If Hegel had adhered to his essential duties as a student at the cathedral of Berlin University, we might have remembered him better today. Unfortunately, our hero decided to build a philosophical strategy based on arbitrary assumptions and trivial simplifications, covering the full universe and history, the eventual conclusion of which was to admit the moral legitimacy of trampling on by the power and power of the weaker and defenseless.
If there were any association already practicing and aspiring dictators, tyrants and oppressors of nations, and if this association turned to the most powerful minds of the planet with the task of creating a complete, superb and indescribable logical opposition to the philosophical housing for their policies of robbing people of freedom and humanity, it would be a waste of resources. This would be unnecessarily spent money and unnecessary effort, due to the fact that the philosophical system, which is the praise of dictatorship, brutal ruthlessness and ignoring victims, already exists and is ready to apply. He was called to life in the planet of ideas by individual another than Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
The German philosopher did not sign up in past only negatively. He can be rather rightly admired even for his revolutionary contribution to the methodology of historical research. He is the father of the past of the institutions, he has done much for the improvement of the past of ideas. It was from his inspiration that the approach to past departed from the logic of moving the chronicle to search the links between processes and events, to discover the truths. If Hegel had adhered to his essential duties as a student at the cathedral of Berlin university (which he received in the era of extended censorship of technological investigation as the apparent caress of the Prussian crown), we might have remembered him better today. Unfortunately, our hero decided to build a philosophical strategy based on arbitrary assumptions and trivial simplifications, covering the full universe and history, the eventual conclusion of which was to admit the moral legitimacy of trampling on by the power and power of the weaker and defenseless.
There's dialectic at first. It was commented in the iconic movie “Rejs” erstwhile the protagonists talking about it with each word plunge deeper into the speech of the river, which is an allegory of Heglowski's mind's turbidity. So there's an thought in our head, or thesis. Then it collides with its partially negative second idea, including the antithesis system. The consequence is synthesis, or the first idea, possibly someway modified by the "controversy" with the second thesis. And rightly, that is most likely how human reasoning and discussions between people are structured. The problem with Hegle is that he decides for any incomprehensible reason, to consider it as a strategy of everything, in terms of the pattern of the creation, improvement and transformation of the universe. The specified designation that a permanent scheme/mechanism immediately introduces determinism to the arena behind all improvement and removes the spontaneity of processes. In Hegel, the most common collision with antithesises is the origin of all advancement and improvement. The movement of past is circular, but spiral. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis/progress. Synthesis as thesis-antithesis-new synthesis/another progress. It's endless.
Hegel's love for brute force here has its origin. The clash of thesis and antithesis is simply a conflict. Theses and antithesis are ideas, but besides institutions: systems, political systems, social interests, churches and belief systems, traditions, cultural identities and others, worldviews, utopian visions of the future. Their collisions bring progress, which manifests itself like a phoenix from ashes. Stronger thesis destroys weaker ones and thus we have development. advancement takes place after the ellipse of this scheme, in order to enter the higher level it is essential to pass through the fire phase. Her victims are of third-rate importance. Conflict, war, disasters, tragedies, the fall of empires and the annihilation of nations are a salvific link to progress. Hegel completely separates himself from the philosophers of Enlightenment who fall into Weltschmerz over human suffering, they sought ways to minimize or avoid it. It's absurd for Hegel. According to him, the improvement process through conflict and fire is inevitable and its results are already determined. A stronger thesis will always win, or greater power. It's natural and there's no reason to pity the weaker side. Hegel describes all ideas with which he disagrees (including enlightened and liberal) in his strategy and casts in the function of antithesis, which are the refuges of weakness doomed to defeat in subsequent collisions with Hegel's too.
What is the location of the unit in this model? From her Hegel expects to abandon opposition to “necessity” and submission. The philosopher emphasizes that the human individual is not the target. It is subordinate to either impersonal or extrapersonal/collective purposes. Man is simply a finite and interchangeable component of an infinite whole, and it, as a collective, makes sense, direction and purpose. This is the best human destiny available to the individual: to become part of a larger whole, to share in the universal “spirit” of the universe, to take part of its omnipotent “understanding”. In order for man to have “sens” he must so be part of the “scheme” and service the “overriding purpose”. At the level of nations and countries, this means that Poles should be part of the “general scheme” of Poland: share Polish experiences, fears and hopes, walk like Poles, motion like Poles, take pose of Poles.
Thus, the human individual is obliged to internalize the intended scheme. erstwhile it is identified with its way of thinking, it will blend into its self, form a “Union” between it and the universe, no longer be able to be considered an external factor. As part of man himself, he is no longer a coercion, and the desire for freedom in the sense of rebelling against the pattern ceases to exist. An crucial link to this process is the minute of the thought that the planet is what it is, due to the fact that it has to be, so any opposition or rebellion turns out to be unfounded. Of course, Hegel does not supply any evidence, even in the form of logical fickles. Instead, he persistently and annoyingly tries to authenticate through analogies to mathematics and puts e.g. a sign of equality between the rebellion of the human unit against the Heglowski "spirits" and the "schemats" and the negation of the fact that 2×2=4, which appears from each side as an ultimatious bland.
Freedom in Hegel is so equivalent to “recognition of necessity”, that is, in our own way, accepting slavery. This acknowledgment/community includes the consciousness that freedom is an illusion in a universe in which everything is going as it must. If that is the case, then all our actions, all move, all decision, the full course of life are set up and included in the penalties of the laws resulting from the scheme. We only “reel”, from cradle to grave. It's completely irrelevant to seeing the full thing and Hegel has no intention of leaning over it any longer. People internalize patterns differently. Many actively desire what they have understood from the “spirit” of the universe. They are rational people, consistent with the logic of the full cog, elements harmonising with another elements. From time to time, however, groups will happen that origin dissonance, irrational lunatics. The erstwhile are the thesis people, the second are antithesis people. The first will take what they want in life (and want to live in harmony with the pattern, to follow the rules they know), while the others will endure defeat. We all know at this phase what the destiny of Hegel's antithesis is. At best, they become a fertiliser for fresh synthesis due to the collision of alleged ideas.
In no little iconic than the "Rejs" of Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill. Vol. 2" is simply a scene where the old sheriff-wage and his sidekick watch the crime scene. It's a bloodbath, a bloodbath, and quite a few victims in a variety of outs. The sheriff comments on the view: “If you were an idiot, you could almost be amazed.” In the sheriff's terminology, Hegel is specified a “dump”. For the German philosopher, “history is simply a conflict on which happiness of peoples, wisdom of states and virtue of individuals was sacrificed.” Of course, the past of humanity is simply a terrible communicative about all imaginable and unimaginable acts of cruelty, harm, murder. Only that Hegel does not consider it with fear and disgust, he does not decide to usage his intellect to search out a panacea. On the contrary, he is delighted. He looks at the communicative only through the prism of the winners, which is also, alternatively than the victims, or antithesis. However, the winners are the creators of synthesis, they give direction to all subsequent advancement on the arc of the spiral of history.
It is foolish for Hegel to prevent wars and massacres. It's immature, inability to preserve an adult. The mature head understands the historical necessity, does not stand in their way, but chooses the function of their voluntary tool. alternatively of feeling sorry for, worrying, complaining, or getting frustrated, it is better to join the momentum of the spirit of past and the universe. He is despised by the humanitarian attitude, as a manifestation of intellectual inferiority, senselessness, blindness, and as a consequence even wrongdoing. Let us stress: Hegel's view of being on the weaker side is morally disheartening. That's the rating he gives to all liberal thinkers, headed by John Lock. They consider the apotheosis of certain aspects of progress, specified as economical improvement and increasing private property resources, to be unimportant, while rejecting another aspects of it, specified as human conflicts, clashes, injustices and cruelty. Hegel considers it nonsense, of course, to effort to construct political systems in which the weaker would be protected by law from the stronger.
The liberal antithesis of Hegel qualifies as individual and individualistic or possibly narrow-group ("burge"), emotional, utilitarian, and so primarily subjective. Liberalism is 1 of the proposals/antithesis in the course of centuries-old conflicts of ideas, which is thus doomed to failure with objective, rational, in-depth, eternal, strong and inevitable ideas of its "historical world". Hegel besides powerfully believed that he was here in the 19th century to witness the fall of liberalism, behind which there was no violent force behind which he wanted to avoid violence, cities applying it.
He besides did not have a large leader, “heros”. Hegel was fascinated by specified "heros" from different stages of history. Powerful people who at the same time destroyed full nations and societies to make fresh worlds on these rubbles. The “Heros” were for him the most noble tool of the march of history, they set the path, they raised humanity to a “higher level”. As 1 can guess, Hegel rejected all concerns about the moral evaluation of the actions of the “heros”. It did not substance whether they were righteous and virtuous. Only their success, ruthless, iron consequence in achieving the goals of the universe, was important. Hegel admired Alexander Macedonian, Julius Caesar and contemporary Napoleon. He emphasized that it does not substance whether “heros” is committed to acts morally disgusting from the point of view of the moral state of the present generation, since later epochs can easy change the position of moral assessments and recognise the greatness of the work “heros”. Ultimately, it is the “winners who compose history”, and so frequently “heros” and their heirs dictate truths and moral assessments to textbooks. 1 can safely presume that Hegel would be delighted with Adolf Hitler and the momentum of the Holocaust. This would be a sign to him that simply a nation of victims was "destined to forget through history." Thus he manifested himself in Hegel “realism.” The only criterion was for Hegel Endsieg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effectiveness was conditioned by morality. possibly the most disgusting thought a man has always formulated...
For Hegel, average people are “ants” fit only to carry out the tasks assigned to them, so the victim of them is rather a low price for the leap advancement that “heros” carry. They must scope for violent action, "to grow beyond conventional morality," due to the fact that they embody the human spirit in the highest form. The masses are incapable to see it or to grasp it. Therefore, customary conventions and virtues do not apply at the level of "heros". The collapses of states or the death of nations are not tragic due to the fact that they follow after the nations have already carried out the tasks assigned to them by history. Then they halt being useful. Attempts to preserve perishing nations and cultures are full nonsense.
For Hegel, evil is not cruelty. It is simply resisting the process of history, or reason. The defence of the weak and the losers is pathetic and contemptible. Hegel loathes moralists, sentimentalists, humanitarianists, philanthropists who want universal happiness or despair of human humiliation and tragedy. Attempts to halt the march of past are unreasonable and immoral, deserve severe punishment and condemnation.
The deficiency of any moral reflex over the destiny of the dying man was besides a derivative of Hegel's views on the state and power. His imagination of the individual was already mentioned as a tiny and interchangeable component of the larger whole. Along with this, as well as the worship for the “heros”, Hegel's love of power and state went. He rejected the view of the artificiality of states as a construct, for example, of a social contract. For him, the state was a fundamental unit in the arena of history, a circumstantial phenomenon with goals of historical importance. Of course, it came from the "spirit" of the universe and its existence in the realities of people's lives was a predestined reading by people-thesis of this existence as the necessity of the world. Human units are entirely at the disposal of the state and its rulers. They are just to usage them as tools and means for state purposes and then dispose of and replace fresh ones. The lives of individuals for abstract purposes (recognised by Hegel as “concrete”), specified as the state, the strategy of power, tradition, the Church, race, nation, universal will, can and must be sacrificed indefinitely. Among them, however, remains the primal state, which is simply a form of humanity in the highest state of historical consciousness, a center of order and discipline.
Hegel would despise this text, a circumstantial small antithesis. Its author would not gain Hegel's respect, for is specified a text able to gain any effectiveness in combating Hegel's influence in modern state and law philosophy? The “Heros” for Hegel could alternatively be individual who, for example, would stab him before releasing the first of his key writings. This would be effective, and so morally good in terms of the stabbed 1 himself, over death which, of course, would not make sense to bow down with sadness, due to the fact that since it occurred, it means that it had to occur, due to the fact that 3 to the 3rd power is twenty-seven.
In addition to determinism and the praise of utmost anti-egalitarianism, the key origin of evil in the Hegel strategy is the designation of effective as moral good. This does not endure any trial or test in any human ethical system. Instinctively, at a deep level of our own reflection, each of us immediately senses fundamental falsehood here. Hegel cannot point out any convincing arguments for his first knowing of morality. In fact, this is simply a proposal tailored to a narrow group of psychopaths, sociopaths, power addicts, and profoundly disturbed and depraved individuals. Their voice is Hegel, their perversions could only service the order he proposed. The philosopher tries to knock the audiences of his speeches, pointing to his unique status, individual who has gained a metaphysical insight into the “spirit” of the universe, and we – if we disagree with him – only prove our stupidity and limited understanding. The fact is, however, that Hegel has imagined a fewer things from which he created a constellation of ideas for sustaining and promoting highly dangerous to people and useful to the state's power views. And the second is possibly the right lead, especially given Hegel's privileged position in Berlin University of his day. possibly the absurd imagination of freedom as a joyful acceptance of the burden and life under the power line, a imagination of the complete abolition of the sensitivity to death and the harm of another man, simply arose on order? It is easier to accept specified a thesis than the antithesis of specified terrible moral depravity of the intellectual philosopher. Although any synthesis is besides not excluded here.
