What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to the Philosophy of History: With Selections from the "Philosophy of Right"
"An elegant and intelligent translation. The text provides a perfect solution to the problem of how to introduce students to Hegel in a survey course in the history of Western philosophy." �Graham Parkes, University of Hawaii
132 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1831
102 people are currently reading
2105 people want to read
About the author
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
2,190 books2,566 followersGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher and one of the founding figures of German Idealism. Influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism and Rousseau's politics, Hegel formulated an elaborate system of historical development of ethics, government, and religion through the dialectical unfolding of the Absolute. Hegel was one of the most well-known historicist philosopher, and his thought presaged continental philosophy, including postmodernism. His system was inverted into a materialist ideology by Karl Marx, originally a member of the Young Hegelian faction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews
February 28, 2023
This is a very difficult text, but if you are curious enough about Hegel's Philosophy of History to be reading this review, you are likely prepared for the intellectual rigours that absorbing and understanding Hegel will involve. Give yourself the time to digest it slowly; one wants to linger over the beauty of certain passages, or just lay the book aside and recline in wonder and admiration over his beautiful dream. And I ask myself, How could he dream this up; what sort of an inspired, romantic genius was he?
He helps me to understand the world, and to make sense of all the pain and the horrours that our race has witnessed upon the slaughter-bench of history. (p. 24) Hegel perceives that "world history is not the place for happiness. Periods of happiness are empty pages in history," (p. 29) but his philosophical construction of history is magical and full of wonders. “Our approach is a theodicy,” writes Hegel, “a justification of the ways of God.” (p.18) Is Hegel’s philosophy a scientific analogue to Milton’s Paradise Lost, the concern of which was "to justify the ways of God to men? I believe it is.
Hegel's Philosophy of History is interesting, beautiful, and frightening all at once; because of this, reading him handsomely repays one’s efforts. It will change how you see the world. Here are a few of my favourite selections (but they do no justice to the majesty of Hegel's whole conception, nor in isolation can all their richness be perceived):
This restless succession of individuals and peoples that are here for a time and then disappear suggests one general thought, one category above all, that of universally prevalent change. And what leads us to apprehend this change in its negative aspect is the sight of the ruins of some vanished splendor. What traveler, amidst the ruins of Carthage, Palmyra, Persepolis, or Rome, has not been led to contemplate the transiency of empires and of men, and to sorrow at a once vigorous and rich life that is now gone? This is not a sorrow that dwells upon personal losses and the transiency of one’s own aims; instead, it is a disinterested sorrow at the decline of a radiant and cultured life. (p. 76)
This reminded us today of Shelley’s Ozymandias:
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said––“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
And Hegel had also written, daß nichts Großes in der Welt ohne Leidenschaft vollbracht worden ist, “that nothing great was ever accomplished in the world without passion.” (p.26)
Brief Comparison to Hartman's Translation
Last year I read Hartman’s translation and wrote a brief review there. Hartman includes a forty-two page introduction; Rauch’s translation is more readable and natural in English, and includes chapters on the Geographical Basis of History and on the Divisions of History, as well as relevant passages from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that Hartman does not include, but I still like the feel of Hartman’s edition, the sturdiness of its binding, and its compact size more than the Hacket version with the Rauch translation. It’s not a bad thing to read or own them both.
He helps me to understand the world, and to make sense of all the pain and the horrours that our race has witnessed upon the slaughter-bench of history. (p. 24) Hegel perceives that "world history is not the place for happiness. Periods of happiness are empty pages in history," (p. 29) but his philosophical construction of history is magical and full of wonders. “Our approach is a theodicy,” writes Hegel, “a justification of the ways of God.” (p.18) Is Hegel’s philosophy a scientific analogue to Milton’s Paradise Lost, the concern of which was "to justify the ways of God to men? I believe it is.
Hegel's Philosophy of History is interesting, beautiful, and frightening all at once; because of this, reading him handsomely repays one’s efforts. It will change how you see the world. Here are a few of my favourite selections (but they do no justice to the majesty of Hegel's whole conception, nor in isolation can all their richness be perceived):
This restless succession of individuals and peoples that are here for a time and then disappear suggests one general thought, one category above all, that of universally prevalent change. And what leads us to apprehend this change in its negative aspect is the sight of the ruins of some vanished splendor. What traveler, amidst the ruins of Carthage, Palmyra, Persepolis, or Rome, has not been led to contemplate the transiency of empires and of men, and to sorrow at a once vigorous and rich life that is now gone? This is not a sorrow that dwells upon personal losses and the transiency of one’s own aims; instead, it is a disinterested sorrow at the decline of a radiant and cultured life. (p. 76)
This reminded us today of Shelley’s Ozymandias:
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said––“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
And Hegel had also written, daß nichts Großes in der Welt ohne Leidenschaft vollbracht worden ist, “that nothing great was ever accomplished in the world without passion.” (p.26)
Brief Comparison to Hartman's Translation
Last year I read Hartman’s translation and wrote a brief review there. Hartman includes a forty-two page introduction; Rauch’s translation is more readable and natural in English, and includes chapters on the Geographical Basis of History and on the Divisions of History, as well as relevant passages from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that Hartman does not include, but I still like the feel of Hartman’s edition, the sturdiness of its binding, and its compact size more than the Hacket version with the Rauch translation. It’s not a bad thing to read or own them both.
May 20, 2020
Who said Hegel was difficult?
Well, me, actually. And I stand by it. I think Hegel is the hardest philosopher that I've ever read.
However, this was a lot easier than I expected. I've read a lot more secondary sources on Hegel since I last attempted reading one of his books, and they've made it a lot easier to follow his logic. Honestly, I think that doing so is the best way to tackle Hegel. I've been floating around Hegel for years, reading his predecessors (Kant, Hume, etc.) and those that he influenced (Kierkegaard, Marx, etc.), and every one of those books has made Hegel easier. But the real key has been just surfing the web. It's probably unfashionable to say so, but Wikipedia really is your friend in the reading of Hegel.
This is the first time that I've actually finished one of Hegel's books, and I honestly think that I understood almost all of what he was getting at. Of course, it took a lot longer than any other one hundred page book that I've read before, but it was definitely worth it. Hegel was an incredible thinker. His ideas can be kind of overwhelming in their complexity, but when you grasp them, they have the potential to be mind-expanding. Their difficulty stems mostly from how totally foreign they are to more conventional thinking.
To better understand what I had read, I took notes throughout the whole volume. They're quite disorganised, but they may help future readers, so I've included them below. I can't guarantee that all of my interpretations are strictly right (it is Hegel, afterall!), but they at least represent what I understood Hegel to be getting at. Hopefully they might be of use to somebody.
---
Reason is the substance of the world, in that it is the main driver of history. Reason is a personal manifestation of the will of the universal spirit, which strives towards freedom. What I mean is that the universal spirit wants freedom to act out its own self. The universal spirit is inside all of us as the ‘thesis’ of the self, although the personal self is largely defined by its relation to this thesis. This relation is the antithesis, and the thesis and the antithesis desire to harmonise, however if they do harmonise there is no more meaningful history.
The state is the culmination of the collective action of individuals attempting to realise the thesis or their relation to the thesis. The state is, as such, a form of collective action which is driven either by the universal spirit, relation to the universal spirit, or a combination of both. The goal of the state is to realise the freedom of man, which is itself the freedom of reason, which by extension is the freedom of the universal spirit.
As such, the ultimate goal of history is to realise the union of the subjective and the universal, such that the subjective will of man is harmonised with the actual reality of the social order. If this were to occur, the state would have become the tool of reason, and by extension of universal spirit. At this time, man would no longer be defined by his relation to the spirit, but by the spirit itself, as the state would have ceased to struggle towards freedom of expression of the spirit, but rather would have permitted the spirit to act out its will freely.
However, this cannot be easily realised because human passion in attempting to express itself inclines in actuality towards producing structures which restrains itself. In attempting to fulfil its own interests, the will of man necessarily creates barriers to acting out this will. For example, in the creation of the state the desire to exact revenge through violence must be restrained. When somebody exacts revenge through violence, the action itself necessarily turns against the agent through the necessary application of law. The state by necessity must restrain these passions. Sometimes, these passions become manifest in the form of an individual which is able to give them expression in such a manner that permits them to undermine the established order to create a new order. These men are ‘the great men of history’ and they express a universal concept which is in opposition to the established concept of a people or place. These people give expression to the universal spirit.
Universal spirit has the power to realise itself and the end of a human is the realisation of the universal spirit in the form of reason, and all other intellectual matters, including religiosity, morality and ethics are subordinate to this. Religiosity, morality and ethics are eternal and infinite but only in their absolute form. When they are manifest in the world, through relation of the self to their infinitude and eternity, they are necessarily limited and transitory. As such, sometimes in the realisation of reason, the others are often sidelined, as in the case of Caesar. Only the intellectual matters which are fulfilled in the actualisation of this form of reason are ‘real’ in the sense of being ‘true’. Other conceptual ideas which are not realised by it, are not ‘true’ in the same sense. Philosophy is the study of the content / actuality of the divine idea of the universal spirit.
Passion is the actuating element (the realising force) of reason. The state attempts to harmonise the universal spirit with the subjective will, and as such becomes ethics. All spiritual reality is the state. Without the state, human beings have access to the universal spirit and can create their own relation to it, but are fundamentally unable to actualise it. Actualisation of the universal spirit’s reason and desire for freedom is always in the form of the state. The actualisation of the ideal state is the objective of history.
The state of nature does not exist as a distinct thing from the basic human condition. By this I mean that the will to a state is a fundamental part of humanity. The state of nature is ahistorical.
If freedom is consent, then only the subjective element is realised. If the minority yields to the majority, freedom is not realised. The actual constitution of a properly realised state is intelligence, not ‘rule of the people’. If everyone must consent, then the government is not autonomous. The government must be autonomous but as few people as possible (ideally none) should be merely obeying. The ideal form of government will have little or no room for arbitrary expression, and will act out the will of all of the citizens.
The earliest states are authoritarian and instinctive, but even these states involve some degree of harmonisation of will (at least a greater harmonisation than among a people without a state). This is because the subjective will is subordinated to the subjective will of another, and in doing so a collective will is established, and in doing so is moved closer towards the universal will. From here, the centre of gravity is towards the realisation of a state based on the reason of the universal spirit.
Worship is meditation externalised. Art allows the divine to become visible. Art is a more sensually direct form of worship. However, the highest expression of spirit is philosophy. They have the same fundamental source as the state, i.e. reason as expression of the universal spirit. The consciousness of the union of the subjective and universal is religion (although the manifestation is the state as previously mentioned). Art and philosophy are different forms of this consciousness. Representation of God is the general foundation of the unity of a people. Religion being itself not the manifestation of ethics itself does have the potential, through becoming fanatical, of turning against ethics (the state). Religion is only one form of relation to the universal spirit, and is not (of course!) the universal spirit itself. The state and religion must be in agreement.
Nature is an eternally repeated cycle. Humanity has actual capacity for change and a drive towards ‘perfectibility’. Development is the spirit, which determines history absolutely. The actualisation of spirit is mediated by consciousness and will. The spirit both animates the will and is the product of the will. As such, the spirit must overcome itself on the path to actualisation.
World history exists in stages of development of a principle whose content is the consciousness of freedom. History (which is manifestation of spirit) strives to move from the imperfect to the perfect, but contains the perfect inside of itself. It is opposed by itself. The imperfect opposes the perfect, even as it has knowledge of the perfect, which is itself the source of its drive for perfection.
We often imagine that man, in a state of nature, had true freedom at the dawn of history, but this is not the case. History must begin not with this imagined state, but with the entry of rationality into decision making. The state is the first true ‘prose’ is this actualisation of spirit. True narrative begins with the state.
Language is the essential medium of recollection and imagination.
The spirit of world history is self-determining. It posits determinations in itself, negates them, and in doing so gains a more concrete determination. Every stage in this process has its own principle. Through these stages, spirit is able to express its will. The culmination of a people’s culture is the character of a people, and each unique totality is itself a principle. Humanity is separated from nature in that it is able to organise in this manner.
The deeds of great men which violate the law are often more moral than those of people with the potential for greatness who choose not to violate the law, because these great men have ‘inner significance’ in acting out the will of the spirit (although they are unaware of this). It will only be clear that they are of this category in hindsight.
A consciousness which attempts to break down elements of the world (often in the form of vague conceptions), into smaller and more manageable constituent parts, is philosophy. Culture is a precondition for the existence of philosophy, but this philosophy can then be reflected back to the culture which has the power to endow it with universality, at which point the philosophy has both ‘content’ and ‘form’. Philosophy inevitably arises in the development of the state. Philosophers arise as they try to devise an intellectual path to unity in a divided world. The state in bringing together diverse consciousnesses into a whole necessarily includes some division, and the intellectual need is present to resolve these division into a coherent whole. The arts arise also to bridge these divides.
The animal does not have freedom because it does not meaningfully think. Because it does not meaningfully think, it cannot organise into a state. The human can sense itself as an individual and is capable of abstraction, and through this abstraction can ‘renounce particularity’ and hence conceive of the infinite. As this experience is common to all humans, a collective consciousness is capable of emerging (because the abstractions incline together socially). As such, a culture is formed and this culture is spirit (geist), which is ‘concerned with the production of itself’. Its highest aim is knowledge of itself - sight and thought - this is inevitable, but this also begins the decline of the spirit, to make way for a new one.
Interests are constantly changing and shifting, and this is the primary mover of ‘change’. Change ultimately brings these cultures to an end, whereupon a new one rises in its place (like a phoenix).
A people is ‘ethical virtuous and strong, insofar as it brings forth what it wills, defending what it does against external force in the work of objectifying itself’. When these two are in harmony, there is no difference between the people’s objective and subjective existence. The spirit becomes inactive when these two become one. At this point, the culture enters a state of ‘habit’ and begins what Hegel terms ‘national suicide’. This ending is part preservation and part transfiguration, as the former culture is not so much recycled, as negated by a self-activating consciousness. What occurs on a smaller level: negation and synthesis, here occurs on a macro level. The final stage defines a people.
Substansive freedom vs subjective freedom. In the former we see conventional law, in which laws are followed as matter of course. In the latter, we see personal will and individual insight which inform an individual’s relation to law, and guides their morality.
The spirit has four observable degrees of development, typified by Hegel as Oriental, Greek, Roman and Germanic. The oriental degree is immediate revelation, in which substantial spirit is sensed (see above). The second is is when ‘being-for-itself’ is sensed, and ethical individuality is discovered. The third (Roman) degree is when abstract universality is discovered, and people live collectively for the state. However, it is not until the fourth that this is reversed, and spirit ‘creates and knows its truth as its own thought, and as a world of lawlike actuality’. In the last state, divine and human natures are made one. Church and 'empire' are different institutions but they are rooted in a single unity.
Well, me, actually. And I stand by it. I think Hegel is the hardest philosopher that I've ever read.
However, this was a lot easier than I expected. I've read a lot more secondary sources on Hegel since I last attempted reading one of his books, and they've made it a lot easier to follow his logic. Honestly, I think that doing so is the best way to tackle Hegel. I've been floating around Hegel for years, reading his predecessors (Kant, Hume, etc.) and those that he influenced (Kierkegaard, Marx, etc.), and every one of those books has made Hegel easier. But the real key has been just surfing the web. It's probably unfashionable to say so, but Wikipedia really is your friend in the reading of Hegel.
This is the first time that I've actually finished one of Hegel's books, and I honestly think that I understood almost all of what he was getting at. Of course, it took a lot longer than any other one hundred page book that I've read before, but it was definitely worth it. Hegel was an incredible thinker. His ideas can be kind of overwhelming in their complexity, but when you grasp them, they have the potential to be mind-expanding. Their difficulty stems mostly from how totally foreign they are to more conventional thinking.
To better understand what I had read, I took notes throughout the whole volume. They're quite disorganised, but they may help future readers, so I've included them below. I can't guarantee that all of my interpretations are strictly right (it is Hegel, afterall!), but they at least represent what I understood Hegel to be getting at. Hopefully they might be of use to somebody.
---
Reason is the substance of the world, in that it is the main driver of history. Reason is a personal manifestation of the will of the universal spirit, which strives towards freedom. What I mean is that the universal spirit wants freedom to act out its own self. The universal spirit is inside all of us as the ‘thesis’ of the self, although the personal self is largely defined by its relation to this thesis. This relation is the antithesis, and the thesis and the antithesis desire to harmonise, however if they do harmonise there is no more meaningful history.
The state is the culmination of the collective action of individuals attempting to realise the thesis or their relation to the thesis. The state is, as such, a form of collective action which is driven either by the universal spirit, relation to the universal spirit, or a combination of both. The goal of the state is to realise the freedom of man, which is itself the freedom of reason, which by extension is the freedom of the universal spirit.
As such, the ultimate goal of history is to realise the union of the subjective and the universal, such that the subjective will of man is harmonised with the actual reality of the social order. If this were to occur, the state would have become the tool of reason, and by extension of universal spirit. At this time, man would no longer be defined by his relation to the spirit, but by the spirit itself, as the state would have ceased to struggle towards freedom of expression of the spirit, but rather would have permitted the spirit to act out its will freely.
However, this cannot be easily realised because human passion in attempting to express itself inclines in actuality towards producing structures which restrains itself. In attempting to fulfil its own interests, the will of man necessarily creates barriers to acting out this will. For example, in the creation of the state the desire to exact revenge through violence must be restrained. When somebody exacts revenge through violence, the action itself necessarily turns against the agent through the necessary application of law. The state by necessity must restrain these passions. Sometimes, these passions become manifest in the form of an individual which is able to give them expression in such a manner that permits them to undermine the established order to create a new order. These men are ‘the great men of history’ and they express a universal concept which is in opposition to the established concept of a people or place. These people give expression to the universal spirit.
Universal spirit has the power to realise itself and the end of a human is the realisation of the universal spirit in the form of reason, and all other intellectual matters, including religiosity, morality and ethics are subordinate to this. Religiosity, morality and ethics are eternal and infinite but only in their absolute form. When they are manifest in the world, through relation of the self to their infinitude and eternity, they are necessarily limited and transitory. As such, sometimes in the realisation of reason, the others are often sidelined, as in the case of Caesar. Only the intellectual matters which are fulfilled in the actualisation of this form of reason are ‘real’ in the sense of being ‘true’. Other conceptual ideas which are not realised by it, are not ‘true’ in the same sense. Philosophy is the study of the content / actuality of the divine idea of the universal spirit.
Passion is the actuating element (the realising force) of reason. The state attempts to harmonise the universal spirit with the subjective will, and as such becomes ethics. All spiritual reality is the state. Without the state, human beings have access to the universal spirit and can create their own relation to it, but are fundamentally unable to actualise it. Actualisation of the universal spirit’s reason and desire for freedom is always in the form of the state. The actualisation of the ideal state is the objective of history.
The state of nature does not exist as a distinct thing from the basic human condition. By this I mean that the will to a state is a fundamental part of humanity. The state of nature is ahistorical.
If freedom is consent, then only the subjective element is realised. If the minority yields to the majority, freedom is not realised. The actual constitution of a properly realised state is intelligence, not ‘rule of the people’. If everyone must consent, then the government is not autonomous. The government must be autonomous but as few people as possible (ideally none) should be merely obeying. The ideal form of government will have little or no room for arbitrary expression, and will act out the will of all of the citizens.
The earliest states are authoritarian and instinctive, but even these states involve some degree of harmonisation of will (at least a greater harmonisation than among a people without a state). This is because the subjective will is subordinated to the subjective will of another, and in doing so a collective will is established, and in doing so is moved closer towards the universal will. From here, the centre of gravity is towards the realisation of a state based on the reason of the universal spirit.
Worship is meditation externalised. Art allows the divine to become visible. Art is a more sensually direct form of worship. However, the highest expression of spirit is philosophy. They have the same fundamental source as the state, i.e. reason as expression of the universal spirit. The consciousness of the union of the subjective and universal is religion (although the manifestation is the state as previously mentioned). Art and philosophy are different forms of this consciousness. Representation of God is the general foundation of the unity of a people. Religion being itself not the manifestation of ethics itself does have the potential, through becoming fanatical, of turning against ethics (the state). Religion is only one form of relation to the universal spirit, and is not (of course!) the universal spirit itself. The state and religion must be in agreement.
Nature is an eternally repeated cycle. Humanity has actual capacity for change and a drive towards ‘perfectibility’. Development is the spirit, which determines history absolutely. The actualisation of spirit is mediated by consciousness and will. The spirit both animates the will and is the product of the will. As such, the spirit must overcome itself on the path to actualisation.
World history exists in stages of development of a principle whose content is the consciousness of freedom. History (which is manifestation of spirit) strives to move from the imperfect to the perfect, but contains the perfect inside of itself. It is opposed by itself. The imperfect opposes the perfect, even as it has knowledge of the perfect, which is itself the source of its drive for perfection.
We often imagine that man, in a state of nature, had true freedom at the dawn of history, but this is not the case. History must begin not with this imagined state, but with the entry of rationality into decision making. The state is the first true ‘prose’ is this actualisation of spirit. True narrative begins with the state.
Language is the essential medium of recollection and imagination.
The spirit of world history is self-determining. It posits determinations in itself, negates them, and in doing so gains a more concrete determination. Every stage in this process has its own principle. Through these stages, spirit is able to express its will. The culmination of a people’s culture is the character of a people, and each unique totality is itself a principle. Humanity is separated from nature in that it is able to organise in this manner.
The deeds of great men which violate the law are often more moral than those of people with the potential for greatness who choose not to violate the law, because these great men have ‘inner significance’ in acting out the will of the spirit (although they are unaware of this). It will only be clear that they are of this category in hindsight.
A consciousness which attempts to break down elements of the world (often in the form of vague conceptions), into smaller and more manageable constituent parts, is philosophy. Culture is a precondition for the existence of philosophy, but this philosophy can then be reflected back to the culture which has the power to endow it with universality, at which point the philosophy has both ‘content’ and ‘form’. Philosophy inevitably arises in the development of the state. Philosophers arise as they try to devise an intellectual path to unity in a divided world. The state in bringing together diverse consciousnesses into a whole necessarily includes some division, and the intellectual need is present to resolve these division into a coherent whole. The arts arise also to bridge these divides.
The animal does not have freedom because it does not meaningfully think. Because it does not meaningfully think, it cannot organise into a state. The human can sense itself as an individual and is capable of abstraction, and through this abstraction can ‘renounce particularity’ and hence conceive of the infinite. As this experience is common to all humans, a collective consciousness is capable of emerging (because the abstractions incline together socially). As such, a culture is formed and this culture is spirit (geist), which is ‘concerned with the production of itself’. Its highest aim is knowledge of itself - sight and thought - this is inevitable, but this also begins the decline of the spirit, to make way for a new one.
Interests are constantly changing and shifting, and this is the primary mover of ‘change’. Change ultimately brings these cultures to an end, whereupon a new one rises in its place (like a phoenix).
A people is ‘ethical virtuous and strong, insofar as it brings forth what it wills, defending what it does against external force in the work of objectifying itself’. When these two are in harmony, there is no difference between the people’s objective and subjective existence. The spirit becomes inactive when these two become one. At this point, the culture enters a state of ‘habit’ and begins what Hegel terms ‘national suicide’. This ending is part preservation and part transfiguration, as the former culture is not so much recycled, as negated by a self-activating consciousness. What occurs on a smaller level: negation and synthesis, here occurs on a macro level. The final stage defines a people.
Substansive freedom vs subjective freedom. In the former we see conventional law, in which laws are followed as matter of course. In the latter, we see personal will and individual insight which inform an individual’s relation to law, and guides their morality.
The spirit has four observable degrees of development, typified by Hegel as Oriental, Greek, Roman and Germanic. The oriental degree is immediate revelation, in which substantial spirit is sensed (see above). The second is is when ‘being-for-itself’ is sensed, and ethical individuality is discovered. The third (Roman) degree is when abstract universality is discovered, and people live collectively for the state. However, it is not until the fourth that this is reversed, and spirit ‘creates and knows its truth as its own thought, and as a world of lawlike actuality’. In the last state, divine and human natures are made one. Church and 'empire' are different institutions but they are rooted in a single unity.
Currently reading
December 5, 2020(Introduction to the History of Philosophy)
I have an older edition (1951) yet not featured in GR. It comprises a preface by Joaquim Carvalho with interesting words, namely, referring Germany as "holding the Philosophy flame" like once Athens did; "German self-affirmation" and her "own existence".
The words of Hegel (in an inaugural speech of 20th October 1816, in Heidelberg) were utter surprise for me; who would imagine he could speak that way?
Today's certain apostles (I know some) of dialectics, haters of nationalism and the God-belief, would deny the next speech: "This science again raises its voice (after being voiceless)...the world spirit too much occupied with the physical reality could not reflect upon itself". "Now that the German people saved their nationality,...think again in the kingdom of God".
But the words are by Hegel.
He refers one important thing in that inaugural address: the most precious treasure is Rational Knowledge. And, at that moment in History, he was about to trace the History of Thought itself. Quite a daunting task, since he acknowledged that he was trying to understand something which is immutable; it would mean turn thought upon itself.
Now let's examine Common ideas relative to the History of Philosophy.
δόξα
(a) History of Philosophy as a gallery of opinions. Contingent ideas are Philosophical opinions, yet Philosophical opinions don't exist, contends Hegel, because Philosophy is the objective science of Truth. The opposite to an opinion is truth.
ἐπιστήμη
Hegel admits as true, the old saying, truth is about knowing. However, we know about truth only through reflexion, as truth cannot be recognized through immediate intuition or vision, but only through the work of thought.
(b) The proof of the vanity of philosophical knowledge taken from the history of philosophy.
Philosophical systems diverge. They are diverse. Which Philosophy is truthful?
Cicero in "De natura deorum" gives voice to one epicurean, who arrives at no definite concepts.
Philosophy is a battle field, full of corpses. Jesus words make sense,"follow me", "let the dead burry their dead". But why not follow thyself? Follow thy conviction?
(c) Clarifications regarding the diversity of philosophies. The diversity of philosophies hinders the true Philosophy, that is, the possibility of Philosophy itself, and yet it is absolutely necessary to the science of Philosophy, essential to it.
(to be continued)
I have an older edition (1951) yet not featured in GR. It comprises a preface by Joaquim Carvalho with interesting words, namely, referring Germany as "holding the Philosophy flame" like once Athens did; "German self-affirmation" and her "own existence".
The words of Hegel (in an inaugural speech of 20th October 1816, in Heidelberg) were utter surprise for me; who would imagine he could speak that way?
Today's certain apostles (I know some) of dialectics, haters of nationalism and the God-belief, would deny the next speech: "This science again raises its voice (after being voiceless)...the world spirit too much occupied with the physical reality could not reflect upon itself". "Now that the German people saved their nationality,...think again in the kingdom of God".
But the words are by Hegel.
He refers one important thing in that inaugural address: the most precious treasure is Rational Knowledge. And, at that moment in History, he was about to trace the History of Thought itself. Quite a daunting task, since he acknowledged that he was trying to understand something which is immutable; it would mean turn thought upon itself.
Now let's examine Common ideas relative to the History of Philosophy.
δόξα
(a) History of Philosophy as a gallery of opinions. Contingent ideas are Philosophical opinions, yet Philosophical opinions don't exist, contends Hegel, because Philosophy is the objective science of Truth. The opposite to an opinion is truth.
ἐπιστήμη
Hegel admits as true, the old saying, truth is about knowing. However, we know about truth only through reflexion, as truth cannot be recognized through immediate intuition or vision, but only through the work of thought.
(b) The proof of the vanity of philosophical knowledge taken from the history of philosophy.
Philosophical systems diverge. They are diverse. Which Philosophy is truthful?
Cicero in "De natura deorum" gives voice to one epicurean, who arrives at no definite concepts.
Philosophy is a battle field, full of corpses. Jesus words make sense,"follow me", "let the dead burry their dead". But why not follow thyself? Follow thy conviction?
(c) Clarifications regarding the diversity of philosophies. The diversity of philosophies hinders the true Philosophy, that is, the possibility of Philosophy itself, and yet it is absolutely necessary to the science of Philosophy, essential to it.
(to be continued)
July 14, 2022
An absolute bore, made me miss reading Kant
November 23, 2013
The best thing I have to say about this work is that the Libravox audio version is a very relaxing read. This was my bedtime story for several months, because the narration mixed with the simultaneously dry and obscure subject matter never failed to put me to sleep within 30 minutes (which is fast for me, as I am somewhat of an insomniac).
If you are hoping to gain a better grasp of Hegel's conceptions of dialectic, idealism, freedom, history, etc.. Well, the answers are in here. Somewhere. Sort of. But Hegel just isn't the type of author to come out and just "define" his terms for you.. Nor is he the sort to use them consistently, or to write sentences that human beings might consider "coherent."
The task of pinpointing just exactly what he is talking about, and what his point is, is somewhat like solving a puzzle. The clearer passages are segues that merely make the more equivocal passages all the more incomprehensible, by serving as apparently contradictory signposts.
Probably the best way to get a handle of this, or any other work of Hegel's, is to work with several study guides, keep a notebook with working definitions of his terms, as he reveals a bit more here and a bit more there. My method, listening to narrations on my iPhone, left me with a rather superficial grasp of the material (unlike many other books I've listened to and understood about as well as if I'd read them).
Still, if you are looking for a nighttime sleep aid, this one is pretty good.
If you are hoping to gain a better grasp of Hegel's conceptions of dialectic, idealism, freedom, history, etc.. Well, the answers are in here. Somewhere. Sort of. But Hegel just isn't the type of author to come out and just "define" his terms for you.. Nor is he the sort to use them consistently, or to write sentences that human beings might consider "coherent."
The task of pinpointing just exactly what he is talking about, and what his point is, is somewhat like solving a puzzle. The clearer passages are segues that merely make the more equivocal passages all the more incomprehensible, by serving as apparently contradictory signposts.
Probably the best way to get a handle of this, or any other work of Hegel's, is to work with several study guides, keep a notebook with working definitions of his terms, as he reveals a bit more here and a bit more there. My method, listening to narrations on my iPhone, left me with a rather superficial grasp of the material (unlike many other books I've listened to and understood about as well as if I'd read them).
Still, if you are looking for a nighttime sleep aid, this one is pretty good.
March 14, 2021
the more coherent hegel becomes, the less i agree with him.
i think this account of history is one that is immediately seductive. it is comforting to think of history as one long, necessary march that we are really really close to getting through. i think this way of thinking is the predominant one in contemporary western society. unfortunately this is unbelievably wrong! hegel asserts that 19th c germanic society is where spirit has come to a head. people would likely assert that about current society, which shows one flaw in a detail of hegel's thinking. but i do recognize that this doesn't disprove his larger project, though it does make me begin to question it.
the metaphor of spirit moving westward like the sun is really outdated (obviously), and is indicative of a larger problem in this work. despite hegel's acclaim for reason, this largely feels like a poetic, sentimental history. when read that way, it is occasionally beautiful and thought-provoking! but read as a genuine account of history, its implications are disgusting, reductive, and naive.
two works this reminded me of were voltaire's candide and dostoevsky's crime and punishment. the former because hegel seems to subscribe to the idea that our world, by virtue of existing, is the best and most reasonable of worlds. the latter because hegel's absolving of all guilt for problematic world-historical figures is an idea ruminated on in the character of raskolnikov. both of these texts show the illogic of hegel's account of history.
i think this account of history is one that is immediately seductive. it is comforting to think of history as one long, necessary march that we are really really close to getting through. i think this way of thinking is the predominant one in contemporary western society. unfortunately this is unbelievably wrong! hegel asserts that 19th c germanic society is where spirit has come to a head. people would likely assert that about current society, which shows one flaw in a detail of hegel's thinking. but i do recognize that this doesn't disprove his larger project, though it does make me begin to question it.
the metaphor of spirit moving westward like the sun is really outdated (obviously), and is indicative of a larger problem in this work. despite hegel's acclaim for reason, this largely feels like a poetic, sentimental history. when read that way, it is occasionally beautiful and thought-provoking! but read as a genuine account of history, its implications are disgusting, reductive, and naive.
two works this reminded me of were voltaire's candide and dostoevsky's crime and punishment. the former because hegel seems to subscribe to the idea that our world, by virtue of existing, is the best and most reasonable of worlds. the latter because hegel's absolving of all guilt for problematic world-historical figures is an idea ruminated on in the character of raskolnikov. both of these texts show the illogic of hegel's account of history.
February 18, 2013
So glad I didn't have to try to work my way through the entirety of this! Germans tend to be super dense and convoluted from this time...translations don't help. Hegel's dialectical understanding of history, emphasizing the world-history figure, divinity, and the political, was extremely influential...impacting Marx (a student of Hegel who obviously materialized his philosophy, attributing economics as the ultimate historical mechanism) and even intellectuals involved in the French College of Sociology of the 1930s and 1940s. The more I study, the more I realize the importance of this work cannot be underestimated.
July 9, 2021
Hegel is so hard to read. So many terms he used interchangeably without explaining himself. I was happy in sections that I understood what he was trying to say, but I wished there was consistency in his language.
I think Hegel is trying to argue that Reason (or the Idea or Spirit) is ruling through history and now. I think it can be likened to "God". He also argues that Reason's end goal is Freedom. Agents or individuals are always working in favour of Reason whether they like it or not. But if they are conscious of the Spirit working either in them or through the world, they can be free.
I think Hegel is trying to argue that Reason (or the Idea or Spirit) is ruling through history and now. I think it can be likened to "God". He also argues that Reason's end goal is Freedom. Agents or individuals are always working in favour of Reason whether they like it or not. But if they are conscious of the Spirit working either in them or through the world, they can be free.
April 13, 2019
Hegel’s idea of an eternal Spirit that manifests itself through world history is fascinating. It’s as if he took history and turned it into a science which in turn is the ultimate tool for understanding human society and evolution. Would’ve given it five stars if it weren’t so difficult to read. Perhaps I’m just not familiar enough with Hegel but at times it felt like an uphill battle just to get through a page.
October 9, 2024
A somewhat readable text (I never thought I’d say that of Hegel). While it initially appears as a work of historiography, Hegel quickly weaves in a metaphysical exploration of absolute spirit. As a fundamental optimist (believer in the inherent goodness of humanity, etc etc), I sympathise with Hegel’s attempt to give meaning to history; if we must conceptualise history as a slaughter-bench, let it all be ‘worth’ something. I’m no Hegelian (I don’t know enough about the man to claim to be one), but I’d happily spread the maxim: let all world history, its joys and horrors, be the development of the spirit, its growth towards knowing itself, and the eventual realisation of its own freedom. There is undoubtedly something religious about Hegel’s ‘spirit’, though that might be nothing more than a reflection of Hegel’s secular Protestant upbringing (question for both Kantians and Hegelians: is a belief in a higher power necessary to embrace their philosophies?). I must say, I’m sceptical of any work that assigns a teleology to human development, which I find neither historical or rational, nor, for lack of a better phrase, morally attractive (“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…”). There is a particular joy in discussing this in a group setting: the Kantian believes it's all a verbose reinterpretation of Kant, the Marxist pokes holes in the theory and says Marx filled them, and the Hegelian refuses to brook any critique.
December 7, 2024
Hegel's philosophy is and will always be extremely stimulating for me. Yes, he is difficult to read, and yes, you need some context, maybe attend some lectures about him at some point, watch and read a lot of second-source authors and creators talking about his philosophy, to be able to really wrap your head around it. And with all that, each day you will feel you understand it a little bit different, a little bit deeper. I find his ideas original and inspiring, and with a great explanatory power (maybe too much explanatory power, as some criticize). He is metaphysical, he is mystical, and he has the just amount of pessimism/optimism about humanity. Certainly, some of his ideas might be interpreted in a very problematic way (can be used to justify authoritarian regimes and colonialism, not very nice), and one should be very careful about this. But I think the real point of his work is beyond and above that. As I said, always a pleasure to entertain other ways of understanding reality.
July 23, 2024
Since these are Hegel’s lectures he thankfully can’t be so verbose and it reads a lot… well, somewhat better than his other works. There’s so much going on here and in conjunction with his other works that it’s impossible to really give an accurate summary. Do I believe that a spirit/geist/god is influencing history and that history is itself evolving and moving towards an end goal? Not really. History is too random and full of atrocities for that to make sense for me. Anyways, Hegel is Hegel, and I know too little on this guy to keep writing.
May 28, 2017
As estrelas vão principalmente pelo livro ter sido realmente uma introdução, explicando de forma pormenorizada como é a metodologia de Hegel. Muitas coisas ficaram obscuras, mas mais por questões de concordar ou não com aquela lógica do que por não ter entendido.
February 28, 2024
Is it easy to understand? No. Are the ideas something every reader should feel compelled to engage with? No. Is it a fun read? No. Would I recommend this book to anyone? No. Is Georg a little bit racist? Yes. Did I learn anything? Maybe!
August 9, 2020
Hegel is heavy, especially with +40c nevertheless this is more like an introduction to his way of thinking by establishing a baseline, ie how history is documented. The classic reference to Greek wisdom and Zeus as it is a fact that 1 in 3 books that I read contain at least one reference to Greece. :)
Read
February 18, 2023favourite book in the age of revolution so far. Rousseau, Locke And Hobbes have nothing on this mans🫣
January 14, 2024
Probably not worth the time or effort unless you have very particular reasons for reading it
October 8, 2024
if you spin it the right way, it’s just the Catholic church without heaven
March 17, 2025
read for cc
April 20, 2025
foda-se lá para esta merda
February 27, 2018
booooooo the posited existence of the objective will is diametrically opposed to the healthy expression of the subjective will booooooo
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2017
Although Marx is (correctly) identified as the thinker who discovered “the third continent of science,” the continent of History, Marx’s accomplishment would not have been possible without the groundwork set by Hegel. Yes, his view of historical development is absurdly teleological. Yes, Hegel is ridiculously Eurocentric. And yes, the idea that the early 19th century German state is the end of history is preposterous.
However, Hegel’s real contribution here is to conceive of History as a process toward both Freedom and Reason. From Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau, most thinkers simply accept the antithesis between individual subjective freedom and the need for restraints for the sake of social cohesion, simply taking one side or another. Hegel’s importance here is to reject the reified nature of this dualism and look for the sublation (Aufhebung) of these two dialectically opposed elements. This leads Hegel to the conclusion that the ultimate goal of History is the State. What Hegel recognizes and teaches here is that Freedom is not some simple matter of subjective stupidity in which man is dragged around by his bare instincts, but rather that Freedom is an objective notion that must be inscribed within the objective institution of the State. The State is the proper sublation of Freedom and Reason, where Freedom and Reason become one and the same and the choice between following one’s subjective desire or the commands of binding Reason are negated.
This is of course not the Phenomenology, nor the Philosophy of Right where some of these ideas are even more thoroughly developed, but nonetheless an important work. For Hegel beginners, start here. This is about as readable as Hegel gets and is far less tedious than the equally readable lectures on aesthetics.
However, Hegel’s real contribution here is to conceive of History as a process toward both Freedom and Reason. From Hobbes to Locke to Rousseau, most thinkers simply accept the antithesis between individual subjective freedom and the need for restraints for the sake of social cohesion, simply taking one side or another. Hegel’s importance here is to reject the reified nature of this dualism and look for the sublation (Aufhebung) of these two dialectically opposed elements. This leads Hegel to the conclusion that the ultimate goal of History is the State. What Hegel recognizes and teaches here is that Freedom is not some simple matter of subjective stupidity in which man is dragged around by his bare instincts, but rather that Freedom is an objective notion that must be inscribed within the objective institution of the State. The State is the proper sublation of Freedom and Reason, where Freedom and Reason become one and the same and the choice between following one’s subjective desire or the commands of binding Reason are negated.
This is of course not the Phenomenology, nor the Philosophy of Right where some of these ideas are even more thoroughly developed, but nonetheless an important work. For Hegel beginners, start here. This is about as readable as Hegel gets and is far less tedious than the equally readable lectures on aesthetics.
October 25, 2012
Este foi o meu primeiro contato com Hegel, escrito por ele mesmo, e a reputação de sua escrita ser difícil se confirmou para mim. Este texto seria teoricamente mais fácil, uma vez que se refere à introduções ao seu curso de história da filosofia. De fato, alguns trechos o são, e pode-se aprender algo de sua visão filosófica. Particularmente, não consigo aceitar bem seu conceito de "Espírito" da razão atuando ao longo da história. Para entender isso melhor, parece-me fundamental recorrer às suas obras mais importantes. Este livro é, portanto, apenas uma porta de acesso ao pensamento de Hegel.
November 6, 2011
This is my first time really reading Hegel. I had tried the intro and preface to the Phenomenology, but I didn't get it. This time, I think I get it. The only part in this collection that I disliked was a brief thing about geography. Feel free to skip it.
Reading Marx's Grundrisse I've been struck by how Hegelian it is, and I'm excited to read The Philosophy of Right next year alongside Marx's Critique.
Wouldn't it be amazing to somehow be a Hegelian without Marx or Kojeve or Derrida or anybody? To really believe in the World Spirit? I wish I could do that.
Reading Marx's Grundrisse I've been struck by how Hegelian it is, and I'm excited to read The Philosophy of Right next year alongside Marx's Critique.
Wouldn't it be amazing to somehow be a Hegelian without Marx or Kojeve or Derrida or anybody? To really believe in the World Spirit? I wish I could do that.
July 13, 2008
Hegel really blows my mind, which I think is what he intended to do, and even if the system is really a bunch of bull shit, he's an incredible, incredible genius.
I once asked a philosopher professor a question about this Introduction to which she stuttered for several moments and had no real answer; every head in the classroom turned and looked at me, and I think it might be the proudest moment in my institutional education's history.
I once asked a philosopher professor a question about this Introduction to which she stuttered for several moments and had no real answer; every head in the classroom turned and looked at me, and I think it might be the proudest moment in my institutional education's history.
October 13, 2015
There are some interesting debates that Hegel brings up here, readable in parts and more difficult in others, obviously the lynch pin for the idea of the development of the state is his idea of the dialectal change that occurs when, according to Hegel it develops from the primitive to the modern.
There is also some interesting debate around North and South America and some quite well founded predictions that he makes about America as a future world power.
There is also some interesting debate around North and South America and some quite well founded predictions that he makes about America as a future world power.
January 22, 2016
Hegel has a quite different and unique approach to philosophy of right. Unlike a mason who sees the angle, and a carpenter who sees the balance, Hegel sees things from many perspectives and defines them in a form acceptable and arguable for everyone. His book introduction to philosophy of history ... rights is everything one needs to know to walk into the discourses of rights, history, fallacy and logic.
April 13, 2017
I found this brief volume very helpful in understanding Hegel's [positive, I believe] contribution to historiography. Specifically, Hegel qualifies historicism in subtle, but significant ways. These qualifications may be overstated in Hegel himself, but provide a helpful way forward for Christian historians in particular. Indeed, my own interest in Hegel is in his influence on Philip Schaff--arguably the greatest Christian historian to date.
March 6, 2008
this is a very strange translation - almost vulgar and in your face, and at the same time, full of mistakes. one striking example was the use of the word morality instead of ethics. if you're interested in reading the book, find a copy of the dover edition. the dover translation is older but more elegant.
February 27, 2009
Hegel says, everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about! The world is reasonable, and there is a World Spirit guiding everything, so it doesn't really matter what individuals or countries do. It'll all work out in the end. Surprisingly well written for Hegel, to the point that I actually enjoyed reading it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews