Is Hegel's teleological historicist philosophy ultimately to blame for the rise of totalitarian...

Is Hegel's teleological historicist philosophy ultimately to blame for the rise of totalitarian, collectivist ideologies that seem to be becoming relevant and dangerous again?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg
friesian.com/hegel.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No. Collectivist ideologies were prevalent long before that cunt started talking shit.

Every ideology is collectivist.

Yeah this user is right, but Hegel sure did not help.

yes but it would have happened either way according to him

Even individualist ones?

I thought Hegel was just a meme? He actually wrote philosophy?

No. He just summarized the zeitgeist. Reread him.

This, thank you.

Hegel (and Kant's) notion of freedom has probably been the most damaging. Most westerners think of freedom in the Hobbesian/Lockean sense, as the absence of coercion. That is, you're free insofar as nothing prevents you from doing what you want to do. Hegel viewed freedom as rationality, the final overcoming of alienation. You're not free to simply do whatever you please; freedom in this sense isn't so much a choice of patterns of behavior but itself a concrete pattern of behavior corresponding to a subject that has achieved their true potential. This notion of freedom lends itself very easily to totalitarian movements, who wish to remake all of society to fit their utopian vision. The communists and nazis both claimed that true freedom would be achieved only when their aims are met, that people had to be forced to be free.

While admitting this leaves us open to the opportunism of tyrants, it is actually true. There is no attainable horizon in which coercion is excommunicated from the world. The only bet we have is to sublimate it to a higher truer state of rationality.

Maybe, but I prefer to blame Rousseau for today's problems and shitty ideologies.

It's similar to how older Greeks understood freedom in political sense (and same with Carl Schmitt).

I think I agree, I'm very much intrigued by Hegel right now and am keeping an open mind as I slowly work through the Phenomenology. Still, the more I read Hegel the more his relevance to everything that happened in world history after him seems to become clear.

Do you have goodreads

I'm reading Science of Logic rn

>Hegel (and Kant's) notion of freedom
Please explain, I thought Kant was pretty decent, but this makes him sound terrible.

this is a conversation that's too smart for Sup Forums

Hegel was embedded within Enlightenment thinking. Hyper rationality is to blame for the rise of totalitarian ideas, as is the death of god.

Naah, I hadn't really come across that site. Seems useful though, I'll check it out.

Is žižek popular in his home country?

>rationality is to blame for the rise of totalitarian ideas
Kind of. Rationalism is the responsible for the dead of the culture and tradition, including god as you say, but I think totalitarianism is more a consequence of idealism. Marxism said that a dictatorship of the proletariat will end on the freedom of the proletariat, and we see it doesn't work on that way. Idealist usually have good ideas on paper but reality doesn't work as they think, so much of this totalitarian states born without the intention of being a dictatorship but as a consequence of try to make their idealistic systems work. There are cases like fascism and Nazism that are consciously totalitarian but they are still focused on pursue an ideal.
I suggest to you to read Nietzsche or Spengler to see what rationalism does on cultures and peoples.

>Marx
>idealist

pick one

This is a false dichotomy because totalitarianism is the norm in history up until the enlightenment and the reformation. Hegel did not help the rise of totalitarianism. Seeing that totalitarianism is actually the norm we should spend more time talking about what caused the enlightenment

Also the two famous totalitarian regimes, the nazis and the soviets came into power because of jews. One in retaliation to jews, and historically the only time after the enlightenment where whites collectivized. And the other Jewish rule over gentiles. So this is historically inaccurate thread also

Then what was he? Commies utopias looks to fucking idealistic and outside of reality that I can't found a better adjective besides 'delusional bullshit'.

A historical materialist. The entire project of Marxism was based on turning Hegel's dialectical idealism upside down. Marx claimed that it was the forces of production, that is, material conditions and not ideas, that are the driving force behind history.

800+ pages
>summarized

5

Well, it looks like I was wrong, thanks for the correction.

No, totalitarianism was a phenomenon born in the 20th century. Yes, there were plenty of violent regimes beforehand, but what was missing was the the defining characteristic of totalitarianism: a kind of total organic unity, or at least the apperance of one. It is not enough to merely pay your taxes and obey your lord, you had to participate in the grand revolutionary project.

Stalinism was the apex of totalitarianism, the notion at its most purest. The show trials where people admitted their guilt, gulag prisoners being forced to write birthday greetings to Stalin; all of it seems so bizzare to us in the modern era, but there was a very clear point to it. Even if you were complete scum, you were still a part of this organic unity. Not even Stalin was shown to be above it: whenever Stalin gave a speech and was applauded for it, he would join in the applause himself. Stalin was more than an individual, he showed himself as the very personification of zeitgeist. This kind of political project that tries to include literally everyone and everything is very much a product of the enlightenment.

This

>otalitarianism: a kind of total organic unity, or at least the apperance of one. It is not enough to merely pay your taxes and obey your lord, you had to participate in the grand revolutionary project.

You wouldn't consider ancient Egypt to fit this?

Either way, you're getting thrown from a chopper.

Have you ever heard about the emperors clothes analogy. This doesnt come from Stalinist Russia. This comes from the historic way that people were forced to treat emperors or kings like gods. You can say oh well you this was one unit. So was Sparta, Ancient Egypt, every single Mesopotamian civilization.

Cult of Personalities like Stalin are the norm in history and so is totalitarianism. Also during the time of the lords the lords didnt have the true power the church did. And the church and the pope was indeed the epitome of your totalitarian definition.

The enlightenment is the great exception to the rule. Has brought a lot of great things to this world away from this.

Also you ignored the great jewish influence in this break from the enlightenment. Where in nazi Germany Whites collectivized against jews and where in Soviet russia Jews collectivized to fight anti antisemitism

Ancient Egypt was an ultra-conservative society. The basic pillars of Egyptian society remained in place for 3000 years. I don't think they had the kind of dynamic, teleological element that is central to totalitarianism.

I think a major difference is simply technological. the all pervading, nothing sparing, unstoppable, constant tyranny of totalitarianism is different from from the calssical tyranny simply because it is way more advanced, has more tools to shape society in whatever way it wants.

>Kant
Kan'ts political philosophy is in no way similar to Hegel, most people just read his metaphysical works and ignore his political writings. There's a good Cambridge collection of them.
>TL;DR it's all about the Great World-Drama (role theory) and the unsocial sociability of man
>The human will is capable of both radical good and radical evil, morality hinges on having a good will (the categorical imperative)
>Society creates roles (role theory/the great world-drama) to cage in the will and man's dark nature
>This allows man to achieve greatness among his peers yet ultimately diminishes him; his goodness is not true goodness as societal roles that maintain order bring about good from a person with a bad will
>Kant is very pessimistic about the ability of society to preserve both freedom of the will and the greater moral good, hence the unsocial sociability of man
>Kant would approve of the moral clarity in a Libertarian society, but would say that you would be more likely to get a greater net positive moral outcome from a society where force was used to maintain order
>The question we must ask ourselves is whether we are willing to accept the darker potential nature of man and break free from from the roles that chain us or trade our freedom for a somewhat guaranteed degree of stability
>Kant is actually very compatible with Hoppe in this regard

then we must be in a more of a tyranny and totalitarianism now than we were in when germany was divided and ussr was a thing

zuckerberg alone has so much information to use and control, this is not even counting Google or burocracy of modern states

>cause and effect are important principles but history happens for no reason don't you know anything lol

>>Kan'ts political philosophy is in no way similar to Hegel,
Some people argue that Hegel didn't detach himself from Kant but argued in Kant's set framework and thus isn't different from Kant (in the end)

We are essentially less free in western countries than in nazi germany. And in Europe you live in ussr without the gulags.

Partially, Hegelianism is simply the first inkling of nostalgia in the western project, starting with Kant.
This, read Spengler or Yockey if you prefer. Marxists also correctly perceived this, but failed to understand their own place.

But remember that Stalin was also the one to finally break free of the western mold, he was the one to set in motion the post-american/post-western project.

Yeah you hit upon a very important point that goes even deeper than that. Think about what this technology allows a regime to do. Foucault went to great detail with this in "Discipline and punish".

In your terms, "Ancient tyranny" was aimed at the body, with the grotesque public rituals of torture that displayed the power of the sovereign. "Modern tyranny" is aimed at the soul. The knowledge you might be watched at all times is itself enough to shape your behavior without actual physical violence even being necessary. It is why totalitarian regimes go to great lengths to ensure public confession of guilt. The regime tries to internalize your own oppression.

Kant was arguing in a Greek framework himself, really. The Great World Drama was based on Erasmus political writings (which where Shakespeare got All The World's A Stage from), Erasmus got it from the Roman Ovid's Ages Of Man, which Ovid got from the Greek Hesiod.

This is simplified and superficial, they are fundamentally opposed as greek thought is always somatic while Kant obviously was pneumatic (pneuma = geist = spirit)

Which sounds really fucking dumb.

This is meaningless analytic gibberish that would get an F in any 200 level philosophy class, I'm sorry. You cannot reduce the whole of Greek thought into either of those terms.

> "Modern tyranny" is aimed at the soul. The knowledge you might be watched at all times is itself enough to shape your behavior without actual physical violence even being necessary. It is why totalitarian regimes go to great lengths to ensure public confession of guilt. The regime tries to internalize your own oppression.
Thanks for perfectly describing political correctness and white guilt.

You can, the epitome of classical expression is geometry, i.e. quantities of the body (soma), everything from Pythagoreanism, to Platonism to cynicism and stoicism are all geometric as a point of departure.

Read Spengler.

well said.

Those chink terms explaning "white left" and whatnot are amazing.

Hannah Arendt also agrees with this and places the findings of algebra (not dependenet on geometry/euclidean geometry) and Descartes as a turning point in the philosophy away from the old Greek thinking that you describe.

This old boy is dumber than hell.

>"wrote"

>Is Hegel's teleological historicist philosophy ultimately to blame for the rise of totalitarian, collectivist ideologies that seem to be becoming relevant and dangerous again?

...no, he & Schopenhauer were just out-consumed by David Hume.

youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg

This explains only communist regimes doesnt explain fascist or nazi regime.

Inb4 nazis had a secret police ...... every single government today has a secret police.

Welcome comrade to 1984

I did not know this, but it doesn't surprise me. Perhaps an influence acquired through old Martin (a lot more influenced by Spengler than the mainstream will admit, obvious to anyone that read "Der Mensch und die Technik")

Baizuo is my favorit word.

How exactly is stoicism "geometrical"?

Read this one right here for a deeply red-pilled perspective on Hegel and his influence

friesian.com/hegel.htm

There's Heidegger in her writings yeah, not that its a secret. I recommend trying out The Human Condition. I love some of her ideas and how she considers Plato & Aristotle's philosophy and how she herself sees praxis/human action.

>implying you understand Hegel on anything but a surface level

The decisive point here is not that men at the beginning of the modern age still believed with Plato in the mathematical structure of the universe nor that, one generation later, they believed with Descartes that certain knowledge is possible only where the mind plays with its own forms and formulas. What is decisive is the entirely un-Platonic subjection of geometry to algebraic treatment, which discloses the modern ideal of reducing terrestrial sense data and movements to mathematical symbols. Without this non-spatial symbolic language Newton would not have been able to unite astronomy and physics into a single science or, to put it another way, to formulate a law of gravitation where the same equation will cover the movements of heavenly bodies in the sky and the motion of terrestrial bodies on earth. Even then it was clear that modern mathematics, in an already breathtaking development, had discovered the amazing human faculty to grasp in symbols those dimensions and concepts which at most had been thought of as negations and hence limitations of the mind, because their immensity seemed to transcend the minds of mere mortals, whose existence lasts an insignificant time and remains bound to a not too important corner of the universe. Yet even more significant than this possibility—to reckon with entities which could not be “seen” by the eye of the mind—was the fact that the new mental instrument, in this respect even newer and more significant than all the scientific tools it helped to devise, opened the way for an altogether novel mode of meeting and approaching nature in the experiment

Ironically, yes.

>Ancient Egypt

Masons faked it all. Also Ancient Rome and Greece. None of it over a few hundred years old. Our true history is hidden from us.

Are you a burger?

He is worth the inquiry. Not easy to find authors who think in depth of absolute knowing or absolute truth. I have my spirit's phenomenology always besides me. Hegel's logic is empowering when able to understand.

But hasn't he become obsolete since Husserl's phenomenology?

...

>obsolete
husserl was a jew

Nice argument, I guess?

it wasnt meant as legit argument but what i have concluded after my mild reading of husserl is, by Husserl you cant percieve reality in the sense of itself but rather through projected subjected window. This idea makes you feel broken so it is a lie. For example read Merleau-Ponty's 'L’Œil et l’esprit', another truly empowering text.

It's either him or Kant. One of the two.

>Implying that you do

>Freedom is the alone unoriginated birthright of man, and belongs to him by force of his humanity; and is independence on the will and co-action of every other in so far as this consists with every other person’s freedom.

>Compatible with totalitarian or collectivist ideologies

Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'- that is the motto of enlightenment.

Has anyone even read the Critique?

One thing I can't stand about post modernists. "Muh collectivism" isn't new, Its as old as humanity itself.