Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Socrates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???

Someone might want to work in the body of information at:


This article, while it has some good stuff in it, also seems highly problematic to me. For one thing, it has a bunch of colloquial and rambling writing in it. More importantly, it's discussion of the Phenomenology of Mind is almost exclusively about the master-slave relationship, which in my copy is 4 pages out of a 564-page book!!!!! Anyone who read this would get a very distorted, fragmented idea of the Phenomenology, even of what the basic point of it is -- and the preface, which is one of Hegel's most important works and which sets out his whole idea of philosophy and his philosophy, is not discussed or summarized at all. We are going to have to do a lot of work on this article!!!! Jeremy J. Shapiro 08:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Without sources and references, I suggest taking out the entire "alternative interpretation" of the Phenomenology, since it is not really clear, its importance is not explained, and it is longer than the summary of Hegel's Phenomenology. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a table of contents. While a table of contents doesn't give the reader alot of insight into Hegel's thought, it at least alows the reader to see the breadth of material covered in the Phenomenology and how Hegel systematically organizes his treatment of them in one work. This should perhaps be "prettyed up" and worked over (with possible chapter descriptions?) --Malcolm

Fantastic contribution! Thanks so much. I have been intending to write something about the preface, which is arguably the most important piece and now exists in two decent, commented English translations, to which I will also add references soon. Your addition of this table of contents makes me think that there might be some point in putting the table of contents of Hegel's Encyclopedia in the Hegel article, for the same reason you give here, i.e. it gives at least some view of his system as a whole. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Section removed and stored here

I took out the whole following section and moved it here for storage. It has too many problems in its current form, especially lack of sources for the view represented here, and sloppy writing in the last paragraph.

<<<<Other interpreters believe the phenomenology of spirit is an argument that there are many paths through which one's consciousness can obtain freedom, which for Hegel is-self contained existence; meaning you think and act for your self or you become an educated individual living in a liberal society (one that allows your thoughts and actions to be realized). The goal of history was the development of "States", meaning mental, physical, and political, that gradually became more and more free. It is argued that Hegel simply used the master and slave relationship as an illustration of a dialectical movement that would end with the slave becoming more self-conscious and to some extent educated. The slave becomes more familiar with the natural world than the master because of the requirement of labouring, manipulating the environment, and using tools and to some extent science to better his/her life (this influenced and anticipated Marxist thinking).

This would occur despite the irony that the master was originally a freer being, with the slave's actions and consciousness being dominated by his or her desires. Hence, the contradictions of the relationship amazingly produce a positive content or result, a synthesis, a new form of consciousness, a new whole. Most importantly, it demonstrates the movement of spirit, the act of spirit becoming something greater. Another example would be Napoleon. Hegel saw Napoleon's passions and desires as advancing history. Despite Napoleon's greed and great sins he was doing the work of spirit.

The main point of this alternate view is that seeing Hegel's philosophy with any absolutes such as Hegel "believed" something specific about human nature (other than human passion and actions doing the work of Spirit), is in direct contradiction to his philosophies pragmatism. How humanity evolved was massively encompassing, almost impossibly unknowable and unpredicatable. This is why Hegel made no claim to prediciting the future but instead focused on history (His "Philosophy of history") and argued to be a culmination of present human understanding (notice the difference from Marx!). This also reveals his influence on both the philisophical schools of pragmatism and existentialism! This is also why it is so difficult to criticize Hegel, as his philosophy can be the starting point for almost any modern philisophical position including that of almost any religion! Even Marx, whose goal was to criticize Hegel's philosophy into obscurity, admits to using Hegelian thinking (perhaps inverted) as the foundation for his arguments. The only way to defeat Hegel's position for Marx, was to turn it around; hence, humanities goal is not driven by spirit and forms of consciousness but by human action (practical human activity) and the material world! The direct opposite of Hegel! Perhaps Hegel's work is not one of the most understood philosophies (particularly his phenomenology of spirit) but it is definetly one of the most influential.>>>>

    Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzles, Codes, and Secret Language

It is amusing to see J.N. Findlay's "analysis" that is appended to the Oxford University Press edition. Instead of being an analysis, it is a restatement, in clear language, of the text, which is very poorly expressed. Every paragraph in the text requires that an editor provide some sort of sense and meaning. But, then, we all know that the text's obscurity is a result of its profound depth.Lestrade 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Obscure, seemingly senseless texts have often generated a class of interpreters. In old times, the Old Testament and Mishnah resulted in Biblical scholars. They were the priests who explained the writings to the ignorant masses. The Vedas in India had the same effect. In recent centuries, secular texts such as Hegel's have provided employment and social respectability for thousands of professors. Academics have to thank Hegel for their livelihoods. Is there a way to emphasize this caste system in the Wiki article without seeming to be iconoclastic?Lestrade (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Yes — find a reliable source which expresses your views and cite it. But of course you know this, having been at Wikipedia for a long time. You are just heaping yet more pointless contempt on a dead person that for some reason you have fixated on. — goethean 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working on the introduction

I have put in a first draft of a summary of the Introduction to the PoS (different from the Preface). I recognize it's too long and will be working on cutting it down to encyclopedic size.Aldrichio 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

I added a "criticism" section, which includes Schopenhauer's scathing critique of the work. Nonetheless, I would prefer it if someone embedded this in a more complete "reception" section, including more comments from a variety of sources.

[edit] Improved introduction

I worked on this improved introduction. Please tell me what those of you browsing the Talk page think and I'll change it if no one objects.

Hegel's work Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807) is one of Hegel's most important and most obscure philosophical works. Translated as Phenomenology of Spirit or Phenomenology of Mind due to the dual meaning latent in the German word Geist, it formed the basis of Hegel's later philosophy and marked a significant development in German idealism. Focusing on topics in metaphysics, epistemology, physics, ethics, theory of knowledge, philosophy of history, religion, perception, consciousness, and political philosophy, the Phenomenology is where Hegel develops his concepts of dialectic (including the Master-slave dialectic), absolute idealism, ethical life, and sublation. The book had profound impact in Western philosophy, and "has been influenced the development of existentialism, communism, fascism, death of God theology, and historicist nihilism."[1]

Due to its obscure nature and the many works by Hegel that followed its publication, even the structure or core theme of the book itself remains contested. Some interpret the work as a Bildungsroman that follows the progression of its protagonist, Spirit, through the history of consciousness, while others read it as a "self-conscious reflective account"[2] that a society must give of itself in order to understand itself and therefore become reflective. Martin Heidegger saw it as the foundation of a larger "System of Science" that Hegel sought to develop[3], while Alexandre Kojève saw it as akin to a "Platonic Dialogue, [in which] the auditor (who in this case is a historian-philosopher of philosophy) discovers the absolute truth as the result of the implicit or tacit 'discussion' between the great Systems of history."[4] It has even been called "a philosophical rollercoaster ... with no more rhyme or reason for any particular transition than that it struck Hegel that such a transition might be fun or illuminating."[5]

Staeiou (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geist and its phenomenology

Since the title of the work relates to the appearance of Geist, it would seem that the Wikipedia article should precisely define this word. Instead, we are told that it could mean either Spirit or Mind. Some readers might even mistake Geist for Soul. There is also the danger of Hegel's Geist being confused with Being. Spinoza's God (Deus) or Nature might be understood as Geist. Kant's thing–in–itself or Noumenon could be mistaken for it. Other readers might think that it is Fichte's Ego which posits both itself and the whole external world. Schelling's One or his Absolute could possible be wrongly taken for Hegel's Geist. The whole Wikipedia article is supposed to be an explanation of how this spirit or mind appears to itself. One would think that, in reading a book whose original title is Phänomenologie des Geistes, a person would want to know more about this Geist, the phenomenology of which is being described as the purpose of the book. If I didn't know better, I would think that Geist is some kind of ghostly, abstract, ambiguous concept that has no sensible reference. Can anyone provide a clear, unambiguous definition or explanation of Geist and how it externally manifests itself? Since Hegel was so concerned with history, it might be well to include a few sentences about the serious consideration of Hegel's Geist in the 21st century. What is the phenomenological status of Geist today? Has it finally completed its development and achieved a purely conceptual consciousness of itself? Or did its development culminate in 1807 in Berlin with Hegel's book? Is Geist still developing dialectically and showing itself to itself? Hegel was considered to be the major philosopher of the nineteenth century and is very frequently mentioned in intellectual and academic discussions even today. Therefore, he should be taken seriously enough to have an understandable, straightforward definition of his words included in this article. Spirit or mind? Actively developing and appearing to itself?Lestrade (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade