File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1996/96-05-20.182, message 171

Date:          Tue, 7 May 1996 14:07:58 GMT-700
Subject:       Hegel(ianism) in Bhaskar

i have a few comments on Bhaskar's treatment of Hegel.  i realize 
these comments to be quite brief, but i would be happy to further 
develop them, if there is interest (or to be corrected).

Bhaskar often seems to have in mind a general tendency of
specific way to interpret a particular thinker and tradition.  In
this sense he is often over-critical of specific thinkers, but
quite accurate in the general tradition surrounding the thinker. 
For example, his interpretation of Hegel is quite Right Hegelian
(as was that of the young Marx).  An interpretation which is out
of phase with the Italian Hegelians and Left (or so called non-
Metaphysical, Feuerbach and the mature Marx) Hegelians.

i have been (self-)schooled in the latter traditions, and find
the Right Hegelian view impoverished, and easy to critique. 
According to Bhaskar what is left standing in a Right Hegelian
interpretation of Hegel is a dynamic of science (Logic or
understanding); which Bhaskar calls the "Fine Structure of
Hegel's Dialectic" (the rest of Hegel is not worth defending, so
it would seem in Bhaskar).

Of course, Bhaskar is very affectionate toward the Hegelian
parables in the *Phenomenology of Mind*, including the Stoical
independence, Scepticism, the Unhappy Consciousness, the
Beautiful Soul, etc.  But, his affection toward these parables
are not within the Right Hegelian tradition, but rather are given
a Left Hegelian twist.  Bhaskar seems to claim that these
consciousnesses of Hegel are (Un-Hegelianly) a manifestation of
the human (material) condition(s) and the fears and failings of
western thought.

Thus, when he wants to critique Hegel he has a Right Hegelian
interpretation of Hegel in mind, but when he wants to employ
Hegel he has a Left Hegelian interpretation in mind (neither of
which are necessarily out of phase in Hegel himself).

More importantly Hegel and the western philosophical tradition is
a genealogy to root the Critical Realist Dialectic.

In the sense, i would argue that there are not very many
Hegelians that would agree with Bhaskar's interpretation of
Hegel.  The non-Metaphysical Hegelians would protest against the
Right Hegelian interpretation and consequently the Marxian
critiques being invalid in many cases.  And the Right Hegelians
would not accept the way Bhaskar is employing Hegel with a
realist or materialist interpretation.

hans despain


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005