rohmer or Godard film. 12

Hegel, it is often overlooked by non-specialists, was roommates with the romantic poets Hölderlin and Novalis; yes, he's a systematic thinker, but his system is full of Sturm and Drang. It's not dry (or historic) like a lot of American systematic thinkers. 13

For Hegel, history, philosophy, and history of philosophy are one. History is intellectual history; philosophy is the understanding of how past thinkers thought what was true, albeit, in a limited way, for their time. 14

Hegel popularized (coined?) the concept of the Zeitgeist (spirit of the time). Philosophers don't get above their times, they think with them--except Hegel, who possibly thought that the history of ideas had reached completion with himself. 15

That kind of grandiosity isn't unique to Hegel though; one could argue that a lot people who claim Enlightenment, be it Spinoza, Jesus, Buddha, etc. think they have figured it all out and now have to share there truth with the world. The world is large, but singles them out. 16

Delusions of grandeur are an occupational hazard of philosophy; or else, philosophy is (was?) a great field for "greats" who have ambition to change history with their thought...17

Nietzsche speaks in a prophetic voice, through the character of Zarathustra, even if it's a voice that comes to tell us to be suspicious of grand pronouncements...18

What makes Hegel unique in all of this is his belief that nobody could have been Hegel in a previous age; modernity is better than the past in what it allows us to know. "I can see clearly now, the rain is gone." 19

Whereas for many other thinkers, the truths are timeless, not historically contingent. 20

For this reason, Leo Strauss suggests Hegel is a relativist. Which is somewhat ironic given that Hegel is more often blamed for being a bombastic absolutist. (Heidegger also criticizes Hegel as the summa of a broken tradition...) 21

For Heidegger, Hegel's problem is that he's too metaphysical, too attached to his concepts; even though he claims to be dynamic, his thought is still static. Heidegger's fanciful pejorative word is "onto-theology"; Hegel thinks Being is the first and best being (womp womp) 22.

Anyways, Strauss thinks Hegel isn't metaphysical enough, but thinks Heidegger is even worse--even more relativistic (despite the fact that Heidegger often claims to be against relativism...for Heidegger truth is not (merely) a social construction). 23

Getting out of the weeds, you might say, why read Hegel if he's impossible to pin down, if you can get him to say more or less anything? On the other hand, you can also be wowed by the fact that his thought has managed to prove so fertile across such a range of responses. 24

I'm of the latter view--I think Hegel's thought is deeply wise, even if I'll never know what he intended, and even if I have many reservations about certain aspects of it (I don't read to agree 100% with a thinker). If there's even one idea that inspires me, that's a win. 25

Am I a Hegelian? No and yes. The greatest critic of Hegel is Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard's response is that Hegel's system doesn't know what it's like to be me, it's too general, generic, universal. This is the beginning of the argument that sees Hegel as totalitarian. 26

Kierkegaard's famous line is "truth is subjectivity," which is pretty bold, but basically just means that we shouldn't follow universal reason; we should follow what's in our hearts, guts, etc. 27

God is personal, real, alive, for Kierkegaard, not merely an idea, or thought thinking itself reflexively. For non religious existentialists, a similar idea stands: Hegel doesn't appreciate the loneliness and singularity of my existence. 28

He's too busy talking about history as some kind of logical process; and its weird, because when he starts talking about the French Revolution or the Stoics, he's fitting historical phenomenon into a system as if these events were destined by logic, not contingent choice. 29

Hegel doesn't take the leap of faith--he sees it as a reaction formation against being slighted or marginalized. The discovery of "interiority" is the result of a slave consciousness (as is religion more generally) though this doesn't make it false. 30

Nietzsche took this idea and ran with it, calling Judaism and Christianity slave morality. 31

In a literal (though for me, positive) sense, Nietzsche is right. Passover is next week and it'a story about a bunch of ex-slaves who left behind a tyrannical society to build a new one based upon the Torah. I'll be celebrating. 32

Here are my thoughts on why the Torah emphasizes liberation from slavery as a core origin story of the Jewish people: whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/archive?sort=n… 33

Here's the correct link whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/why-is-the-e…

Kierkegaard is all about anguish, the fear and trembling, the inability to find synthesis, the dramatic either/or. Hegel is all about both/and. Carl Schmitt cites Kierkegaard as an influence. Rav Soloveitchik cites Kierkegaard as an influence. 34

If you have a tragic sense of life, if you're into decisionism--the idea that nobody can make the choice for you and that there is no correct one--you're more Kierkegaard than Hegel. 35

Hegel is kind of radically optimistic, because all pain and suffering on an individual level are overcome through higher learning. We are sacrificed on the altar of spirit. 36

You can see how that kind of progressive adamance can go south politically, leading to Leninism and Maoism--it's anti individualist at heart. 37

But this is unfair, because Hegel thought the state existed to serve the individual, not the individual to serve the state. Society is fundamental because we are social creatures, but a good society is one in which the individual's dignity and rights are enshrined. 38

How much individualism vs how collectivism is a big debate, but not one on which Hegel himself easily weighs in. 39

Another debate between Hegel's immediate students--the left vs. right Hegelians was whether Hegel is a cosmopolitan who envisions one world state for everyone or a nationalist, who thinks each state must utilize its own culture and history to bring about the universal. 40

Regardless, Hegel was clearly a statist--someone for whom belonging to a polis was the ticket or pre-condition to being a fully expressed person. 41

Hegel paternalistically describes people who leave mainstream society behind to found their own mini cults, monasteries, artist colonies, ashrams, etc. as "beautiful souls"; people who LARP as free, but live in a make-believe world, a Disneyland 42

It's a strategy that works for them, but the piety is achieved by "dropping out" and is thus not sustainable. So if you're disillusioned with politics, Hegel understands why you'd do this, but he thinks it's juvenile, historically speaking. 43

In a few places I've seen Peter Thiel say that if you're disillusioned with government you're libertarian. Libertarians begin, for him, with the insight that if you want to build, you should start a company or an org without going through the state. 44

Hegel would probably call this a kind of beautiful soul ideology, which is funny in its way, because we don't typically think of start up techies and monks in the same breath (@jack notwithstanding). 45

Hegel wouldn't use the word ideology--that's a marxist addition; and he wouldn't call it "False consciousness," or "bad faith," which are French Marxist ideas, notably Althusser's and Sartre's. Instead, he'd opt for the more neutral "shapes of consciousness," un

or stages of consciousness. The ultimate Hegelian insult is, "you're just going through a stage"--though it's not intended as an insult, since every contradiction is necessary to birth its resolution. 46

In Kabbalah, which, by the way influenced Hegel, there's a concept that the divine light is hidden (trapped) in dark shells. The righteous person goes into the dark depths to retrieve and liberate this light. Like poet Adrienne Rich says, they "dive into the wreck." 47

There's one way to tell the Hegelian tale that's about diminishing pain for the sake of some higher gain; but there's another in which Spirit descends into lower forms of consciousness; there is Enlightenment (albeit dormant) even in what is monstrous and difficult. 48

This is the part of Hegel that says we must "tarry with the negative." Ie, just as the messiah hangs at the gates of Rome with lepers, Spirit indwells in those who are oblivious to Spirit. 49

It's a mistake to only want to be with the Enlightened, as everyone contains some seed of truth within them. The philosopher must learn from all things, all people, all events--and elevate them through reflection. 50

The most important part of Hegel, in my view, is his controversial "master-slave" dialectic. The core idea is that slaves (people with something to prove) are the engines of change, not masters who are complacent, or as @DouthatNYT would say, "Decadent," "sclerotic." 51

If you want a thriving society, you need to cultivate slave consciousness; as @wolfejosh puts it, "chips on shoulders put chips in pockets." Most entrepreneurs didn't grow up wealthy; a disproportionate % are immigrants. 52

Hegel got this, which is why in his end of history scenario we don't stop striving; we get the dignity that comes from seeking recognition while also getting the dignity that comes from winning it. We get to have our cake and eat it. 53

But the way to ensure that we aren't decadent is to preserve the competitive spirit. Meanwhile, the way to preserve equality and dignity for all (or most) is to give them opportunity to strive and succeed. 54

It's a tough balance, b/c if everyone is a leader, nobody is. We can't all be leaders, as @lessin rightly notes; there have to be followers. But for Hegel, a rational and good society is one in which we all are equal parts master and slave, leader and follower. 55

That does indeed sound utopian, but with tweaks, as a heuristic it's not a far cry from some notion of capitalism + meritocracy + UBI: enough that everyone can aim at success, not so much equality that competition is worthless & not so much inequality that it's a rigged game. 56

Look, I don't know what Hegel's politics or policies would be today; I do know that the reason he favors some concept of equality is rather interesting and overlooked. 57

The issue is this: if you want recognition, you need it to be from someone you trust. You can't trust the recognition of someone you think is inferior. You need it to come from someone who you consider your equal. The fight must be close to be noble. 58

For most of us, when competition isn't close we stop trying. I'm reminded of Rabbi Yochanan lamenting the loss of his rival, friend, and study partner (the Hebrew word "chevruta" captures all of these), Reish Lakish. 59

When R. Yochanan is engaged in debate he finds losing intolerable. But when he is presented a "yes-man" who tells him how smart he is, he finds it even worse. 60

The Hegelian prayer: Lord, grant me a worthy enemy. 61

In liberal societies we don't want to fight to the death; we want peace. But, suggests Hegel, we don't want to give up the passion that animates us to fight to the death, we just want to alchemize it. For society to work, we need to LARP at fighting to the death. 62

We can't do that if the other has already conceded; thus, we need an egalitarian society so that we can not be alone. 63

Marx focuses on class and economics as the basis of inequality, whereas Hegel seems to focus more on something like a sense of self, or a position of authority and power, independent of wealth. 64

I think Marx is a bit reductionist (materialist) and I favor Hegel over Marx, both descriptively and normatively. The Marxist critique of Hegel is that Hegel is an "idealist"; he nods at the underlying conditions of our struggles, but then spiritualizes/abstracts them (away). 65

As Fukuyama notes in his book Identity, people will often sacrifice material self interest simply to have their identities affirmed. Flags matter. Names matter. Status matters. 66

I'll give a relatively low temperature example. Some people will do more work just for a change in job title, w/o extra pay. Some people will even take a pay cut just to feel like they have more authority and autonomy. To say nothing of the politics of national identity...67

A Hegelian would never ask "What's the matter with Kansas?" as Thomas Frank does, because s/he knows that people vote their identity as much as if not more than their economic bottom line. 68

What cynics today call virtue signaling, Hegel understood to be a fundamental aspect of the human, social condition--we want to be seen and to see ourselves as X (whether or not we are). Is this bad? Hypocritical? Or is it simply the age-old (erotic) game of hide and seek? 69

Where Hegel gets mystical, weird, and in my view interesting, though more theosophical than philosophical, is in his attribution of some version of a Gaia hypothesis, the notion that Being plays hide and seek with itself by means of us. 70

We are the instruments by which God knows Godself to be God, or Being knows itself to be absolute. Neurons are to our brain as the events of human history, as it were, is to God's. 71

In a sense, the drama of intersubjectivity isn't just a human truth, it's a divine one. God or being also wants to know and be known. Heschel says, "God is in search of Man." And Socrates says, "know thyself." 72

It turns out that for Hegel the reason God seeks us out is to fulfill the Socratic principle. God abides by the maxim that the unexamined life is not worth living, and thus history is born. This is rather speculative and anthropocentric...73

Yeah, there's 2 ways to read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, micro and macro. Micro is that it's about the development of human consciousness, which is always already social. Macro is it's about the dev. of divine consciousness, with human affairs playing a role. 74

Are things necessarily improving? Is rational society inevitable? Is liberal democracy or the modern nation state a logical resolution of contradiction? I don't think so. I'm not sure. I tend to favor a more contingent view. Liberal democracy is fragile. It's one solution...75

I don't know that it's the only one. Though I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's line: "if slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong." That kind of conviction we find in Hegel. 76

But Hegel isn't a scold, because he understands that everything that exists plays some provisional role, solves something. It may not work forever, but it shouldn't all be tossed in the trash. Modern life is a palimpsest and so to cancel the past is to self-cancel. 77

It's funny, in light of the whole "cancel culture" Zeitgeist that Hegel's basic word, "aufheben," which means to posit, negate, and overcome or 'sublate' through synthesis also means to cancel. Ponder that...78

Do I recommend Hegel to the average person? That's a tough question. I think Kojeve's lectures are difficult to understand, but less difficult than Hegel. Intros to Hegel are great, but clearly limited. On the other hand, learning Hegel is learning a language. 79

It's a dizzying disorienting experience that occasionally leads to brilliant insight and lucid thought but is often hazy. One can say Hegel isn't a good writer; though I prefer to think of him as a brilliant writer who sought to capture the experience of thinking 80

rather than rush to the conclusion. For Hegel, the process is the goal. To read to the end of Hegel is to miss that for Hegel the end is in the beginning and in each subsequent stage. You must read the preface and not understand it, precisely to understand it. 81

Have you ever seen a film that begins with an image and you don't know what it is, and then it eventually comes into clarity? Or think of films like Memento or Tenet, films that continuously baffle, but make more sense through repetition...82

Hegel wrote a book that was experiential, as opposed to the Ciceronian form: in this work I will argue X. Having argued X, let me tell you once again, X. 83

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit is more like a spiral, a multi dimensional Escher painting...if you read it too linearly you'll miss the formal design and be frustrated. 84

But it's hard work. Sometimes it's nice just to turn to a random page and read it as a meditation. But a part of me suspects that one reason Hegel gets such a reductionist wrap is bc 1) people don't read him and 2) they read selectively and 3) he's difficult 4) he's weird 85

Hegel is a logician, a metaphysician, a social critic, a theologian, an intellectual historian, and more--he's too big for his audience; if you don't accept the integrity of his system he's hardly a holist; he's rather a Frankenstein; his work a bazaar of influences. 86

One reason people consider Hegel to be a religious thinker rather than a philosopher is because he claims to have found all the answers. Philosophy=love of wisdom, but Hegel thinks he's attained wisdom. 87

Still, Hegel believes he has attained it through reason, through contemplation, not through grace or prophecy. He doesn't think his system needs to be taken on faith. He makes an appeal to experience. 88

If there is a God it's a God who can be known. Hegel finds our humanity in our capacity to think, to know, and to seek to be known; not in our capacity to pray, sing, dance, meditate. Non rationalist modes are 'primitive' for him. 89

So what do I like in Hegel? I love the combination of creativity and rigor, the daring to make a system that is both about historical particularities and abstract principles, lived experience and fundamental structure. 90

The notion that each age and each person has a partial truth to contribute, and that social conflict is the result of metaphysical contradictions--I find alluring. 91

I like the idea that my small life with my small experiences in the grand cosmos is not only a reflection of something bigger, but possibly a means to manifesting it. I've written about some of this mystical sensibility here: whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/how-to-think… 92

I admire Hegel's project of seeing religious tradition as having a rational kernel even if it doesn't express it explicitly. I don't always agree with this enterprise, but as a product of the enlightenment myself it seems a good way to hold onto faith without being dogmatic. 93

Is Hegel a Trojan horse to secularism. Yes. Is he a Trojan horse to religion, back from secularism. Also, yes. 94

Is religion something you can discard once you get the message? Or do we need the medium b/c it is the message? Yes and yes. And one reason I don't like Hegel's conflation of Athens (philosophy) and Jerusalem (religion) is that I find them to have autonomous meaning. 95

Likewise, I don't reduce art to its philosophical content. I don't think poets are simply naive philosophers or else good PR/marketing for philosophical ideas (as some think Lucretius, the consummate philosopher-poet, thinks). 96

Art says what philosophy can't; what reason can't say, even if it is informed by reason. Similarly, myth; similarly ritual; similarly religious experience. 97

But I do agree w/ Hegel that we should ask, why do some turn to art, to religion, etc. On what basis do they discover aesthetics, spirituality? The answer IS always a tale of intersubjective drama and we needn't be reductionist about it. 98

It's good to acknowledge that things evolve and develop. The present isn't refuted by the fact that it came from somewhere else, nor will it be refuted by the future. 99

What if, at the end of history, the end of the book, it is time, once again, to begin?

What if, as Edmond Jabes writes, "every word is a question in the book of being"? 100/100