What do you think?
Rate this book
Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx: Three Great Philosophers Whose Ideas Changed the Course of Civilization
English, German (translation)
- GenresPhilosophy
438 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1963
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 10, 2016
A Triad of Dialectics
The subtitle of this book suggests that its subject matter is three great philosophers whose ideas changed the course of civilisation.
There's an element of misrepresentation in the subtitle.
Heiss doesn't really attempt to make a case that any of them is great, nor does he show explicitly how any of them changed the course of civilisation, nor does he identify which of their ideas might have had this effect.
I would probably have been prepared to take it on faith that at least Hegel and Marx were great philosophers, and I accept that Marx might have changed the course of civilisation, at least for a time. I'm not so sure about Hegel's influence (unless you take into account his influence on Marx).
Kierkegaard was somebody about whose philosophy I was quite ignorant. To be honest, after reading this book, I probably remain so, and don't feel particularly inclined to remedy my ignorance.
Out of fairness to Heiss, I suspect that the subtitle was the work of his American publishers. The original German title was something like "The Great Dialectic(s) (or Dialectitians?)
of the Nineteenth Century", which is a far better description of the book.
Heiss' "[Dialectical] Method"
The book isn't so much about the overall philosophy of each philosopher, nor does it try to prove their greatness or influence.
Its primary concern seems to be the development, detection and/or application of a Dialectic by each of them. To the extent that it goes further, it is merely a limited, brief and adequate, if readable, review of each philosopher's ideas, combined with sizable portions of relevant or useful information about their lives.
Heiss nevertheless reviews almost all of each philosopher's major works in the context of what he describes as a "Dialectical Method". He doesn't so much define a "Dialectical Method" and examine how it is used by each philosopher, as seek out explicit or implicit evidence of a Dialectic or a Dialectical Method in their thought, whether or not they expressly adopted the terminology (or in Hegel's case, actually denied that it was a "Method").
The analysis of Hegel occupies about half of the book, while each of the other two receive about one quarter.
Heiss attempts to make comparative judgments about the temperament of the three philosophers, based on their writings and their lives. I am unable to assess the veracity of these judgments except on face value.
Hegel's Dialectic
While Kant earlier used a "transcendental dialectical" method, Hegel probably did more than anybody since Aristotle to flesh out the concept and find or apply it in the development of a robust system of philosophy.
Indeed, Hegel's entire system is totally dependent on his Dialectic.
All Dialectics rely on a contradiction, opposition or antagonism between two ideas, objects or forces.
In Hegel's philosophy, the contradiction resolves itself in a way that preserves something of each part of the contradiction.
Having resolved the contradiction, the outcome becomes the first step in another Dialectical sequence.
The three steps in Hegel's Dialectic are often described as Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. However, Hegel did not embrace this terminology, instead using Being, Nothing and Becoming (thanks to Nathan for highlighting this).
The relation between Being and Nothing is one of negation, so it's also appropriate to speak in terms of Positive and Negative.
Heiss believes that Hegel was optimistic about the direction of the sequential operation of the Dialectic. He saw it as leading to Absolute Truth and the Ideal.
When he applied the Dialectic to history, he saw a progressive spirit at play. Over time, humanity would move onwards and upwards to a higher level.
However, Hegel inferred this trend more from past history. He tended to focus more on the past, as an explanation of how we got here. He did not spend a lot of time analysing the present in any disciplined manner, at least from the point of view of its role as the second step in the Dialectic. He certainly did not endeavour to extrapolate from the past or the present into the future. He was more concerned with actuality, rather than potentiality.
In summary, Heiss considers that Hegel:
1. Used the Dialectic as a method of analysis (including a method of analysis of history)(Note, however, as reinforced in the thread below, that Hegel himself denied that the Dialectic was a "Method");
2. Was optimistic about the future operation of the Dialectical Process in the context of history;
3. Did not seek to be predictive (which probably reflects the fact that he did not see the Dialectic as a "Method"); and
4. Did not see any great role for individual action or subjectivity in the outcome of the Dialectical Process in the context of history.
