Hegel & Marx

<p>Hegel & Marx - Peter Singer & Bryan Mageewww.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SUYhdivn0</p><p>Peter Singer discusses the thought of Hegel and Marx with Bryan Magee in this 1987 television series. Hegel was an important and influential 19th century German philosopher, best known for his Hegelian dialectic, absolute idealism, and historicism, among various other things. The Hegelian dialectic is the process in which everything changes, based on the triad: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Hegel's idealism rejected the Kantian notion of the thing-in-itself and instead embraced a monistic vision of the world in which everything forms an organic, interconnected, rational whole. Nothing is true or real except the whole. Not only a thinker of totality, Hegel was a historicist thinker who rejected the notion that ideas are static and fixed (e.g. the concepts of human nature and morality). Things can only be understood by understanding their historical context, which, for Hegel, is a process which changes, and which has an underlying meaning or significance. Like Hegel, Marx also was an influential German thinker. As a young or left Hegelian, he adopted much of Hegel's system, but substituted a kind of materialism for Hegel's idealism. This meant that rather than ideas underlying everything and driving historical change, it was the material and economic conditions which determine ideas, culture, and historical change. (My Summary)</p><p>Transcript/Subtitles were added.</p><p>00:00[Music]00:01few philosophers have more obviously00:04changed the world than Hegel both00:06personally through his influence on00:08German nationalism and indirectly00:10through the work of his most famous00:12philosophical disciple Karl Marx after00:15him a great many governments in our own00:17day actually call themselves so if we00:20want to see some of the practical00:21consequences of Hegel's ideas all we00:24have to do is look at the world in which00:26we ourselves live his influence on00:29philosophy was correspondingly great in00:31fact it's been said that the history of00:33philosophy since Hegel can be understood00:35as a succession of varying reactions00:37against his work he was morning00:40Stuttgart in 1770 a teacher of one sort00:43or another for most of his life he00:45eventually became professor of00:47philosophy at Heidelberg and then in00:49Berlin as a philosopher he was a late00:52developer but by the time of his death00:54in 1831 he was very much the dominant00:56figure in philosophy throughout the00:59whole of Germany the titles of some of01:02his most influential works are the01:04phenomenology of mind01:06the science of logic the philosophy of01:09right and the philosophy of history01:12Hegel had several followers who01:14themselves became well known but far and01:17away the most famous is Karl Marx Marx01:20was born in Germany in 1818 and as a01:23young student of philosophy was very01:25much a cagillion01:25he didn't become a socialist until his01:28mid-20s when he began to develop that01:31rich highly original mixture of German01:33philosophy French politics and British01:36economics which is Marxism together with01:39a wealthy young industrialist Swedish01:41Engles he wrote the communist manifesto01:43in 1848 the partnership between Marx and01:48Engels must be just about the most01:50momentous collaboration in the history01:52of ideas Engels kept parts for most of01:55his life so that he could produce his01:57writings and it was a life spent largely01:59in exile because of Marx's political02:02activities at the age of 31 he went to02:05live in London and stayed there until02:07his death in 1883 he's buried in02:09Highgate Cemetery for many years he went02:12in the British me02:13Museum in its reading room and it was02:15there that he wrote his masterpiece dust02:17capital published in 1867 Marxism isn't02:23quite philosophy in the accepted meaning02:25of the term but there's obviously a02:27major philosophical element in it and02:29that element always remained Hegelian02:32what I propose to do in this program is02:35devote the bulk of the discussion to02:37Hegel and then show how some of the most02:39important of the ideas we've been02:41discussing were incorporated into02:43Marxism with me to do this is someone02:46who has published excellent02:48introductions to the works of both02:49thinkers Peter Singer professor of02:52philosophy at Monash University in02:54Melbourne Australia02:55professor singer Hegel is notorious for02:59being difficult to read for being03:00obscure he's often described as the most03:03obscure of all the major philosophers in03:06your little book about him has the03:08conspicuous merit of discussing his03:10central ideas in ordinary plain English03:13I hope you're going to be able to do the03:15same on this program when you are03:18confronted with the task of expounding03:20Hegel's ideas where do you find the most03:23convenient place to start I start with03:26the philosophy of history because the03:28history in Hegel is quite concrete part03:31of the difficulty with Hegel is the so03:33abstract but the history because it's03:35concrete is an easy way in to the more03:37abstract parts of his philosophy well03:39that in itself is already a new03:40departure and philosophy isn't it03:42because no major philosopher before03:44Hegel regarded history or the philosophy03:47of history as being important yes it is03:50a departure compare it with can't for03:52instance Kant had a view of human nature03:55as human beings eternally divided03:58between their reasoning element and04:01their brute desires it's a bit like the04:04old picture of man as halfway between04:05the Apes and the angels and the Kant04:08that was just a fact of human nature we04:10would always be torn with this division04:12this conflict but Hegel said now wait a04:16minute this isn't something immutable04:18look at Greek society Greek society04:20Hegel said there's more harmonious04:22people were not conscious of this gulf04:25for division their desire04:27were in how many wheels their reason so04:30the point that Kant is talking to is04:33talking about this division it's04:35something that has occurred historically04:36has developed with the rise of04:39individual conscience in Protestant04:42Europe and because it's happened04:44historically it need not be a permanent04:46feature it could in some other period04:49actually again be overcome and a harmony04:52restored Hegel looked at all important04:55concepts in this historical way didn't04:57he he saw them as being embedded in04:59human life in ways of life in societies05:02and as societies change so the concepts05:06change isn't that right yes that's05:09absolutely right05:10he saw that there was development in the05:14way history occurred that it was always05:16moving forward it was always a process05:18never static and he had a name for the05:21way in which it moved forward he called05:22this the dialectical process now can you05:25explain exactly what in Hegel's mind the05:27dialectical process was let's go back to05:30the example I mentioned before Greek05:32society he saw as a harmony but as a05:35simple harmony a simple harmony in the05:38sense that people had not developed the05:41alternative notion of individual05:42conscience there was harmony between the05:44individual and society because05:47individuals hadn't really thought about05:49things themselves now into that simple05:53harmony there came in the person in fact05:56of Socrates in Hegel considered a world05:58historical figure there came the idea of06:01questioning this harmony Socrates went06:04around asking people what is justice06:06what is virtue and when they tried to06:09answer they realized they'd accepted06:12certain conventions which Socrates had06:14no trouble in showing could not be06:16sustained so the simple harmony of Greek06:19society broke down and because Socrates06:22broke down incidentally Hegel thinks06:24that the Athenians required right to06:26condemn Socrates to death he was06:27genuinely corrupting and subverting06:30Athenian society but that was an06:33essential part of the historical process06:34because ultimately and Hegel fills in06:37the gaps steps but ultimately that06:40led to the rise of individual conscience06:42and a second necessary element and the06:46opposite of Greek society so we've moved06:49from what Hegel calls a thesis to the06:52antithesis antithesis of Greek society06:54as individual conscience risen to its06:57height in Protestant Europe but that too06:59turns out to be unstable it leads to the07:03destruction of the French Revolution and07:05a terror that followed the French07:07Revolution and so that too must give way07:09to a synthesis to a third stage which07:12combines harmony and individual07:16conscience and very often in this07:18process that then again serves as the07:20new thesis from which a further07:23antithesis will arise and the process07:25will continue now this notion of07:27dialectical change that you just07:29explained has been so influential ever07:31since Hegel and it's enormously07:32influential today through Marxism which07:35embodies it but I think we must get it07:37completely clear in our mind so let me07:39just go over it again the idea is in07:42isn't it that Hegel put forward but the07:45reason why we human beings are involved07:48in a process of perpetual change is that07:52every complex situation contains within07:55itself conflicting elements which07:58therefore destabilize the situation and08:00therefore the situation cannot go on08:03indefinitely it breaks down into08:06something else within which those08:09conflicts are resolved or as waged but08:12then of course in the new situation you08:14get new conflicts and so it goes on08:17indefinitely so you get as you put it08:20just now thesis antithesis synthesis08:23which becomes a new thesis using his08:26terminology and this big aliens and08:30following their Marxists think gives us08:32the key to history to understanding08:35historical change the dialectical08:37process now up to that point in the08:40explanation it would have been open to08:42Hegel to say that the direction that08:45this change took was purely accidental08:48it could be the random outcome of08:50innumerable random conflict08:53but he doesn't say that does he he08:55actually thinks this linear process has08:58a direction has a goal that's right09:01and the goal for Hegel is the greater09:03development of mind towards freedom we09:07are moving always towards consciousness09:10of freedom towards realizing human09:13freedom and understanding freedom and09:16that is a process of increasing09:18awareness of freedom and of increasing09:21knowledge of ourselves now what is this09:24change happening to I mean wherever we09:27talk of change in any context whatever09:29there must be something identifiable09:31that changes now what is it that's09:34changing in other words is he writing09:37about whole societies is he writing09:39about individuals what what is he09:42writing about in this case the