I left class today feeling like we hadn't discussed what we found thoroughly enough. And sure, I could wait until Thursday, but we have a blog so we might as well use it. The biggest question I have in my head now is:
We have sort of processed the information thinking that Hegel was wrong. We had this opinion going into reading that it would be difficult and outdated. So my question is this; is what Hegel is saying REALLY outdated?
Each of our groups today portrayed a part of the diagram that Ben put on the board; the first group laid out the foundation for the timeline of history, while the other groups WERE the thesis and antithesis-thesis being the individual rulers (who, by the way, all have things in common), and the antithesis being the groups who opposed those rulers and made changes and took history in a different direction (ultimately toward the End of History). I think it's obvious that Hitler is our present day Alexander the Great, Julius Caeser, and Napoleon. We briefly said that the progression has an east-west orientation, but I find it to be more south-north. In any case, Hegel shows this progression toward freedom and truth through conflict, because conflict is the antithesis. The only way history changes is through conflict, and without change the End of History isn't attainable. Back to Hitler-what he did was unimaginable, but it DID change the course of history. I feel like it was an aid in striving for changing social interactions between people (i.e. gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc.). So I think another important question is, who is it that is going to take up Hitler, Napoleon, Caeser, and Alexander's role as the thesis? And for that matter, what exactly is the criteria for someone to fit this position? Glenn Beck might say Obama. And for that matter, we've had and still have people who may be considered heartless rulers...so why aren't they remembered like these 4 are?
Just some thoughts. :)
I think it's fair to call Hegel contemporary in the sense that many of his ideas can still be found in play, in a multitude of discourses. However, in my opinion, his philosophy is outdated, and the fact that it is still so prevalent is therefore problematic. Shouldn't we be worried that such a Eurocentric, racist and sexist theory, which clearly privileges Christian ideology, is still so deeply embedded in our ways of thought?
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth noting, I think, that Hegel was a privileged member of a society that WAS A PRODUCT of the very history he was discussing (/authoring).... So of course it was easy for him to say that the way things were was the way things were supposed to be, and that all of history was gradual progress to that point. The value system in power was one from which Hegel benefited, and which he had been taught to follow his whole life.
That said! I think the Hitler question is super interesting. On one hand, I think it would be fairly easy to argue that Hitler qualifies as a World-Historical individual. He was obsessed with "One Aim"; he died early and violently; he 'trampled upon many an innocent flower' to accomplish his goal. Hitler himself would have absolutely said that his goals were moral and just. And -- again -- I think that the ease with which we call Hitler a 'great man' under Hegel's philosophy illustrates how dangerous Hegel's philosophy can be. But -- I am not sure that Hegel actually would classify Hitler as a World-Historical Individual. In the time of Alexander the Great, it was rather common practice to invade neighboring empires and kill a whole bunch of civilians, enslave them... what have you. By the 1930's, however, those days were largely over. Killing civilians was pretty universally frowned upon -- in fact, judging by the monopoly Hegel seemed to think the Germans held on Reason, Justice, and Freedom, one might say it was especially frowned upon in Western Europe (at least in theory). So the systematic genocide of peoples was horrifically unethical by the day's standards, and therefore not progress, as Hegel says Historical Men must engender, but a massive dive into brutal, extreme practices already forsworn by mankind.
The fact that Hitler could have justified his own actions using Hegel's philosophy (and without even having to lie about what Hegel wrote!) is...... bad. It seems to me that none of the World-Historical individuals could have actually judged, in their own time, whether or not they were enacting the will of the World-Spirit -- because all of that is decided after the fact, after Hegel can see who's won, and what new government was installed, and how long it lasted, and the development in thought/science/religion it spawned, etc etc. A cliched and generally horrible question, perhaps, but: what if Hitler HAD won, and changed the course of history in a different way? What would keep a neo-Hegelian from saying that the murder of over 6 million people was necessary for progress? (--Because obviously, how we locate ideals and values in reality is totally subjective.) Or -- even if the Holocaust did raise awareness for civil rights, and aid the improvement of relationships between social groups, as you propose, I still don't think anyone could argue that the Holocaust was a necessary and/or optimal path to that movement.
Anyway. It's after midnight and I'm beginning to ramble -- I just wanted to respond to your post, Liz, because I think it's awesome you're actually using the blog! And also, I'm a nerd.
...........
P.S. I just looked up "neo-Hegelian" and it is apparently a real thing. Whoops. I just meant it as "someone in contemporary society who agrees with / operates under / uses Hegel's philosophy".
Yay for spontaneous blogging!
ReplyDeletei'd agree with Sophie about Hegel's philosophy being outdated, as our culture has changed a great deal since the German philosophizing rock star began lecturing. On the other hand, our culture is still deeply Hegelian - we still learn about "great men" in history and I know my textbook from AP US history has a forward driving motion in it. So even though are methods are in a dire need of an upgrade, it feels like we're still teaching history from an early operating system (to use a technical metaphor, not that I at all understand how operating systems actually work…)
Which brings me to a questing that's been nagging at my mind - if such philosophy is outdated but we're still following Hegelian methods, does that mean we're still going to be looking for and labeling "great men" even though such figures may not be so clearly defined in our present state? History is usually made by looking back at the past and studying what happened. But now we speak of history happening in the present, of making history, of thinking of ourselves playing an active role in history. But if we're constantly looking for the next Alexander - or the next Hitler - does this make a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy where we expect such a figure to appear, and one is created from our expectations? Is Obama a great man because he's really done great things or because he's the president and we label hims as great because of his title? Does fretting over the possibility of another Hitler create conditions for another dictator like him to exist? Or does it makes us more aware of such people and thus destroy any chance of another Hitler?
And Hitler as one of Hegel's "great men"… yikes. You're completely right, Sophie, that Hitler could have justified what he was doing with Hegel's text. And it terrifies me. What is the difference between Napoleon and Hitler? (besides the obvious, clearly) The British really, really hated Napoleon, yet he's not exactly a bad guy in the textbooks. Is it bad that I know more "stuff" about Hitler than I do Napoleon? Can we separate "great men" into categories of good guys and bad guys?
All I've got are more questions. So I'm going to stop this before I end up rambling about the meaning of life.