Comparing Kierkegaard and Marx
Neither Kierkegaard nor Marx purported to adopt or apply Hegel's Dialectic slavishly or blindly. Both were highly critical of Hegel. In effect, they developed their own versions of a Dialectic or a Dialectical Method that differed quite significantly. It's these differences that form the true subject matter of the book.
In summary (using the above four criteria):
1. All three used the Dialectic as a method of description or analysis, although more so Hegel and Marx;
2. Kierkegaard was pessimistic, while Hegel and Marx were both optimistic about the outcome of the Process;
3. Hegel did not seek to predict the specific outcome of the Dialectic, whereas Kierkegaard (to a lesser extent) and Marx (to a great extent) did try to be predictive and prophetic, especially in the latter case in pursuit of a scientific basis for the inevitability of Revolution.
4. Neither Hegel nor Kierkegaard saw much potential for individual human action as a contributor to history. However, once the conditions for Revolution were ripe, Marx envisaged that individuals could make a difference to the manner in which a Revolution was carried out.
Kierkegaard's Dialectic
I found the 100 pages on Kierkegaard the least engaging. However, I can't yet tell whether this is because of Heiss' exposition or the intrinsic nature of Kierkegaard's thought.
Heiss paints a picture of Kierkegaard as somebody who locked up his suffering and grief after the break-up of his engagement, and never really recovered.
He was miserable, tormented, erratic, sceptical, negative and pessimistic. He saw himself as "confronted by a shattered and disunified existence, as he experienced it in himself and in the world."
In Heiss' eyes, these qualities inevitably contributed to a philosophy of unhappiness, despair and dread.
Kierkegaard's embrace of the Dialectic seems to result in the two forces cancelling out or nullifying each other.
It seems to have resulted in an emptiness or an abyss. In Heiss' opinion, Kierkegaard defined the contradiction, but had not yet taken "the dialectical leap".
However, in failing to do so, he regarded the process as "making room so that God can come".
Man had tampered with the power of God. Now, Religion had to be revived and a new place made for God in the life of the individual, unmediated by the Church. In Kierkegaard's thought, the future lies in a return to the past, hence the lack of interest in prediction.
Marx' Dialectical Method
Marx' philosophy would have been nothing without his perception (whether misunderstanding or not) of Hegel's Dialectical Method: in Heiss' words, "Marx is unthinkable without Hegel."
Whether correctly or not, Marx and Engels, in discussing Hegel's Dialectic, described it as a Method, only to dispute and, in their eyes, correct it.
In effect, Marx and Engels did not accept Hegel's assertion that his Dialectic was not a Method.
However, Marx agreed that Hegel had correctly understood the flow or movement intrinsic to the Dialectical Process. However, he believed that Hegel had misapplied his "Method", particularly in relation to history. He also opposed the manner in which Hegel had used it for the purposes of mystification in a religious sense.
The allegation of misapplication relates to the subject matter to which each philosopher applied the Dialectical Method.
Marx' primary concern with the Hegelian Dialectic was its operation in the context of history.
Whereas Hegel was concerned with the Consciousness and the Spirit, Marx' version of the Dialectical Method was materialistic and economic. Although Marx didn't use the term, Marxists would subsequently describe his version as "Dialectical Materialism". (Note that they didn't call it a Materialist Dialectic. The paramount descriptor was the materialist element. It was a form of Materialism that was Dialectical.)
Marx didn't see history in terms of a dialectical progress towards Truth and Absolute Spirit. Consciousness was a secondary issue for him (this is not to deny that he had any interest in Consciousness). He saw history in terms of class conflict that would ultimately witness the Proletariat prevail over the Bourgeoisie and Communism prevail over Capitalism.
Importantly, Marx did little to define what Communism would look like or whether it would become the first step in the next sequence of the Dialectical Process.
The Dialectical Process required an engine that would achieve the transition to Communism, and Marx believed that this engine was Revolution. He therefore used the Dialectical Method to persuade the Working Class that Revolution was both necessary and inevitable, at least once the economic conditions were ripe.
In effect, Marx harnessed his belief in Revolution to the Dialectical Process that dictated the course of history.
To the extent that the Dialectical Method was a well-known and credible concept, he co-opted it to drive a revolutionary movement.
Thus, Marx differed from Hegel in the sense that he was prepared to be predictive and prophetic. In a way, he created a self-fulfilling prophecy, and then did his best to fulfil it. Indeed, he spent much of his life anticipating that a Revolution in Germany, if not England, was just around the corner. If he had been right in his lifetime, he would have been an active leader of the revolutionary workers' movement that carried out the Revolution.
Thus, in addition to creating a philosophy that predicted Revolution, Marx was prepared to participate subjectively in making it happen, by way of agitation, propaganda and action.
Heiss attributes part of this motivation to Marx' personal circumstances and the economic and political situation that applied in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Heiss' Conclusion
Heiss discusses much more of both Hegel's and Marx' philosophies. His analysis of Marx is contained in chapters on each major topic that are usually between three and six pages long. While they are informative and easy to understand, I would prefer to discuss Marx' philosophy in other reviews.
After 400 pages of explication, Heiss leaves us with two principal conclusions:
1. There is not one, but many ways, of looking at things dialectically; and
2. The way the "Dialectical Method" (as Heiss uses the term) is used is always "situationally determined".
For an analysis of three great philosophers whose ideas were supposed to have changed the course of civilisation, it's a pretty limp conclusion.
Ultimately, the book is a relatively superficial attempt to deal with its subject matter. It is likely that it has been superseded by more robust analyses as the interest in Hegel has become more prevalent in Continental Philosophy.
I don't regret reading the book, but I can't recommend it.
The subtitle of this book suggests that its subject matter is three great philosophers whose ideas changed the course of civilisation.
There's an element of misrepresentation in the subtitle.
Heiss doesn't really attempt to make a case that any of them is great, nor does he show explicitly how any of them changed the course of civilisation, nor does he identify which of their ideas might have had this effect.
I would probably have been prepared to take it on faith that at least Hegel and Marx were great philosophers, and I accept that Marx might have changed the course of civilisation, at least for a time. I'm not so sure about Hegel's influence (unless you take into account his influence on Marx).
Kierkegaard was somebody about whose philosophy I was quite ignorant. To be honest, after reading this book, I probably remain so, and don't feel particularly inclined to remedy my ignorance.
Out of fairness to Heiss, I suspect that the subtitle was the work of his American publishers. The original German title was something like "The Great Dialectic(s) (or Dialectitians?)
of the Nineteenth Century", which is a far better description of the book.
Heiss' "[Dialectical] Method"
The book isn't so much about the overall philosophy of each philosopher, nor does it try to prove their greatness or influence.
Its primary concern seems to be the development, detection and/or application of a Dialectic by each of them. To the extent that it goes further, it is merely a limited, brief and adequate, if readable, review of each philosopher's ideas, combined with sizable portions of relevant or useful information about their lives.
Heiss nevertheless reviews almost all of each philosopher's major works in the context of what he describes as a "Dialectical Method". He doesn't so much define a "Dialectical Method" and examine how it is used by each philosopher, as seek out explicit or implicit evidence of a Dialectic or a Dialectical Method in their thought, whether or not they expressly adopted the terminology (or in Hegel's case, actually denied that it was a "Method").
The analysis of Hegel occupies about half of the book, while each of the other two receive about one quarter.
Heiss attempts to make comparative judgments about the temperament of the three philosophers, based on their writings and their lives. I am unable to assess the veracity of these judgments except on face value.
Hegel's Dialectic
While Kant earlier used a "transcendental dialectical" method, Hegel probably did more than anybody since Aristotle to flesh out the concept and find or apply it in the development of a robust system of philosophy.
Indeed, Hegel's entire system is totally dependent on his Dialectic.
All Dialectics rely on a contradiction, opposition or antagonism between two ideas, objects or forces.
In Hegel's philosophy, the contradiction resolves itself in a way that preserves something of each part of the contradiction.
Having resolved the contradiction, the outcome becomes the first step in another Dialectical sequence.
The three steps in Hegel's Dialectic are often described as Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. However, Hegel did not embrace this terminology, instead using Being, Nothing and Becoming (thanks to Nathan for highlighting this).
The relation between Being and Nothing is one of negation, so it's also appropriate to speak in terms of Positive and Negative.
Heiss believes that Hegel was optimistic about the direction of the sequential operation of the Dialectic. He saw it as leading to Absolute Truth and the Ideal.
When he applied the Dialectic to history, he saw a progressive spirit at play. Over time, humanity would move onwards and upwards to a higher level.
However, Hegel inferred this trend more from past history. He tended to focus more on the past, as an explanation of how we got here. He did not spend a lot of time analysing the present in any disciplined manner, at least from the point of view of its role as the second step in the Dialectic. He certainly did not endeavour to extrapolate from the past or the present into the future. He was more concerned with actuality, rather than potentiality.
In summary, Heiss considers that Hegel:
1. Used the Dialectic as a method of analysis (including a method of analysis of history)(Note, however, as reinforced in the thread below, that Hegel himself denied that the Dialectic was a "Method");
2. Was optimistic about the future operation of the Dialectical Process in the context of history;
3. Did not seek to be predictive (which probably reflects the fact that he did not see the Dialectic as a "Method"); and
4. Did not see any great role for individual action or subjectivity in the outcome of the Dialectical Process in the context of history.
Comparing Kierkegaard and Marx
Neither Kierkegaard nor Marx purported to adopt or apply Hegel's Dialectic slavishly or blindly. Both were highly critical of Hegel. In effect, they developed their own versions of a Dialectic or a Dialectical Method that differed quite significantly. It's these differences that form the true subject matter of the book.
In summary (using the above four criteria):
1. All three used the Dialectic as a method of description or analysis, although more so Hegel and Marx;
2. Kierkegaard was pessimistic, while Hegel and Marx were both optimistic about the outcome of the Process;
3. Hegel did not seek to predict the specific outcome of the Dialectic, whereas Kierkegaard (to a lesser extent) and Marx (to a great extent) did try to be predictive and prophetic, especially in the latter case in pursuit of a scientific basis for the inevitability of Revolution.
4. Neither Hegel nor Kierkegaard saw much potential for individual human action as a contributor to history. However, once the conditions for Revolution were ripe, Marx envisaged that individuals could make a difference to the manner in which a Revolution was carried out.
Kierkegaard's Dialectic
I found the 100 pages on Kierkegaard the least engaging. However, I can't yet tell whether this is because of Heiss' exposition or the intrinsic nature of Kierkegaard's thought.
Heiss paints a picture of Kierkegaard as somebody who locked up his suffering and grief after the break-up of his engagement, and never really recovered.
He was miserable, tormented, erratic, sceptical, negative and pessimistic. He saw himself as "confronted by a shattered and disunified existence, as he experienced it in himself and in the world."
In Heiss' eyes, these qualities inevitably contributed to a philosophy of unhappiness, despair and dread.
Kierkegaard's embrace of the Dialectic seems to result in the two forces cancelling out or nullifying each other.
It seems to have resulted in an emptiness or an abyss. In Heiss' opinion, Kierkegaard defined the contradiction, but had not yet taken "the dialectical leap".
However, in failing to do so, he regarded the process as "making room so that God can come".
Man had tampered with the power of God. Now, Religion had to be revived and a new place made for God in the life of the individual, unmediated by the Church. In Kierkegaard's thought, the future lies in a return to the past, hence the lack of interest in prediction.
Marx' Dialectical Method
Marx' philosophy would have been nothing without his perception (whether misunderstanding or not) of Hegel's Dialectical Method: in Heiss' words, "Marx is unthinkable without Hegel."
Whether correctly or not, Marx and Engels, in discussing Hegel's Dialectic, described it as a Method, only to dispute and, in their eyes, correct it.
In effect, Marx and Engels did not accept Hegel's assertion that his Dialectic was not a Method.
However, Marx agreed that Hegel had correctly understood the flow or movement intrinsic to the Dialectical Process. However, he believed that Hegel had misapplied his "Method", particularly in relation to history. He also opposed the manner in which Hegel had used it for the purposes of mystification in a religious sense.
The allegation of misapplication relates to the subject matter to which each philosopher applied the Dialectical Method.
Marx' primary concern with the Hegelian Dialectic was its operation in the context of history.
Whereas Hegel was concerned with the Consciousness and the Spirit, Marx' version of the Dialectical Method was materialistic and economic. Although Marx didn't use the term, Marxists would subsequently describe his version as "Dialectical Materialism". (Note that they didn't call it a Materialist Dialectic. The paramount descriptor was the materialist element. It was a form of Materialism that was Dialectical.)
Marx didn't see history in terms of a dialectical progress towards Truth and Absolute Spirit. Consciousness was a secondary issue for him (this is not to deny that he had any interest in Consciousness). He saw history in terms of class conflict that would ultimately witness the Proletariat prevail over the Bourgeoisie and Communism prevail over Capitalism.
Importantly, Marx did little to define what Communism would look like or whether it would become the first step in the next sequence of the Dialectical Process.
The Dialectical Process required an engine that would achieve the transition to Communism, and Marx believed that this engine was Revolution. He therefore used the Dialectical Method to persuade the Working Class that Revolution was both necessary and inevitable, at least once the economic conditions were ripe.
In effect, Marx harnessed his belief in Revolution to the Dialectical Process that dictated the course of history.
To the extent that the Dialectical Method was a well-known and credible concept, he co-opted it to drive a revolutionary movement.
Thus, Marx differed from Hegel in the sense that he was prepared to be predictive and prophetic. In a way, he created a self-fulfilling prophecy, and then did his best to fulfil it. Indeed, he spent much of his life anticipating that a Revolution in Germany, if not England, was just around the corner. If he had been right in his lifetime, he would have been an active leader of the revolutionary workers' movement that carried out the Revolution.
Thus, in addition to creating a philosophy that predicted Revolution, Marx was prepared to participate subjectively in making it happen, by way of agitation, propaganda and action.
Heiss attributes part of this motivation to Marx' personal circumstances and the economic and political situation that applied in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Heiss' Conclusion
Heiss discusses much more of both Hegel's and Marx' philosophies. His analysis of Marx is contained in chapters on each major topic that are usually between three and six pages long. While they are informative and easy to understand, I would prefer to discuss Marx' philosophy in other reviews.
After 400 pages of explication, Heiss leaves us with two principal conclusions:
1. There is not one, but many ways, of looking at things dialectically; and
2. The way the "Dialectical Method" (as Heiss uses the term) is used is always "situationally determined".
For an analysis of three great philosophers whose ideas were supposed to have changed the course of civilisation, it's a pretty limp conclusion.
Ultimately, the book is a relatively superficial attempt to deal with its subject matter. It is likely that it has been superseded by more robust analyses as the interest in Hegel has become more prevalent in Continental Philosophy.
I don't regret reading the book, but I can't recommend it.
August 18, 2019
Read this as a university student, when I was 19. Very interesting, but in the meanwhile outdated I guess.
June 19, 2023
Al wat oudere maar zeer heldere en degelijke inleiding in het denken van drie van de belangrijkste filosofen van de 19e eeuw.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews