Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:45:54 +0200 From: Hans Puehretmayer <hans.puehretmayer-AT-univie.ac.at> Subject: Re: BHA: Hegel, dialectics, Stalin, etc Hi Phil! one could also say: without Hegel there would have been no philosophical Stalinism, no speculative-mysticist Lukácsianism, etc. I think, critical realism shouldn't fall back into a prae-Althusserian paradigm. Hans Phil Walden wrote: > > Hi Nuala, Mervyn, Gary, and listers > > Nuala, without Hegel there would have been no Marxism. No dialectical > philosophy. None of his work on the status of modern culture. None of his > work on the relation of science to the humanities. None of his work on the > role of the state. None of his work on how we are to understand history. > None of his work on what are the possibilities for modern art. In fact, now > you have made me think about it more, wouldn't there have been another Dark > Ages? I should actually not have been talking about retardation, but about > history being thrown back centuries. But I suppose someone (who?) might > have followed Kant's lead on dialectics, so it might not have spelled the > end of humanity. > > Mervyn, there are Great Men (and Women) in history and Hegel was one of > them. Hegel's category of the world-historical individual was applied to > figures from the past who had radically changed the course of history. > Speaking from the present, I would apply that category to Hegel in spades. > But the category is not meant to be applied to figures from the present, and > that is what is wrong with FEW. The connection between present and past has > been severed in FEW, and some abstract speculations about human potential > are supposed to plug the gap. But the truth is concrete, as someone once > said. > I don't believe my approach to Hegel is idealist, because his ideas are > an immense material force in contemporary society, and their absence would > have radically altered the course of history. Dialectics allows for the > material power of ideas as well as the material power of nature, so I don't > think I am being anti-materialist. > Who is the individualist? For me, to take account of and point up > Hegel's contribution to thought is to care for the collective interests of > humanity. To say that Hegel was only one person and therefore to vaunt him > is substitutionism, is frankly to introduce bourgeois liberal egalitarianism > into the argument. I am surprised at you Mervyn. > > Gary, you insist on claiming that Hegel made a self-serving choice about his > relations with the Prussian State, but you provide no evidence. But I have > evidence that he acted in the interests of humanity as a whole - it is in > the Terry Pinkard biography to which I referred. There was no 'trahison' > about Hegel. > I do think a large part of system is precision in the use of concepts. > Hegel had it and Kierkegaard didn't. I also think your claim that > Kierkegaard attempted to produce "an absolutely independent body of thought" > is strange. For one thing, what body of thought can be absolutely > independent? Surely where Hegel scores and Kierkegaard doesn't, is that the > former tackled the burning questions of philosophy left over by his > predecessors whereas the latter was such an avoider of difficult and > pressing issues that he topped off his quirky efforts at philosophy with a > flight into mysticism. (Though I do concede that he was progressive in > relation to the Danish church). If you are right and Kierkegaard was a > system-builder, then every philosopher is a system-builder and the term > loses all meaning. I see no systematic connection between the different > phases of Kierkegaard's philosophy (aesthetic, ethical, and religious). The > "leap of faith" that Kierkegaard requires of the reader in his religious > phase does not seem to follow from anything he has said before. > I am sure you are right that Adorno was influenced by Kierkegaard but I > suspect the influence was malign. At one point in Negative Dialectics > Adorno says philosophy is clowning and that piece of nonsense strikes me as > eminently Kierkegaardian. But Adorno generally rose above postmodern irony > and indifference. Can the same be said of Kierkegaard? On your point about > aesthetics I plead ignorance. An elaboration from you on how Adorno's > 'truth content' is influenced by Kierkegaard's subjective definition of > truth would be very welcome. > Who are the Gang of Three? > > Warm regards, > Phil > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005