The Appeal of Hegel

What did a materialist in the making like Marx find appealing in the works of German idealists in general and Hegel in particular? Was it simply because reading The Phenomenology of Spirit gives you magic powers?

Other urls found in this thread:

inb4 Anal Water shows up and ruins the thread for everyone.

There is a good reason why philosophy has done pretty much nothing for 200 years but trying to either disprove or prove Hegel

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. - Marx
Also, Google Bookchin

Hegel presented a valuable way of thinking about concepts, it just came loaded with retarded mysticism that needed to be excised for anything of value to come out of it.

Hegelian conception of history is nonlinear and accounts for historical change.

As I understand it - Hegel's conception of history actually is linear. Marx's historical materialism, using Hegel's idea of the dialectic as a starting point, is what you are thinking of.

Nothing in Hegel is linear as such. The Philosophy of history changed over time, and Hegel expected it to be revised as new knowledge came to light. Marx is the one who has not only a linear theory of history, but later on abandoned any attempt at such a theory of history beyond our own epoch.

Marx was in love with the idea of science. Hegel provides an absolute logic with unquestionable developments, thus making for a technically undefeatable argument, and with capital he thought he also found ample empirical evidence to justify it as the most empirically fit theory as well.

If you're not writing the next version of Capital, or theory of history, or any such science, Hegel is not for you unless you're interested in knowing anyway.

Marx was an idealist before reading stirner

a.w., you don't even know marx and this shows it


Have you looked at what I wrote there? I didn't intend to write about Marx's theory of fetishism there. It's such an unintuitive reversal of the term 'fetishism' that does not fit. I talk about the same thing with another common consideration of fetishism in mind.

I know Marx's theory more than I would like to these days, and far more than you do.

you did, you just later backpeddled after deepcomrade showed how wrong you were. you asked for a marxist's thoughts to say "okay, i accept the critique", but what critique? the only thing deepcomrade did was define the marxist concept of fetishism and tell you that you didn't understand it.

You're a sophist who's too eager to prove something

In case you don't know, he and I know each other. I didn't ask if he accepted it, I asked him his thoughts precisely because I value his knowledge of Marx and wanted actual critique. He provided good feedback and corrected my misattribution, which I acknowledged. The corrective note I added at the top was not because of him, but because on reddit people were busy telling me I didn't understand Marx's theory of fetishism instead of actually responding to my points. I had not written the blog to expound Marx's theory, but my own consideration of the concept. The idea I had before and after never changed, but the way I had misattributed a portion of it to Marx did.

Why are you against intellectual honesty and genuine dialogue? I asked for feedback and correction, I got it, I accepted it, and I clarified to correct it. If that's wrong or weak to you, well you're a brainlet.

exactly, you didn't understand Marx's concept of fetishism and all that time of giving self-important lectures to everyboody

Anyone have the links of Anal Water being BTFO?

I wish I saved the one from /leftpol/ where he was misreading Hegel as a monistic totality, rather than an abstract one.

A.W. , why is it that you, as sure as sun rising in the east, appear in every possible thread remotely related to Hegel but never in any other theory or philosophical context?

Never change.

Marx was convinced that destroying class structure required challenging even the most basic assumptions.

Because you don't read any other theory thread worth reading. I post in econ threads, Marxism threads, and political practice threads I find interesting. I also have a life besides responding to ignorant posts. Hegel is just my major interest.


That's true, all those ignorant blog posts about philosophies you don't understand aren't going to write themselves I guess.

iirc dialectics lets us get past the aporias of metaphysics that Kant grappled with, especially the problem of the phenomena vs noumena. Phenomena are things we can understand and grasp, noumena are said to be 'the things themselves', not just how things are for us (our sensuous faculties and modes of reasoning are contingent not absolute). If we are going to make world history, we need to be able to access and form the noumena

I literally made the /theory/ thread and I've been in almost every thread you have. I see you're as haughty as ever

t. Spinoza/Jacobi rift

Holy shit, this is rich coming from you. You regularly argue in bad faith, you samefag to make it seem like you're winning an argument, you dismiss people without any good reason to, and you're an insufferable prick to literally anyone you reply to. 90% of your arguments boil down to "the person in arguing with doesn't understand X" or "uh, you're using words differently than I do". There's a reason you're universally hated here, and if you put half as much effort as you spend shitting on people into trying to be helpful you'd be able to completely change that. Why even bother posting here if you're not going to contribute meaningfully to any conversation? Do you just like the attention? Because positive attention would feel way better fam, please consider changing your behavior.

Was Stirner a materialist?

no, he was an egoist :3

Never have, because I rarely argued nor claim to argue here nor anywhere. Arguments are had between people with a common ground, and I have no common ground with you. I say this a lot: argument is a waste, discussion is the aim. I think I've engaged two discussions in the entire time I've visited leftypol, and one of them was the bait art thread from last week.

Never have. I polite sage my own posts when they're irrelevant. I shitpost, but I don't argue against myself to get higher. I'm sorry to say user, but you and most of this board >really are as stupid< as it seems. I don't have to lie to make you look bad, you already do.

Never have. The only person in this world who could ever claim this doesn't even browse leftypol anymore. Not only that, he actually has a brain despite how terrible his ideas are. I suppose telling you that you don't know what you're talking about (99% true) is not a good enough reason if you're really stupid, but in that case what do you want me to do about it? You're stupid, of course you wouldn't recognize a good reason.

Because I can dismantle anything you have that is of substance.

Do you think I care what you, a bunch of nameless and faceless nobodies who literally have sub 101 knowledge and argumentative skills think? You tell straight lies about me in this very post, but you know who is going to go check what you say? No one. You know who is actually going to believe me or you? No one with a brain.

Your argument is just personal attacks substantiated by outright lies. If I tell you and show you that you're wrong, you get asspained and don't accept it because you literally say this: that's not what I define it as. Good for you, I'm not interested in definition games.

Just going to drop in here as a spectator. You speak like you want it up the ass but hate gay people.