Hegel and Predecessors
When Hegel said his concepts, “are in truth, self-moving functions, circles,” he revealed the main tools of his dialectical theory. The components that make up the circles are the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Understanding one aspect of the circle only leaves a half circle. The greater understanding is seeing the full circle. Knowing the thesis means there must be an opposite that further explains the thesis. Once the thesis is completed by the antithesis, then there leaves the synthesis gained by the former and the latter. This sequence of events is hard to imagine for the average person and Hegel illustrates this concept as a, “circle of circles.”
He explains the dynamic by saying, “The Idea appears in each single circle, but, at the same time, the whole Idea is constituted by the system of these peculiar phases, and each is a necessary member of the organisation” (Hegel, Encyclopedia, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021, para. 15).
When an idea is seen from the perspective of its counterpart, the concept is more fulfilled. Hegel addresses the opposite of his systemic thinking by stating, “To see that thought in its very nature is dialectical, and that as understanding, it must fall into contradictions—the negative of itself —will form one of the main lessons of logic.” Following logic to its natural conclusion is only one part of the puzzle for Hegel. He sees the process of getting there as part of the journey to being self aware of the larger whole. One of the best examples of Hegel applying his dialectical theory is when discussing religion. The spirit is the fundamental sum of all parts. Before starting to understand the start of logic to nature, the spirit should be seen as the absolute which will combine the subject and object. He explains the construction of the spirit from a scientific perspective by saying, ”Spirit is this movement of the Self which empties itself of itself and sinks itself into its substance, and also as Subject, has gone out of that substance into itself, making the substance into an object and a content at the same time as it cancels this difference between objectivity and content" (Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021, 804). David Hume insists that based on the natural laws of nature, the spiritual world doesn’t fit in the materialists principles. However, Hegel still sees value and makes room for religion in a field that is turning its back on it. Although it goes back to the Middle Ages, Hegel fulfilled a Protestant archetype to Thomas Aquinas. He used reason from past thinkers to properly frame the religious arguments outside of faith alone. In order to understand God and the world, theology is a necessary endeavor even for the philosophers who antagonize the monarchy.
He uses systematic thinking to justify his claims by stating, “Unless it is a system, a philosophy is not a scientific production. Unsystematic philosophising can only be•expected to give expression to personal peculiarities of mind, and has no principle for the regulation of its contents” (Hegel, Encyclopedia, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021, para. 14).
He pointed out how the intellectual response can often be short sighted when trying to see the bigger picture. He referenced past mistakes by saying, “The Greek philosophers, for example, became antagonists of the old religion, and destroyed its beliefs. Philosophers were accordingly banished or put to death, as revolutionists who had subverted religion and the state, two things which were inseparable” (Hegel, Encyclopedia, Fiala Phil 104 Canvas Fall 2021, para . 19).
Hegel took Immanuel Kant’s model in “Practical Philosophy” to expand the understanding of history and science. Something shared by both was the religious aspect that was missing from the emerging Enlightenment thinkers. While secularism became a foundation for their perspective on reason based thinking, Kant and Hegel kept the spiritual side as a fundamental part of understanding the world. Many of the Marxists who responded to Hegel criticised his model since materialism was not as high on his priority list. This presented the real dichotomy between the 19th century philosophers. The spiritual element was minimized by many Enlightenment thinkers and downright denied by Hume. In terms of the intellectual world, skepticism was rising in popularity among the aristocrats. Meanwhile, the norms and customs are still religious based on the majority of the population. However, in the wake of The Enlightenment, new ideas were normalized. Yet, another aspect carried by Hegel was Kant’s Protestantism. The roots of Hegel don’t just come from the scientific side of Kant, but also the religious side as well. Both share a spiritual explanation for the material world. Unlike Karl Marx, he flipped the hierarchy of priorities laid out by Hegel and reduced his religious concerns as distractions. Meanwhile, Hegel was less concerned about slavery and peasantry of his time and excused that as par for the course as far as standards. Hegel’s concerns about the limitations of the material were outweighed by the scope of his investment in the spiritual world. Another predecessor that Hegel shared overlap with was Rousseau. They had a common cause in freedom yet the source of that freedom came from opposing viewpoints. Rousseau saw the state as invariably susceptible to corruption and the main driving force to preventing free will from being obtained. Meanwhile, Hegel favors statism as a means of gaining morality and creating moral behavior in the population. Therefore, the state is a valuable resource despite its potential to become the source of societal problems. The majority of philosophers were antagonistic of the state and in pursuit of something utopian. Hegel didn’t see the state as a blockade to free will. The fact that the state will continue to exist and will have to be tolerated, he seems reluctant to criticize it as an institution, knowing that revolution will have unforeseen consequences and create disorder. By comparison, Hegel is very charitable to the state and sounds more authoritarian after looking past what many would call injustices happening under their watch. He’s also indifferent to the government’s treatment of slaves and class divisions. This allows him to focus on the pragmatic function of the state rather than seeing the wealth gap as an area of improvement. Hegel was not in the same position as those leaning towards decentralized power to achieve systemic change. Ironically, he afforded freedom to those in the government more so than probably any of the philosophers at the time. In that regard, Hegelians could interpret his work and larger philosophical concerns as similar to the monarchy’s agenda in regards to the state. Nevertheless, he was still among his peers in the cause of freedom. His religious perspective provides a new layer of depth against others like Rousseau and Kant who are on the same road and arriving at different conclusions. The scientific aspect of Hegel’s thinking brings a structural order to the world and places the ideas of his predecessors in a more tangible way.