short09:45answer is that he's writing neither09:46about individuals nor about societies09:49but about what he calls Geist now that09:52German word Geist is a difficult one to09:55translate the easiest way perhaps would09:58be to say that it happens to mind mind10:01is one normal translation of the german10:04word Geist10:05we mean when we talk about mental10:06illness the German word guy Stu sprung10:08calf is is mentally ill so you could say10:13it's happening to mind your mind and10:14mine or all our individual minds but10:17mind also has another meaning which goes10:19beyond that the notion of spirit we talk10:22about the tight guys the spirit of the10:24times or we talk about Geist when10:27Germans talk about the Father the Son10:29and the Holy Ghost would go Haley Kigali10:31to ghost valley so it also has therefore10:36a somewhat spiritual or religious flavor10:39which suggests that in some sense10:42there's a reality above and beyond your10:44in my individual mind and so you could10:46say it's happening to mind but mind with10:48a capital M not just mind in a sense of10:52individual human mind10:54so is he GLE saying then but total10:56reality is something mental or spiritual11:01or this word Geist may be poised between11:03the mental and the spiritual and that11:06all the processes that we are talking11:08about our processes ultimately of this11:12ultimate mental spiritual thing if11:15that's the ultimate view that the Hegel11:17comes down to that reality is Geist it's11:21ultimately mental or intellectual and11:24these processes happen to Geist to mind11:27as it develops along the probe along ago11:30now to some people listening to the11:32discussion this might already begin to11:33sound like a very desire idea so I think11:36it's worth pointing out that in fact11:37we're all very familiar with something11:39similar to this in the case of religious11:42beliefs even if we ourselves are not11:44religious people I mean many religious11:47believers including many Christians11:49believe that all of reality is11:51ultimately spiritual and that all of11:54reality ultimately has a spiritual11:57significance or meaning and I suppose12:00Hegel is saying something very closely12:03related to that is he though not12:05necessarily religious in the12:06conventional sense yes but the12:09difference might be that the Orthodox12:11Christian view I think holds that that12:13God is spiritual but separate from the12:15world and the world is mundane and12:17material although it has a spiritual12:19significance certainly but it's separate12:21from but for Hegel there's a closer12:24union between the two you could present12:27the opposite of the Christian view by12:29saying that Hegel was a pantheist12:31that he believes that God is in the12:32world and in everything that's perhaps12:34not quite through either but it's12:37somewhere between the traditional12:39Christian conception and the pantheistic12:41one but reality is part of God12:44everything is a manifestation of God if12:46you want to call it that in fact it12:48would be true to say that ever since12:50Hegel there has been a dispute between12:52Hegel scholars or philosophers about12:55precisely this question relating to12:57Hegel's philosophy is Hegel's philosophy12:59ultimately religious or not there are13:03some who said that it is there are some13:04ones maintained that it isn't which side13:06of that debate do you come down on I13:09think that it is immensely valuable to13:11try and interpret Hegel as if he were13:14not religious because then you find that13:16you can make good sense of a large part13:19of Hegel's philosophy13:20in a non-religious way just interpreting13:22him is talking about in mind and the13:24common element in mind being our common13:26ability to reason the fact that our13:28minds are structured in similar13:30principles but I think I have to admit13:33that though you can push that a long way13:35you don't really make a hundred percent13:38sense of Hegel in that way we're at last13:40ten percent perhaps has to assume that13:43there is some religious or quasi13:46religious view of of mind or spirit that13:49lies behind what he's saying now we've13:51talked about the view of the reality of13:53reality as a historical process which he13:55introduced into Western thought it's a13:57major idea and we've talked about this14:01notion of dialectical change which he14:03introduced and which is a living idea to14:05this day another important concept which14:08I think I'm right in saying he coined14:09certainly he made it famous and which14:12has come back again into what one might14:14call intellectual fashion in recent14:16decades is the concept of alienation14:19Hinkle had a great deal to say about14:22alienation did he now what exactly did14:24he mean by that term by alienation Hegel14:27meant the idea that something which is14:31in fact us or part of us seems to us14:34foreign alien and hostile let me give14:37you an example he presents a picture of14:40what he calls the unhappy soul which is14:43an alienated form of religion the14:46unhappy soul is the person who prays to14:49a God who he regards as all-powerful14:52all-knowing and all good and who sees14:55himself by contrast as powerless14:59ignorant and base so this person is15:03unhappy because he demeaned himself and15:06puts all those qualities into some being15:10which he sees as separate for himself15:12Hegel says that this is wrong we are in15:15fact part of God or if you like we are15:18projecting our qualities into God and we15:22should take that back the way to15:24overcome that kind of alienation would15:26be to realize that we and God are one15:28and that we have those qualities they15:31are not something separate and foreign I15:33was going to say he would say15:34specifically that these are human and15:36perhaps only human qualities which we15:38are projecting onto and all-powerful15:41beings15:42denying them to ourselves when it is in15:44fact we all have them we originate with15:47humanity the claim that they are only15:49human was actually made by one of his15:50later disciples look big fire back he15:53wouldn't have said that but he would15:54have said that we and that kind of15:56divine spirit are all part of the same15:58reality die store mind now you've16:01explained that it clearly I think how16:03Hegel saw total reality as being a16:07process of change which was moving16:09forward in a certain way the dialectical16:12movement what is it going towards what16:17is the goal what's the end of this16:20movement the endpoint of the dialectical16:23process is mind coming to know itself as16:27the ultimate reality and thus as seeing16:30everything that it took to be foreign16:33and hostile to itself and in fact part16:35of itself and that for Hegel is16:38simultaneously a state of absolute16:40knowledge when mind knows recognized16:43that lasts itself of the ultimate16:45reality and also a state of absolute16:48freedom when mind instead of being16:51controlled by external forces is able to16:56order the world in a rational way16:58because now it sees that the world is in17:00fact itself and it only has to implement17:03its own principle of rationality on to17:06the world to organize the world rational17:08now the interesting thing about this17:10culminating process is that because it17:14occurs once mind understands that it is17:17the reality of everything if you ask the17:20question when does this actually happen17:23well it happens when Hegel's mind17:26Hegel's own mind in his philosophical17:28writings and thoughts grasp the idea17:31that mind is everything and then he's17:35achieved this it's not just that Hegel17:37describes the goal the culmination of17:40all this process but Hegel's philosophy17:41actually is the very culmination of the17:44whole process is discarded17:45so when Hegel published his17:47name works that was total reality at17:50last17:51achieving awareness of itself achieving17:54self-knowledge yes it's the amazing17:56piece of sort of grandiose self18:00projection on the part of the last but18:01I'm not sure quite that Hegel realized18:03that it could be seen in this light now18:06one thing that strikes one about the aim18:09toward rule which all this is moving in18:12the way you just put it is that it's18:15sometimes seen as freedom sometimes seen18:18as self-knowledge and Hegel clearly did18:22think that those were in some sense the18:25same thing and I think a little more18:26needs to be said about that because it's18:28not at all clear I think to most people18:30have self-knowledge can itself18:32constitute freedom18:34well self knowledge becomes freedom18:38because of the particular nature of mind18:40and of Hegel's idea that mind is the18:44ultimate reality of the world you see in18:48the historical process up to the point18:50at which we recognize that if you like18:53it's our world that we are all up to18:55that point we have really been pawns in18:57the game we haven't been controlling the19:00game we haven't been controlling the19:02historical state because things have19:05been happening to us without us19:07realizing or understanding why they19:09happen because what we take to be19:11foreign and hostile aspects of the world19:15are in fact part of us but once we come19:18to see that we are everything in the19:20world then we understand the process we19:25grasp if you like the laws of historical19:27development and we see that those laws19:29are in fact our own reason they are the19:32very laws of our mind and our things19:34this was this behind the famous19:36quotation that's often made from Hegel19:39the real is the rational and the19:41rationale is the real so what exists19:43does correspond to to what is rational19:46right and when we come to see that then19:50we are free because we see the19:52rationality of reality and it no longer19:55strikes us as something contrary to our19:58interests we no longer struggle against20:00it we20:01understand it as in fact our own our own20:04rational principle and we are free to20:07flow along with it and need to to order20:10it and direct it in accordance with20:12those laws of reason20:13now one characteristic of Hegel's20:15thought which you've made very clear is20:17that he always sees ideas not just as20:19existing in the abstract and certainly20:22not being timeless and unchanging in the20:24way that say Plato saw them but as being20:27embodied in societies and institutions20:31and historical realities which change20:34now given that fact what sort of society20:39does hiegel see this whole process of20:42culminating in what sort of society is20:46it leading towards well as you'd expect20:49from what we've been saying it's a20:51rational society a rationally ordered20:53society but I must make clear what that20:55is for Hegel because it's not the20:57Society of pure reason Hegel saw the21:00Society of pure reason as typifies by21:03the kind of thing that the French21:04revolutionaries wanted to do you know21:06they didn't just get rid of the King in21:09the nobles and of religion but they21:11tried to make everything rational they21:13said why have months of irregular days21:16why not make them all the same number of21:19days why have weeks of seven days that's21:21make them ten like our decimal system of21:23measurement and so on now Hegel saw that21:26as leading to a kind of madly abstract21:28notion of reason rather like for21:31instance the view of a town planner who21:33might look at a map of London and say oh21:35well your streets all run crooked and21:37traffic has to make detours and so on21:39let's get rid of this let's tear all the21:41buildings down make nice straight21:43streets in each block we'll put a big21:46high-rise apartment we can fit more21:48people in you can have a smooth green21:50lawn outside for the children to play21:51and it'll all be beautiful and ordered21:53the rational we've actually had that in21:55London and it's been catastrophic that's21:57right and Hegel would have predicted21:59that it would have been catastrophic22:00because it was abstract reason taken to22:03an extreme for Hegel what a rational22:06ordering of London town planning would22:08be would be to look at the real that is22:11London as it exists find what's rational22:14in the real22:14and of course it has developed the way I22:16did for certain reasons there's the22:19rational element and then try and follow22:21those reasons through in a way that22:24fulfills the rationale behind London's22:27development without trying to raise it22:29down and start anew to get rid of some22:31of the arbitrary and capricious points22:33perhaps that that our particular22:34problems but basically to find what's22:37rational in what's real and enhance it22:39and develop it and allow it to fulfill22:41itself one criticism that's always been22:43brought forward against this conception22:45of the state the rational state by22:48liberal philosophers in the anglo-saxon22:51tradition especially is that by seeing22:54the state as an organic coal which22:57behaves rationally and orders everything22:59rationally Hegel leaves no room at all23:02for individual dissent criticism freedom23:07one could say eccentricity there's no23:10room in the system for the individual to23:13behave as he likes what's your comment23:16on that I don't think there's any23:18evidence that Hegel was opposed to some23:20individual freedoms but what is true is23:23that his view of freedom was not the23:26standard anglo-saxon liberal view of23:28freedom to look at the difference23:31between the two let's shift to a23:33somewhat different area economics and23:35the idea of freedom in in the economic23:37sphere in the market according to one23:39view the liberal view freedom23:42consistently in people being able to do23:44as they prefer if I prefer to wear an23:47orange shirt this spring for instance23:50then I am free if I can do that if I23:53prefer to buy a deodorant I'm free if I23:55can do that and that's all that the23:57liberal economist will ask are you free24:00to choose the preferences that you have24:03to fulfill but some of the more radical24:06economists have questioned that they24:08said that's a very superficial notion of24:09freedom you should ask why do you want24:12to wear and are insured this season why24:14do you want to use a deodorant why don't24:17you accept that a certain amount of24:19natural body odour isn't a problem or24:20whatever and the radical economists will24:23say the reason is that you've been24:24manipulated there are people who want to24:25make a profit out of you buying a24:27deodorant24:28out of you thinking that the clothes the24:30colors you wore last season and no24:32longer good enough this season so you've24:34been manipulated you're not free you24:36have to ask not only can you do what you24:39prefer but why do you prefer what you24:42prefer as a rational preferences are24:44they preferences that satisfy your needs24:46now Hegel would have been in the latter24:48camp he would have said freedom is more24:51than just ability to follow your own24:53Caprice freedom must consist in24:56fulfilling yourself as a rational24:59individual that sounds all very well but25:01surely what it's going to mean in25:02practice is that I I think I know what I25:06want I want to wear an orange shirt this25:08spring and I want to go out by the25:10odorant in hot weather but we have a25:12state perhaps which says you know you25:15you think you want those but those are25:17not rational preferences on your part we25:20know what's best for you we know even25:23what you would want if your preferences25:25were rational in other words you get a25:27state that not only knows what's good25:29for you better than you do yourself you25:31actually get a state that knows what you25:33want better than you marry also and25:35surely that's authoritarian in the25:38extreme in its relation to the25:40individual I think in practice you're25:42probably right and I don't know that25:44Hegel has any reply to that objection25:46the only thing that he can say is that25:48while it might be very difficult in25:50practice to work out how you could have25:52a society in which individuals genuinely25:54realize their rational self without an25:57authoritarian state that doesn't mean25:59that you've overcome the problem by the26:01liberal laissez-faire notion I mean we26:03still do have to face that problem that26:05people's wants and desires might be26:08being manipulated and to the extent that26:10they are it's perhaps misleading to say26:12that they're really free in other words26:14it's still a problem if Nicola Peggle26:15doesn't necessarily have the right26:16answer to it let's just take stock26:19prevent where we've got in the26:20discussion right at the very beginning I26:23asked you what you thought was the26:24easiest way in to an understanding of26:28Hegel's philosophy as a whole and26:30unified that you thought the best26:31starting point was with the philosophy26:33of history so we started there and in26:35fact we've continued our discussion in a26:38straight line so to speak to the point26:40that we've now reached26:41are we know in a better position to26:45understand other aspects of Hegel's26:47philosophy than we were I think we've26:49already in fact grasped some of the26:51essentials of hag of logic for instance26:53one of its most abstract points because26:55we've grasped the dialectic which is26:57part of logic the idea of the thesis27:00antithesis synthesis now in the logic27:03one of the points Hegel makes is that27:06logic is not just a matter of form as27:08separate from content which is the way27:10the traditional logic of Aristotle was27:13interpreted he says that form and27:15content are together and we can see why27:18he says that because he thinks that this27:20dialectic is something that is realized27:22in the actual process of history in27:25logic he says you study that in the27:28sense of you study truth without a task27:30you put it that is the the eternal27:32immutable form of it irrespective of a27:35particular historical content but in27:37fact it's always linked to that content27:40so that's one of the key ideas of the27:42logic and another point that we've also27:44just touched on is this notion of27:46ultimate reality and the way in which27:48it's in some sense a matter of mind27:50rather than a matter of material things27:54it seems to me looking at the exposition27:57of Hegel's ideas that you've put forward27:59up to this point but there's one central28:01concept out of which almost all the28:04important other ideas naturally arise28:07the central concept is that28:10understanding reality isn't28:12understanding a given state of affairs28:14it's understanding a process a process28:17of perpetual change the other concepts28:21arise in the following natural order it28:23seems to me if one asks oneself what is28:27it that's changing Hegel answer is it is28:30Geist which is changing and you've28:32explained what he means by that rather28:34difficult concept mind spirit whatever28:36it may be if one says why is it changing28:40the answer is because to begin with it's28:43in a state of alienation as you've28:45explained that if one says what is the28:48process of change what is the pattern of28:51change the answer is it's the28:54dialectical process28:55if you ask where is all this change28:58fitting the answer is well at the29:00political and social level it's heading29:03towards an organic society in which29:05we've discussed at the philosophical29:07level it's all heading towards absolute29:09knowledge which you've at least touched29:11on so in this way all these central29:13concepts of Geist alienation dialectical29:17change the organic society all arise out29:20of a consideration of this central idea29:23of reality as a process as a historical29:27process of change now we've been able to29:31put this very clearly and the next29:33question I want to ask you is why didn't29:36Hegel we said right at the beginning29:38that he's notoriously obscure sometimes29:40philosophy students read out passages of29:43Hegel aloud just to make everybody laugh29:45because it sounds like such gobbledygook29:47you can read page after page wrinkled29:50sometimes and think what the hell is he29:53saying now why wasn't he clear when it's29:57possible to be clear about his ideas as29:59you indeed in your book of shown some of30:02his less charitable critics thought that30:04he was deliberately obscure in order to30:06appear more profound in order to cover30:08what they took to be the shallowness of30:10his ideas but I don't think his ideas30:12are shallow I think they're very deep30:13and profound and that in fact the30:15difficulty comes from the nature of the30:17ideas one of his students said that30:20whereas an eloquent lecturer might have30:22had everything off by heart and it would30:24arrange it well and trotted out clearly30:26Hegel was always dredging up difficult30:30ideas as he went along and as he let kid30:32he was bringing these ideas to the30:34surface with great difficulty and that's30:38the style the style is one of someone30:40who is thinking aloud and having30:42difficulty with the material we may very30:45well regret that he didn't then revise30:46and polish it but in the context of30:50German philosophical style at the time30:52it's not so surprising that he didn't30:54feel the need for clarity that you just30:57mentioned because after all Kant and30:58Pfister other contemporaries were also31:01very obscure and they were still31:02regarded as great philosophers so the31:04next question but that gives rise to is31:06how did it come about that a philosopher31:08who was31:09obscure and so difficult to understand a31:11quiet evening is a lifetime such in its31:15influence I think that's partly due to31:19his situation at the University of31:20Berlin which was the capital of Prussia31:22which was then the rising state in31:24Germany at the time and also due to the31:27fertility of his ideas in a variety of31:30fields you see the influence that Hegel31:33had is not just an influence in31:34philosophy its an influence in theology31:37in history in politics in economics even31:42war now the fact that Hegel's ideas31:46could be applied in those ways shows how31:49fruitful his approach and particularly31:51the historical elements of his approach31:53were because it was that historical idea31:56of things as having developed as being a31:58process that could be applied by32:01scholars in all these different areas32:02it's come now to the immediate afterlife32:05of Hegel's ideas one of the first things32:08that happened when he died was that his32:09followers split into two movements32:11didn't they they were known as the young32:13galleons of the older galleons or32:15alternatively for left two galleons and32:17the right to game ium can you tell us32:19something about this division the writer32:22galleons were the people who thought32:25that Hegel's philosophy implied that32:28something like the Prussian state was32:31the organic state which Hegel was32:34pointing to they thought that Hegel had32:38himself said this in the philosophy of32:40right his most explicitly political work32:42he described a state a constitutional32:44monarchy not very different from the32:46Prussian state and so they thought that32:49there was no need really for further32:51change they were the conservative or32:53right wing Hegelians the left to go Mian32:56said the basic thrust of Hegel's32:59philosophy is much more radical than33:01that33:01you see Hegel talked us we said at the33:03beginning about overcoming the division33:05between reason and desire or between33:08morality and self-interest that's a very33:11fundamental change to bring about you33:14can't say that that's occurred in in the33:15pressure of 1830 or whatever so they33:19said the thrust of Hegel's philosophy is33:22for a much more far-reaching change a33:24revolutionary change now they had to33:26admit that in the philosophy of right33:27Hegel hadn't written as if you're a33:29revolutionary but they'd pointed out the33:32fact that Hegel salary was paid by the33:34state of Prussia so they said hey you're33:36compromised he sold out but we must be33:39truer to Hegel than here was to himself33:41we must carry the ideas forward until we33:45get to the point at which these thesis33:49antithesis of reason and desire morality33:52and self-interest are overcome and we33:53reach the synthesis of a harmonious33:56society in which those gulfs and33:58divisions in human nature are reconciled34:01and of course as soon as you talk about34:02revolutionary followers of Hegel onto34:05the scene marches the greatest34:07revolutionary thinker of the modern era34:09Karl Marx because he was a young one of34:12the young Canadians and I think it's34:15very striking after the whole of our34:16discussion up to this point to list the34:20fundamental ideas of a galleon ISM that34:23we've talked about which Marx simply34:25took over and incorporated into Marxism34:28among these are first the idea that34:31reality is a historical process second34:35that this process changes by dialectical34:40movement dialectical change historical34:44dialectic third that it's all going34:48towards a goal fourth that that goal is34:51a conflict free society and fifth that34:55until we get there to the conflict free34:57society we are condemned to remain in35:00one form or another of alienation35:02now all these absolutely central ideas35:06of Marxism were taken over lock stock35:09and barrel from Hegel one has to say35:13that there's one huge difference and35:16it's this that whereas Hegel's we've35:19been saying all along was an idealist35:21and to Hegel all these things were seen35:23as happening to mind or spirit to Geist35:27as you said in the case of Marx he saw35:30all these things as happening to35:32something material not as a materialist35:35but the whole pattern of ideas remains35:38the same35:38it's as if Marx has taken over a great35:40long set of equations from Hegel35:44substituted a different value for X in35:47the equations matter instead of mind but35:51kept the whole set of equations in every35:53other respect the same that's right and35:56you can see it for instance in Marx's35:57materialist conception of history that35:59key thing in Marx's thought where36:02history develops by the economic base36:05the material side the forces of36:07production as dominating the mental so36:11that our ideas our religion our politics36:14all flow from the kind of economic36:18structure that we have in our society36:20and that's an inversion of Hegel's idea36:23that Marx himself said he stood Hegel on36:26his head because for Hegel it was the36:28development of ideas of ideas of freedom36:30and so on that led to the formation of36:32particular societies and particular36:34historical epochs do you think that Karl36:36Marx could be said to have made any36:38important original contribution of his36:41own to philosophy I don't think Marx36:44made important contributions to36:45philosophy in the narrow sense in which36:47we talk about problems of the ultimate36:50nature of reality I think that Marx was36:54certainly a materialist but he didn't36:58argue for his materialism as a37:00philosophy he really accepted it as37:02something that was pretty obvious that37:04what method was was the material world37:07it's this kind of thing and not37:08something remote like dice which he more37:11or less dismissed as a kind of37:12speculative German metaphysical37:14abstraction so he didn't argue for that37:17and he didn't therefore make37:19contributions to that philosophical37:21discussion but what he did do was give37:24us a kind of a vision a vision of a37:26world in which we are controlled by our37:31economic circumstances and in which we37:35are therefore not free it's still rather37:37like Hegel and that we are we are pawns37:39in the game of history and in order to37:43become free we must control the economic37:46forces which after all are our own37:48forces what is economics after all but37:50our own ways of providing for food37:53providing for shelter and so on so it's37:56a vision in which the things that we do37:58control us and we instead must control38:02them that's a powerful and broadly38:04philosophical vision of the human38:07situation but it's not an important38:09philosophical discovery in the narrow or38:12academic sense of the word philosophy38:13now taking the two very closely linked38:17philosophies of Galleon ism and Marxism38:19together what would you say has been38:22their most important or some of their38:24most important positive contributions to38:27human thought what have they given us38:29that's really useful in our38:31understanding of the world well it's38:33clear from what we've said that the idea38:35of history as a process which affects38:37every aspect of our thinking and our38:39ideas is a crucial thing that's come38:41from Hegel and Marx it became almost the38:44dominant thing in the 19th century that38:45led as with evolution seeing everything38:47as having evolved having developed we38:50can't now imagine looking at societies38:53or ideas as timeless entities38:56independent of the history and that's38:58something that we owe to Hegel and Marx39:00and that's so that's one very important39:02thing the other thing is this notion of39:04freedom the idea that is distinct from39:07the liberal notion that we cannot be39:10free unless we control our destiny39:13unless we instead of being blown about39:17by the winds of economic circumstances39:21for marks or the unseen hand of reason39:24for Hegel unless we actually take39:26control of it realize our own power39:29realize the capacity of human beings39:32collectively to control our destiny and39:35grasp it that may as you said have some39:39dangerous tendencies in it but it's a39:42very important idea I don't think it's39:44one that we can ever give up once we've39:47been presented with it by Hegel and man39:48now I do have to ask you about the39:50minuses as well as the pluses the ideas39:54of both of these philosophers have39:56become associated in the 20th century39:57since their deaths with totalitarianism40:01hagel the German nationalism culminating40:03in Hitler and Marx with communism which40:07was seen at its most horrific in the40:09state created by Stalin both of these40:11societies were societies that murdered40:14millions of their own people now I'm not40:17suggesting that either of the two40:18philosophers would ever expected that40:20and certainly not that they would have40:22wanted it but they were both40:24philosophers who regarded the embodiment40:28of ideas in history in institutions in40:30social reality as being an essential40:32feature of ideas yet when their own40:36ideas were so embodied they had these40:38catastrophic results why was that40:41well I think their own ideas were40:43missing bodies I don't think you can40:45really trace Hegelian ideas at all in40:48Hitler's kind of racial national ISM you40:50can't find that kind of racist they said40:52so but you think that was a complete40:54materially complete misrepresentation of40:56Hegel in a circle again and also and40:59perhaps the ultimate irony in in what41:02happened to Max Max as I've been saying41:05was a philosopher of freedom he41:08cherished for you he hated subordination41:11he was once asked by his daughter to41:13write down what is what the Vice that he41:15most detested was he replied servility41:18civility the very advice the very thing41:21you needed to survive in Stalin's41:22totalitarian form and yet it's true that41:26these ideas did get me supplied did get41:28distorted well now why what is there41:30about the ideas that led to this outcome41:35I think in the end there's a faulty view41:39of human nature41:40partly there's an attempt to show a41:43greater unity than really exists between41:45human beings and we could trace this to41:47Hegel notion of mind or guys as41:49something which is above and beyond the41:52differences between individual Minds but41:54we find it also in in Marx and in the41:57idea that if you change the economic42:00circumstances you'll change human nature42:02and then we will all overcome the42:07divisions between one and another the42:09division between my interest and your42:11interest and our individual interests42:13and the interests of society they42:15we'll all disappear once we get rid of42:18the economic structure which leads us to42:20compete in the marketplace for money and42:22wealth now it seems unfortunately but42:26that has proven false that you can42:29change the economic basis and you don't42:32get rid of the divisions between reason42:35and desire between my interests and42:36yours or between individual and society42:39but in fact what happens once you make42:42it impossible or very difficult for42:44people to compete with each other for42:45wealth is they then start competing for42:47status or for power or something of that42:50sort and that's no better than it used42:52to be in fact you could say that in the42:54case of Stalin's society it proved to be42:57worse so I think that Marx was mistaken43:00in thinking that human nature would43:01change thank you very much professor43:04singer43:07[Music]</p><p>English (auto-generated)</p>