/lit/ - Literature

>>4312620

Depends.

>>4312620
About what?

Hegel was literally right about everything except that the self-realisation and evolution of Freedom had concluded with liberal states. He was right about the individual creating the ultimate expression of Freedom and Reason through joining with the State, but he didn't take into account later developments like the Volksgemeinschaft. Fascism is the final evolution of Freedom.

>>4312634

Young Hegelians would like a word.

>tfw you will never be a charlatan influencing several generations of thinkers with your impenetrable writing that can be used to justify anything

Cut my life into pieces, this is my last resort.

>>4312659

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggV6LoYaQmg

you know your shit ay cunt

>>4312659
Go to bed, Schopenhauer ! Atman is waiting for you...

my gott

>>4312672

>Dis is perhaps why den ve find, like nudity in public places, de occupied space frequently objected to through in terms of abjection -*rubs face*- squatters are dirty, dey don’t wash, dey don’t have jobs, dey aren’t respectable – and so on and so on, Ahahah, you get de picture!

Yes.

>>4312659
>impenetrable

You're confusing him with the French.

>>4312634
> Fascism is the final evolution of Freedom.

>>4312661
>papa roach
>patricians of /lit/
topelel

>>4312746

papa roach is patriciancore

>>4312661
>>4312746
>>4312750
holy shit papa roach

nostalgia!!!

Maybe. Yet all things considered, the Phenomenology is one of the greatest works of philosophy ever written. It's like the Cologne cathedral: baroque, stunningly brilliant, very scary.

>>4312661
>>4312746
>>4312750

>mfw I was a Papa Roach fan during my teenage years, I'm probably still subscribed to their newsletter, although it's probably been going directly into my spam folder for years now

Such is life in capitalism; the symptom is indulged, the dollar is spent, yet none are better of for it

>>4312772

Dat world war 2

>2013
>believing in 'right' and 'wrong'

Wrong as judged by which standard?

>>4312825
By those that matter.

Checkmate atheists

>>4312640
Young Hegelians don't completely agree with Hegel. This guy does. Hegel's idea of liberal state has minor differences with what we now call fascism. Fascists even took his ideas to talk about the absolute making itself real through History.

That being said, I'd rather die than live in a Hegelian utopia.

>>4312717
Read the Phenomenology and tell me it's not an impenetrable mess.

>>4312835
Probably because you're a girl.

>>4312847
What does being a girl have to do with disliking Hegel? Also, note I used a reaction image of Schopenhauer.

>>4312874
A man can like Schopenhauer but only a girl dislikes fascism.

>>4312881
> Hegelians confirmed for permavirgin neckbeards

>>4312881
Fascism is disliked by more than the majority of people on the world. And Women aren't more than the majority of people on the world.

>>4312835
>Hegel's Philosophy of Right as abstract as you can get
Alright then: what is your definition of fascism and why is Hegel's political philosophy its prototype ?

>>4312898

I laughed at the rigor here.

seriously though fascism and socialism are the hegelian brothers of communism. All depends on how you interpret the dialectical method. Hint: There is no Thesis>Antithesis>Sythesis

There is nothing that rustles a Marxist more than pointing out that Fascism the pinnacle of Freedom.

>>4312930

If he's worth his salt he'll have read his hegel.

>>4312620
>was hegel wrong?

Yes.

So when do Hegel and I become aufgehoben?

>>4312659
>>4312758
>lol!

Sure is hipster up in here, goddamned crit. realist Zizikies

>>4312926
>I laughed at the rigor here.
Look at the world, look at what has happened: fascism has disappeared. There's only a few neo-nazis here and there, but they're not enough to win any elections. Greece was the place where the neo-nazis had more power on the earth, and their party is illegal now.
Maybe there's not a lot of rigor into saying that most of the planet's surface is covered by water, but when you look at the facts, believing the contrary seems dumb.
>seriously though fascism and socialism are the hegelian brothers of communism.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Hold on, nigga. The term Socialism was already used before Hegel publicized the Phenomenology of Spirit. And Fascism is more like a simple reaction against Communism. I mean, yeah, they are related, but it's more like Communism is the Hegelian version of Socialism, and fascism is related to Hegel as long as it's a reaction against Communism (which end up being politically closer to Hegel's own thoughts than the Leftist Hegelians themselves) .

>>4312927
Fascism, to sum it up in a single post, is a very gregarious ideology. The more cohesive the group, the stronger the society. And to reach that cohesiveness there must be only one hegemonic ideology, since any dissidence would result in the weakness of the society. Fascism takes from Hegel the idea that only through the state the man can reach freedom: individuals themselves are worth nothing. Fascists believe there is a Geist, and that the only way this Geist (Absolute) can manifest itself is through out History. The ones who win, the ones who conquer, are the ones chosen by the the Geist to keep their hegemony and build a unified state through which the man can be master and slave, God and man, reaching freedom (freedom dissolving his individuality in the community).
I tried my best, this should be extensively developed. But I hope I made obvious how the central points of Hegel's political philosophy and Fascism coincide.

>>4313648
Interesting post, thanks.

>>4313648
>Fascism, to sum it up in a single post, is a very gregarious ideology.
Every political theory has to be more or less about the individual and his/her relation to society as a whole. Putting your emphasis on the social aspect of this relation is not a unique feature of fascism as far as I'm concerned.

>The more cohesive the group, the stronger the society.
How do you measure cohesiveness and how strength ? The colonial forces were facing relatively homogenous and cohesive cultures yet they were easily submitted and assimilated to a certain degree.

>And to reach that cohesiveness there must be only one hegemonic ideology, since any dissidence would result in the weakness of the society.
That's the condition for every society that ever was and ever will be to work though. There is always an ideological common ground. Once a significantly sized group leaves it, there is very likely a civil war.

>Fascism takes from Hegel the idea that only through the state the man can reach freedom:
But that's a point since Rousseau, so I wouldn't restrict this to fascism

>individuals themselves are worth nothing.
That's where Hegel deviates from your concept of fascism, I'd say. While it is true that individuals are, according to Hegel, not able to create a constitution or social institutions from their own will, because they are just individuals and a society's constitution grows over centuries and individuals can only contribute to that growth, individual still are representatives of subjective Geist, and therefore agents of the absolute Geist, some more, even if they aren't aware of it, like Napoleon, and some less.

>Fascists believe there is a Geist, and that the only way this Geist (Absolute) can manifest itself is through out History.
Change "can manifest" to "will manifest" if you want to be Hegelian.
Then this is completely true, Hegel was convinced of a primacy of politics. But he was, at the same time extremely interested in economics by the way.

On a general note, Hegel pretty much argued for the state of things as they are. In his case that would have been a monarchy that followed the principles of reason. He stated that all existing things (social institutions, morality) are reasonable, since they were formed by human mind, but you could again argue that this statement is the prerequisite of any political theory that acknowledged that humans use their mind in order to change the world.

>But I hope I made obvious how the central points of Hegel's political philosophy and Fascism coincide.
I'm not entirely convinced, but it was a great read and had a few good points. Thanks for elaborating.

>>4314989
>Putting your emphasis on the social aspect of this relation is not a unique feature of fascism as far as I'm concerned.
Not every political ideology has the "fascio" (group) as central theme. Some have equality, freedom, or even individuality. So it's a pretty relevant thing to say.
>How do you measure cohesiveness and how strength ?
Dunno, I'm not a fascist and I think that's bullshit lol. But they say it in a belligerent way. If you are good at being a soldier (obeying), your army will be strong.
>That's the condition for every society that ever was and ever will be to work though
Not really true. My ideology doesn't look at all like more than the 90% of the rest of the people that surround me. I can vote, and I supposedly could change stuff if a lot of people (even though not even the majority) started to think like me. My society still works.
>There is always an ideological common ground.
Common ground=/=only one ideology.
>Once a significantly sized group leaves it, there is very likely a civil war.
In democracy there can win elections right-wing or left-wing parties, and it doesn't end in a civil war.
>Rousseau
Rousseau was more about how individuals fucked it up creating politics, since before they were free, and now they can only be free through out the state. Hegel is about how humans can only possibly be free through the state. That's a p important difference.
>individual still are representatives of subjective Geist,
As long as they take part in the development of History
>and therefore agents of the absolute Geist, some more, even if they aren't aware of it, like Napoleon, and some less.
You said it: the more you are linked with the state the more free you are. Napoleon was an Emperor, he was more significant than any dissident. That's the whole point of fascism: the führer/duce/caudillo,etc. is the incarnation of the Geist and must guide the volk. He is more important since he is more linked to the state. If you are not linked to the state you are worth nothing.
>Change "can manifest" to "will manifest" if you want to be Hegelian.
That's how I expressed it, but listen to Hitler or Mussolini: they don't say they can win, they say they WILL win, since they incarnate the spirit of the volk. They are 100% Hegelian in that aspect.
>prerequisite of any political theory
Not sure about that. But well, it depends on how you interpret reason .The Enlightenment style would take it as a synonym of God's will on earth, now we could see it just as some abstract device we, as biological beings, created to optimize our relationships.
>I'm not entirely convinced, but it was a great read and had a few good points. Thanks for elaborating.
Thanks for the feedback. Just trying to explain myself better. That's a really interesting topic, indeed.

bump for more discussion and further reading?

>>4315027
>Not every political ideology has the "fascio" (group) as central theme.
But you can have a collective as your point of reference in your central theme without freedom, equality or individuality without it being fascism. I would say that different thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Lenin or Leo Strauss had more or less the same thought process, inequality is a factum of society that's not inherently bad, but a group of chosen people will more or less dictate for the best of all.

>I can vote, and I supposedly could change stuff if a lot of people (even though not even the majority) started to think like me. My society still works.
The fact that you presuppose that the people will be fine with your electoral victory illustrates the flaw in your argumentation. Why would they even do that, if they were either convinced that in a democracy the right thing to do is follow the majority's decisions or completely dissatisfied with the entire political process in their country that they simply don' care any longer. But even then, let's suppose that suddenly in France the House of Bourbon tries to reestablish their head as king of France and they would be supported by parts of the army. The legitimacy of that claim would probably be regarded as pretty weak by the French people. But why? Because people will rather accept orders by authorities that are already accepted, that have roots in your predominant ideology.

>Common ground=/=only one ideology.
But where do you draw the line. Even in states that propagandised a strict ideology, there always were deviant currents of said ideology or even contrarian ideologies (granted, they were the clear minorities). And you can't rescrict ideologies to a mere process of minds. The fact that it is a matter of course for all people in civilised countries that when they lay down coins or banknotes as means of exchange for goods in a shop, they are free to take these items with them is ideology in action. Why do you think there is advertisment for using new series of banknotes for instance? If the people weren't convinced that this is just how the world works, the whole economy would collapse.
>In democracy there can win elections right-wing or left-wing parties, and it doesn't end in a civil war.
Spain and Chile would like to have a word with you.

>Rousseau was more about how individuals fucked it up creating politics, since before they were free, and now they can only be free through out the state.
Roughly speaking, Rousseau was about property by itself fucking up people. People used to be good, then they found out they can have privileges on using certain things and then they turned evil and unfree. The state is the only way to reassure freedom and morality according to Rousseau.
The Hegel part is correct. Even the most primitive society has a certain constitution that provides a certain degree of freedom (which coincides with the development of the absolute Geist in that society).

>>4315027
>As long as they take part in the development of History
When do people not take part in history, even as an extremely small participant ?

>That's the whole point of fascism: the führer/duce/caudillo,etc. is the incarnation of the Geist and must guide the volk.
I bet you love Carl Schmitt, because that was his point about dictatorship as well. And yes, Hegel can be interpreted that way.

>They are 100% Hegelian in that aspect.
But are they correct, that is the question. Just like marxism, is historical success or failure an indicator of how Hegelian your ideology is? Because the mismatch of theory (we are an ideology that uses reason itself to make things fine) and reality (all that is, is reasonable and the whole course of history followed the principles of reason).

>now we could see it just as some abstract device we, as biological beings, created to optimize our relationships.
Not a very Hegelian thing to say, since that would also be reducing reason to an individual character trait, instead of the condition of intersubjectivity as Hegel sees it. There is a reason many atheists were able to employ Hegel's theory. Substitute "God" with "society" and you have it.
In Hegel's case the state built on reason and the state built as a natural product are the same by the way, just in addition to what I said about the usage of reason and reality.

>>4312634
how is fascism the final evolution of freedom? what?

>>4315804

It's freedom from freedom.

>>4315804
It is in Hegel's terms. Read the rest of the thread.

>>4315804
>not joining your will with the Geist of your people and mantling creation as a supraindividual, the only being capable of expressing or advancing Freedom

>>4315813

>hasn't read hegel

joking, it did make me laugh.

>>4315825
Subjective volition – Passion – is that which sets men in activity, that which effects “practical” realisation. The Idea is the inner spring of action; the State is the actually, existing, realised moral life. For it is the Unity of the universal, essential Will, with that of the individual; and this is “Morality.” The Individual living in this unity has a moral life; possesses a value that consists in this substantiality alone. Sophocles in his Antigone, says, “The divine commands are not of yesterday, nor of today; no, they have an infinite existence, and no one could say whence they came.” The laws of morality are not accidental, but are the essentially Rational. It is the very object of the State that what is essential in the practical activity of men, and in their dispositions, should be duly recognised; that it should have a manifest existence, and maintain its position. It is the absolute interest of Reason that this moral Whole should exist; and herein lies the justification and merit of heroes who have founded states, – however rude these may have been. In the history of the World., only those peoples can come under our notice which form a state. For it must be understood that this latter is the realisation of Freedom, i.e. of the absolute final aim, and that it exists for its own sake. It must further be understood that all the worth which the human being possesses – all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality consists in this, that his own essence – Reason – is objectively present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for him. Thus only is he fully conscious; thus only is he a partaker of morality – of a just and moral social and political life. For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of History in a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity, and lives in the enjoyment of this objectivity. For Law is the objectivity of Spirit; volition in its true form. Only that will which obeys law, is free; for it obeys itself – it is independent and so free. When the State or our country constitutes a community of existence; when the subjective will of man submits to laws, – the contradiction between Liberty and Necessity vanishes. The Rational has necessary existence as being the reality and substance of things, and we are free in recognising it as law, and following it as the substance of our own being. The objective and the subjective will are then reconciled, and present one identical homogeneous whole.

>>4315825
>>4315826
For the morality (Sittlichkeit) of the State is not of that ethical (moralische) reflective kind, in which one’s own conviction bears sway; this latter is rather the peculiarity of the modern time, while the true antique morality is based on the principle of abiding by one’s duty [to the state at large]. An Athenian citizen did what was required of him, as it were from instinct; but if I reflect on the object of nay activity, I must have the consciousness that my will has been called into exercise. But morality is Duty – substantial Right – a “second nature” as it has been justly called; for the first nature of man is his primary merely animal existence.

Heidegger made a right step (towards totalitarianism) in the wrong direction (fascism).

>>4315811
it seems to me all he did was take the word freedom, and replace its fairly ubiquitous definition, with the definition for facisim?

I mean it's pretty edgy, but i'm not convinced at all that this is anything more than thought porn.

>>4315826

He was the state philosopher of Prussia and so enamored the Prussian state as the be-all end-all.

Another mistake is to associate that quote with your own words here >>4315813


"Freedom is just thought itself; he who casts thought aside and speaks of freedom knows not what he is talking of. The unity of thought with itself is freedom, the free will. Thought, as volition merely, is the impulse to abrogate one's subjectivity, the relation to present existence, the realizing of oneself, since in that I am endeavouring to place myself as existent on an equality with myself as thinking. It is only as having the power of thinking that the will is free." Lectures on the History of Philosophy, III, 402.

Pandering to the prussian state really did hegel long-term damage.

>>4315862

Some of Hegel is brilliance, some of it is deception and sophism. There's a reason it dominated the 19th century.

>>4315865
>Pandering to the prussian state really did hegel long-term damage.
That is definitely true, but that Hegel quotation you gave was perfectly fine in every way.

>>4315893

It is meant to clash with >>4315826

>>4315862
>it seems to me all he did was take the word freedom, and replace its fairly ubiquitous definition
Yep. That's pretty much it. This is how german idealism works in a nutshell.

>>4315905

>kant

>>4315865
You're conflating posters. >>4315813 should be understood as Goethe's (or Spengler's) Geist or Heidegger's Volk or Sorel's Myth or whichever formulation you want to use combined with an extreme interpretation of Hegel as totalitarian. It's an exaggeration for effect like most greentext, whether or not it's true.

>>4315929

That makes a lot more sense, kind of.

>>4315791
>When do people not take part in history, even as an extremely small participant ?
Well "the periods of happiness in it are the blank pages of history". When you don't get involved in political conflicts, you aren't taking part. The point is: you take part as long as the state can take profit out of you. You still are practically non-important since your paper is extremely secondary and anyone can do it. You are just a grain of sand, completely replaceable. To be important you must take part in the state affairs as much as you can.
>I bet you love Carl Schmitt
Welp, I don't subscribe his political orientation. But yeah, I find his analysis on the essence of politics pretty good.
>But are they correct, that is the question.
Difficult to answer since they are revised every now and them (Kojeve, Fkuyama, Zizek, Gramsci and a looong-ass etc.), but I'd personally say no (not that sure, though, most like a 'no' to their ideology as a whole, since I don't buy into it, than a 'no, they are completely wrong').
>Just like marxism, is historical success or failure an indicator of how Hegelian your ideology is?
Wel, initially, that would be Hegel's and Marx's indicator. But as I said, during these last 200 years a lot of people has been 'updating' these hegelian views (from both the leftist and right-wing perspectives).

Just to clarify: I don't consider myself a Hegelian, I just explain things from what I interpret is the Hegelian perspective, it might sound as I'm playing Devil's advocate but I'm not "defending" it.

>>4315910
He's the father and highest exponent of that fashion.
Try reading Kant without the help of a professor explaining you shit nor philosophic dictionary by your side (pro tip: you kan't).

>>4315947

protip: I was only implicating the old bugger

>>4315972
That was something I was adding, not like I was taking it as some kind of rebuttal.

The only people that still give a shit about Hegel are Žižek and his hipster followers.

>>4316047

Even if that were true there would be nothing wrong with it.

>>4316047
Continentals in general seem to be using or attempting to move beyond Hegel.

>>4315944
Why aren't you a Hegelian? You seem to know what you're talking about. I'm curious.

>>4315944
>Well "the periods of happiness in it are the blank pages of history". When you don't get involved in political conflicts, you aren't taking part.
Blank pages take up space nonetheless, something still happened, even if it is largely unknown. The decision not to take action is an action itself that reaffirms things as they are or as the dominant ideology wants them to be. A small employee or worker that wallows in (political) apathy still helps holding up society as a whole by (necessarily) taking part in it, see the short passage on the practical aspect of ideology here >>4315763 .

>The point is: you take part as long as the state can take profit out of you.
Careful now, we have to distinguish certain concepts and here's at the same time my major argument against your "Hegelian fascism". The state itself is objective Geist, i.e. the realisation of the subjective Geist. Now you say that certain individuals are more important to the state and those individual have to be beneficial for the state in order to be considered important, I assume. But when do these two Geists conflict and why do they conflict ? If you were saying before that the leader in a fascist society is the incarnation of the people`s Geist (i.e. the subjectve Geist of a people itself), when is the point of mismatch reached ? The Germans were willing to join Hitler in his absolute war and fough until the bitter end, even though it hurt the state (objective Geist and the absolute Geist to a certain degree) to such an degree that the whole society needed to be built up from the very foundations? And you can't even argue that Hegel did not consider influences from the outside of a state (that's where my point against the fascism part begins). Napoleon was the representative of the Weltgeist according to Hegel, "the anima mundi on horseback". States might have a relative totality in terms of the people they govern in their respective Geist, but they cannot be thought as excluding external elements. The Geist (in all his forms) is a universally human attribute, Americans partake in it, as do Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc. Every being capable of thinking takes part in it. Even if you argue that different states employ different systems of morality, those are still subject to change according to the developments the respective people undergoes.

>You still are practically non-important since your paper is extremely secondary and anyone can do it
Both you and I, it is still us who are doing these things. The fact that anyone can do it is just proof that what we are doing is comprehendable by our contemporaries and therefore intersubjective. And the fact that we are replaceable in the long run does not diminish our individual contribution to society as a whole.

(1/2)

>>4315944
>Difficult to answer since they are revised every now and them
Well then who is more in the right. The original thinker with his limited point of view or the commentator who can draw from experience ? The better question is, I think, if your categories and methods are actually valid for what you are aspiring to do. And these commentators usually contribute to that.

I really wanted to write a bit more, but I really need to go to sleep now. Good night !
(2/2)

He said there can't be any planets beyond the orbit of Saturn.
So yes, he was pretty wrong.

>>4316152
Well, there's a lot of interesting stuff in Hegel's philosophy and all the young Hegelians in general (specially in Marx and Stirner). But Hegel builds up a complex system that needs you to look at things through it accepting the central core to make sense. Once "inside" the Hegelian perspective everything will be interpreted through that optic and every fact that might be seen as a problem by the detractors, will be reinterpreted in a way that makes it all keep making sense. It's more like something you believe in than something that gives you objective knowledge (yes, i know how problematic these terms are, but now let's stick to politics) about how the world is.

Some of Hegel's main premises are that there's a unified Reason, something Kant, for example, couldn't end up proving since he concluded that practical and pure reason don't seem to be rooted on the same field. But Hegel uses dialectics to prove it all ends up "unifying" even when it seems it cannot because there are contradictions. According to Hegel, reason and morals coincide in the state, being these morals of the majority a step beyond, a progress from what we commonly understand as morals. Hegel interprets History in a teleological way that makes it all making sense in the end (The End of History that supposedly arrived with Napoleon, but then Kojeve and Fukuyama updated this idea). This is something Marx shares too: "we still didn't get rid of Capitalsim? Don't worry, it's just a mater of time, x factor delayed the results, but the dialectics work inevitably". Progress is what I think is the main idea of the Enlightenment, and this idea is the basis, the axiom you have to take to buy into all this system. You must believe there is progress, and that you cannot deviate from progress as long as you are guided by reason. And I am very doubtful about this.

>>4315763
>But you can have a collective as your point of reference in your central theme without freedom, equality or individuality without it being fascism.
Fascism is a reactionary movement that started as the modern interpretation of the Empires of the past (Rome mainly, but Napoleon's too). of course it looks like what Plato and Aristotle talked about, except they translate in modern terms. Militarization, idolization of the leader and authoritarianism are aspects of fascism too. I defined it VERY briefly. I can make a long-ass post only about fascism if you want.
>Lenin
lol Communists wouldn't agree equality isn't a central theme.
>The fact that you presuppose that the people will be fine with your electoral victory illustrates the flaw in your argumentation.
I never presupposed that. Obama won the USA elections and not everybody seems happy with it. In my country we aren't very happy with the result of the last elections either. And NOTHING happens.
Common ground doesn't mean one ideology. During a dictatorship there's only one ideology, only one party. In democracy we have lots of ideologies, and parties democratic with such ideologies can end up participating in the elaboration and execution of laws.
>Spain
Lol, I am Spanish. We have been alternating right and left parties since the dictatorship ended without civil wars, so no.
>property by itself fucking up people
The RIGHT to property. This can only happen in already organized societies. All of this mess starts the moment it all starts being organized. There are politics before the existence of the modern state.

>>4316198
>The decision not to take action is an action itself
Well, it's the action of you not being free and being less than shit by the perspective of Hegel or Fascism. I think you just interpreted what I wrote how you preferred missing the point a little bit there.
>But when do these two Geists conflict and why do they conflict ?
What conflict? There's the state, there's the people. You can reach freedom through your participation in the state. If you don't nobody will give a fuck since you will be like an ant.
>when is the point of mismatch reached ?
There's no mismatch from their perspective.
>The Germans were willing to join Hitler in his absolute war and fough until the bitter end, even though it hurt the state (objective Geist and the absolute Geist to a certain degree) to such an degree that the whole society needed to be built up from the very foundations?
Hey, we're talking about Fascism and Hegel's philosophy. Hitler used fascism as ideology for his own goals. Facts have nothing to do with two ideologies being alike or not. Also, that fight to the bitter end makes sense from their perspective: the strongest state is the incarnation of the Absolute Geist and will win. WILL win. It's a matter of faith.
>And you can't even argue that Hegel did not consider influences from the outside of a state (that's where my point against the fascism part begins)
What? Hitler and Mussolini did consider influences from outside of the state, they were allies even though Italy and Germany had two different states. Don't see your problem here.
> Every being capable of thinking takes part in it. Even if you argue that different states employ different systems of morality, those are still subject to change according to the developments the respective people undergoes.
Well, that's something Hitler and Mussolini took into account too. This is not an objection at all. Fascism thinks the state, the nation, must be unified and strong. And it must acquire what it needs and wants. If there's a conflict, the stronger ends up submitting others to his ideology. That reigning ideology will be the one through which the Geist is manifesting.

>>4316223
>Well then who is more in the right
Depends on the context. Nowadays the commentators might be more on the right, since they have updated those theories. The point of all of this is their predictions are always subject to change, and they will continue changing to fit when facts end up happening differently from what they predicted. For example, see Hegel (Napoleon brings the End of History), to Kojeve (the end of the WWII and the EU brought the End of History), to Fukuyama (the fall of The Wall is the End of History since it's the triumph of Liberalism). But now we have China, which isn't a liberal democracy and seems to be taking control of the whole situation. So... Well, this kind of predictions often end up problematically.

>>4316242

No he said that no security guard can stop a refrigerator falling off a skyscraper and proceeded to provide proofs.

Magee, to his great credit, is one of the few academics who have dared to see philosophy in a wider context, one heavily influenced by secret traditions. He is also in a select group of Hegel scholars to suggest a direct connection between Hegel and the Illuminati. He says, "…Hegel was frequenting the company of known Masons, some of them graduates of the banned Illuminati." Also, "Most of the Illuminati were also Masons. Jacques D'Hondt in his Hegel Secrets provides a fascinating discussion of the influence of the Enlightenment ideals and terminology of the Illuminati on the young Hegel."

Hegel, Adam Weishaupt and Goethe were all contemporaries:

Johann Adam Weishaupt:
February 6, 1748 - November 18, 1830

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:
August 27, 1770 - November 14, 1831

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:
August 28, 1749 - March 22, 1832

Hegel succeeded Weishaupt as Grand Master of the Illuminati in 1830, but died within a year. Goethe, an old man, then assumed the role, but more in an honorary capacity due to his frailty. He died within a matter of months.

The Illuminati look on this era as a particular Golden Age when it seemed that they might make a decisive breakthrough. However, in the next few decades the world became preoccupied with the industrial revolution, Marxism (Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel, though he radically altered the emphasis of Hegel's philosophy from idealism to materialism), and Darwinism.

All of these had an adverse impact on the development of the Illuminati's agenda. These powerful new influences turned the world away from spiritual concerns. The industrial revolution created unprecedented wealth for the Old World Order and raised their power to even higher levels; Marxism was the inevitable dialectical response. As for Darwinism - in its vulgar and misleading form of "survival of the fittest" - it provided support for the ruthlessness of the Old World Order. They claimed they were the fittest and the weak deserved to perish. It was natural and good, they said, that they should dominate and exploit the weak, the inevitable outcome of the struggle for survival.

Then Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, Freud announced his theory of the unconscious, and the modern age was born. The Illuminati have struggled ever since to have their voice heard. But the ancient wisdom is no less relevant now than it was in the time of the Illuminati's first official Grand Master, Pythagoras.

>>4316345
That was, dare I say, illuminating.

Any references to the secret cult hidden away in the obscure passages of the Phenomenology of Spirit.

>>4316355
I guess you could say you've just been... Illuminatied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o

>>4316355
Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

"In the Corpus Hermeticum we find a kind of “bridge position” between Egyptian occultism and the modern Hermeticism of Hegel and others. Instead of conceiving words as carrying literal occult power, words come to be seen as carrying a kind of existential empowerment. The ideal of Hermetic theosophy becomes the formulation of a “complete speech” (teleeis logos, “perfect discourse” or perhaps “Encyclopedic discourse,” which means, of course, “circular” discourse). When acquired, the complete speech, which concerns the whole of reality, will radically transform and empower the life of the enlightened one. So Hegel writes in a fragment preserved by Rosenkranz:

>Every individual is a blind link in the chain of absolute necessity, along which the world develops. Every individual can raise himself to domination over a great length of this chain only if he realizes the goal of this great necessity and, by virtue of this knowledge, learns to speak the magic words which evoke its shape. The knowledge of how to simultaneously absorb and elevate oneself beyond the total energy of suffering and antithesis that has dominated the world and all forms of its development for thousands of years — this knowledge can be gathered from philosophy alone,"

>Voegelin’s principal statement on Hegel’s Hermeticism is a savagely polemical essay, “On Hegel: A Study in Sorcery,” referring to the Phenomenology of Spirit as a “grimoire” which “must be recognized as a work of magic — indeed, it is one of the great magic performances.”

>There are, furthermore, numerous Hermetic elements in Hegel’s writings. These include, in broad strokes, a Masonic subtext of “initiation mysticism” in the Phenomenology of Spirit; a Boehmean subtext to the Phenomenology’s famous preface; a Kabbalistic-Boehmean-Lullian influence on the Logic; alchemical-Paracelsian elements in the Philosophy of Nature; an influence of Kabbalistic and Joachimite millennialism on Hegel’s doctrine of Objective Spirit and theory of world history; alchemical and Rosicrucian images in the Philosophy of Right; an influence of the Hermetic tradition of pansophia on the system as a whole; an endorsement of the Hermetic belief in philosophia perennis; and the use of perennial Hermetic symbolic forms (such as the triangle, the circle, and the square) as structural, architectonic devices.

>>4312713
Yeah, gotta go with this guy. The state is disgusting, absolute comes through the individual.

>>4316767
agreed :^)

>>4316771
I'm guessing you haven't read Kierkegaard.

>>4316786
the individual is the smallest minority :^)

>>4316787
What's so special about minority's?

>>4316792
>minority's

>nobody ITT talking about Wissenschaft der Logik
shameful

>>4316817
Why? It's outdated and nobody gives a fuck about it. His influence on politics is the only thing that survived until today.

>>4316292
>I can make a long-ass post only about fascism if you want.
No, that'll do for now, I guess. Thanks!

>Communists wouldn't agree equality isn't a central theme.
Lenin promoted the concept of a vanguard party that would be the brain of the communist movement. An elite of educated communists would form the politburo and would have special rights like being able to utilise noble lies. The universal goal would be a classless, i.e. equal society, yes, but the concrete political strategy is clearly not endorsing equality.

>In my country we aren't very happy with the result of the last elections either. And NOTHING happens.
But why? You can either endorse the current system, because you are actually more or less okay with it, you can grudgingly accept it (and work or think against it - or not) or you can fall into (political) apathy. The only instance where your actions and your thoughts are matching, if you are discontent with the current state of affairs is when you are actually taking (militant) actions against it.
Remember when there was talk about secessionist tendencies in parts of the US that were largely dominated by conservatives after Obama won? They were all empty threats, it is highly unlikely that a federal state will leave the union any time soon. I know, I know, the Catalans, the Scots etc. are still trying to do a similar thing. Even if liberal democracy in western countries is not that satisfying as its adherents wanted it to be, it is still widely accepted as a process or at least it is accepted like a force of nature (it has always been that way and there is nothing I can change about that).

>>4316292
>Common ground doesn't mean one ideology. [...] In democracy we have lots of ideologies, and parties democratic with such ideologies can end up participating in the elaboration and execution of laws.
(Liberal) democracy itself is an ideology though. The possibility of a certain diversity of ideology in a society is an extremely young phenomenon, starting in the last quarter of the 19th century, I'd say. In order to acknowledge the other as a partner or at least equal opponent in the process of legislation is a key element of democracy, no monarchist, fascist or revolutionary socialist would (strictly speaking of course) acknowledge their opponent's preferences as something to consider when forming a society.
Common ground is the ideological minimal consensus of a society. You can be farther away from certain points and stances, but you are still tolerable. Once a significant group moves away from that ground by either demanding certain rights or a completely different mode of production, it is very unlikely (but not completely impossible) that there won't be acts of violence. In order to hold power you can either make people happy, make them content enough to bear your politics, make them disillusioned and apathetic or make them fear you.
I really doubt that there could be a state that is able to hold up a pure ideology to be honest. All historical examples for an authoritarian state or institution always had to admit certain deviation from the pure teachings. Even Nazism had to subsume so many currents, from only Christan inspired antisemitism over to people who liked Mussolini's brand of fascism over to members of nobility that fancied a corporate state like in Austria.


>We have been alternating right and left parties since the dictatorship ended without civil wars, so no.
And what about that war that lead to Franco's dictatorship? It's not like every time a party takes over power via election the former ruling party or a diametrically opposed party with enough influence will try a coup d'etat, but it is possible if they simply do not acknowledge the elected party's right to rule.

>The RIGHT to property.
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society."
Property as a fact, not a right, constituted, according to Rousseau, a civil society. Before that man used to be a noble wild and almost independent from other humans.

>There are politics before the existence of the modern state.
Careful, that's Schmitt's stance, not Rousseau's !

Sometimes. The self doesn't seek to destroy the Other. The Other is concretely true and real, observationally- while my own soul is smoke and mirrors, a soul is an illusion of a complex, layering, pattern recognizing mind-machine. So I seek to destroy myself for the Other.

Or. Oh God. Has society convinced me, as a female, that *I* am the Other, that *it* is the true self-?

In which case- Hegel was right. Blasted bastards!-?

>>4317031
But that's just wrong you fucker. Read the Stanford encyclopedia article and don't come back until you do.

>>4316319
>I think you just interpreted what I wrote how you preferred missing the point a little bit there.
Would you elaborate, please ? I'm not quite following you.

>There's the state, there's the people.
Hegel was one of the first ones that stressed that there is a difference between state and society for a reason. The subjective Geist (of the people) is able to realise new forms of objective Geist (in new ethics or new institutions of the state or an entirely different state), otherwise you couldn't even comprehend profound reforms or revolutions with Hegel's philosophy.

>Hitler used fascism as ideology for his own goals
What is the criterion that let's us see this and not a devoted populace that would follow its leader into death, as you already correctly pointed out ? When did he stopped being the incarnation of the Volksgeist and became selfish and how do we discern this ?

>Facts have nothing to do with two ideologies being alike or not.
That's a tough one. Of course, ideology is primarily a normative theory, but it needs to have a certain foothold in reality or at least in what they think is real. Marxism had its economy, fascism its Volk and leader, liberalism its human with inalienable rights who could use his wits in order to obtain happiness.

>Fascism thinks the state, the nation, must be unified and strong.
But Hegel pretty much said that since all humans are capable of reason, they have the same essence. All differences (ethics, institutions and things like Volk) are just different stages of the development of mind. You cannot focus on a single state and establish it as a point of reference in a philosophy that stresses that the Weltgeist will abrogate all differences in such a way that at the end of history (yes, I know) there will be the unity of identity and difference.
Hegel's philosophy has a claim to absolute truth, i.e. there can be no individual and no society that doesn't obey Hegel's laws and they all are part of the Geist unfolding itself. And I personally think that Hegel might have said many wrong things, but when he stresses the fact that a total (i.e. global) approach in order to learn about societies and their values is necessary and that they are essentially the same, then he is quite right, I think.

>>4316319
>>4318356
>Facts have nothing to do with two ideologies being alike or not.
And additional to the interpretation of facts as they are, you of course have to count how they work in reality, when people try to realise their respective ideologies, it's part of the objective Geist. If you disregard how ideologies were implemented and how the feedback from that practice was evaluated, you simply aren't looking at an ideology as a whole.

>>4318284
>the concrete political strategy is clearly not endorsing equality.
It's neither focused on the premise "strength through unity".
>if you are discontent with the current state of affairs is when you are actually taking (militant) actions against it.
Yes. This is my only option, actually. But it's like fighting against the impossible.
>I know, I know, the Catalans, the Scots etc. are still trying to do a similar thing.
Heh, yeah (I'm Catalan), that's a very different scenario though. In the USA (in my humble opinion) it's pretty pointless to be a secessionist (United STATES, Scotland and Catalonia aren't states right now).
>Even if liberal democracy in western countries is not that satisfying as its adherents wanted it to be, it is still widely accepted as a process or at least it is accepted like a force of nature
A product of the forces of nature, sure. But, I am still not sure about that process being a synonym of "progress" as the Enlightenment intellectuals understood it.
>And what about that war that lead to Franco's dictatorship?
Well, that was because of the Republic. That implied the nobility losing their statuses. So, well, you are somehow right (take into account Franco won thanks to Hitler and Mussolini helping him and the fact that the commies, anarchists and internationalists were mostly poor as fuck and had no military training).
>and found people naïve enough to believe him
This is what I personally understand as the hypothetical birth of rights as we know them. It's a fact, but the point is people being stupid enough to keep an idea as an additional fact ("he deserves to own it").
>Careful, that's Schmitt's stance, not Rousseau's !
Well, yeah, you're right. My interpretation of politics. But Rousseau implies certain conventions (before the contract itself). Accepting somebody owns certain possessions is a social convention, pre-contractual, but it's the start of it. We can't talk of state of nature at this point.

>>4318356
>I'm not quite following you.
I was talking about the worth of the individual itself on society, not questioning him having a place and a role on it.
>Hegel was one of the first ones that stressed that there is a difference between state and society for a reason
Yes. But I meant: you, as an individual, can participate actively and voluntarily on the state and reach freedom, or be just a stone in the path (which implies, you'll be used by the state since you alone are less powerful than the whole society, but you won't be free, since your will won't be aligned with the "will" of the state).
>What is the criterion that let's us see this and not a devoted populace that would follow its leader into death, as you already correctly pointed out ? When did he stopped being the incarnation of the Volksgeist and became selfish and how do we discern this ?
Well, the point is that once he became "the incarnation of the volkgeist", there was no turning back. His own selfish interests were followed by the masses as the will of the Geist. Oif course, reached that point of decadence of the 3rd Reich, it all started getting far from the starting idea. That's the problem with authoritarian dictatorships: they are perfect on concepts, but once in practice it's very difficult to make it work without decaying quickly.
(I'll continue later, got to go, keep the thread alive, please).

question for the hegelians in this thread:

what are your opinion about Hegel and Haiti, by Susan Buck-Morss?


that said, i like hegel and i think we can't really escape from him, but we need to adapt his philosophy

>>4318356
>Of course, ideology is primarily a normative theory, but it needs to have a certain foothold in reality or at least in what they think is real
What I meant to say was that Hitler using fascist ideas when he needed them and dismissing them when he didn't, doesn't affect the fact of Fascism having points in common with Hegel's views on politics. Hitlerianism has its roots on Fascism and National Socialism,but it ended up developing as a cult to Hitler over those other ideas.
(>>4318452 There's a difference between applying one idea and applying it partially. Of course the feedback from the results affects certain ideology, this is why nowadays we talk about Neo-nazism, which is the resultant ideology from a mix between Fascism and National Socialism with additional themes relative to historical changes that took place after the WWII)

Fascism as an idea doesn't focus in a particular state. There are fascistoid ideologies from around the world. One stage on Fascism is the idea of that Absolute represented by the state. Fascism in general doesn't develope further that idea of Absolute as a force that necessarily ends in The End of History, but Hitler's Pangermanism and the contemporary message of one white Europe are a step beyond that state Fascism, there's incipient stages of that expansive tendence; even if Fascism and Hegel's view on politics aren't 100% identic, it's obvious how Fascism has been heavily influenced by Hegel and has mantained its idealist/religious aspect more than Leftist Hegelianism which is more focused on materialism.

>actually believing that history develops in a linear fashion
>actually believing that humanity "progresses" over time

tippest of the toppest of the tip top spenglarian keks

>>4312926
>seriously though fascism and socialism are the hegelian brothers of communism.

If by communism you mean marxism (which I have to assume if you differentiate it from socialism), it would be more acccurate to say that maxism is the hegelian brother of marxsim.

monitoring this thread

>>4320293
>implying it hasn't

There may have been a step back here and there, but that's about it.

>>4320293
i said a tip top a tippy a tippy to the tip tip top and you dont stop

>>4320989
Get back to study how Evolution works.

>>4318454
>It's neither focused on the premise "strength through unity".
If you say unity is submission under the party`s orders, it kind of is...

>But it's like fighting against the impossible.
I wouldn't despair though. The ruling classes have fucked up welfare capitalism that hard and are completey unwilling to fix it, it's almost beyond belief...
Ironically this complete political rigour that only explodes in ultimately futile protests (Blockupy would be the most glaring instance) that don't lead to anything distinctly different nowadays is so close to Kant's "Think as much as you like and about what you like, but obey!".

>United STATES, Scotland and Catalonia aren't states right now
This could be a good start, since you are putting so much emphasis on the state itself: What defines a state fundamentally? And what defines a fascist state in particular?
I'd say there are certain things that are inevitable for a state should it be able to exist for itself: a territory, a people and a government. The latter is the mere power to realise its will (via institutions, guards, officials etc.) as well as a constitutional device that defines the foundations of a society (not necessarily heavily codified structures of law). Of course, that government and its laws and values must be acknowledged by the people to be legitimate.
But states don't exist only for themselves they exist in a world where different people inhabit different territories governed by different forms of administration and legislation. So the for a state in order to be perceived not only by itself, but as itself, as an objective factual entity with certain right, other states need to acknowledge that state as a state.

>But, I am still not sure about that process being a synonym of "progress" as the Enlightenment intellectuals understood it.
Well, there were a lot of intellectuals who voiced substantial criticism on the notion of an intrinsically good progress. Hegel himself also seemed to anticipate something like that and called it cunning of history. The first one that I know that argued that reason as a method that can do more harm than good would be Max Weber. Later Walter Benjamin and most prominently Adorno (and Horkheimer) would elaborate that thesis in their works.

>It's a fact, but the point is people being stupid enough to keep an idea as an additional fact ("he deserves to own it").
But it wasn't a social standard until the social contract was made, so I'd hesistate to call it right or law. I know, you are arguing from Schmitt's point that in this very moment of appropriation a political incident happened and that this is possible without the existence of a state.
I guess it could be interpreted as one of those cases, in which the act and law coincide.

>>4318475
>I was talking about the worth of the individual itself on society, not questioning him having a place and a role on it.
Are we really able to discern those two properly? And if yes, by what standard? I mean everybody has at least family members that acknowledge one's value and those people are part of the society.

>Yes. But I meant: you, as an individual, can participate actively and voluntarily on the state and reach freedom, or be just a stone in the path (which implies, you'll be used by the state since you alone are less powerful than the whole society, but you won't be free, since your will won't be aligned with the "will" of the state).
Freedom as the identity of will and existence, ok. But how do people express dissent at all? What enables them to do so if the state is the place of the actual Geist? How is it possible that they have deviant values that they wish to incorporate into the state? Are those people only stones in the paths or something different?

>Well, the point is that once he became "the incarnation of the volkgeist", there was no turning back.
For them, yes. I know Hegel said that we are only able to look back in time and on things that already happened but surely, there must have been enough intelligent men who saw that coming, who thought beyond the incarnate Volksgeist and about the future without Hitler. Weren't they closer to the actual Geist (subjective, objective and absolute) when they thought out of the Hitler box and considered the real totality and not that Hitler-limited point of view?

>That's the problem with authoritarian dictatorships: they are perfect on concepts, but once in practice it's very difficult to make it work without decaying quickly.
It's a terrible flaw in your political philosophy if your social construct are only going to last twelve years and will disappear with a giant bang, anon.

>>4319138
>There's a difference between applying one idea and applying it partially.
see >>4318288 .What is the pure ideology then and how can we keep it as pure as possible, yet still completely effective in reality? Was Lenin a traitor to Marxism when he approved the NEP ?

>beyond that state Fascism
But as interpretations of ancient empires, doesn't that mean that a fascist state needs to expand? That it is a core drive of its being? Are there essential differences between certain nationalities or can nationalities be absorbed by a fascist empire?

Sorry for the late response. I wasn't at home the entire day.

>>4319138
>There's a difference between applying one idea and applying it partially.
see >>4318288 .What is the pure ideology then and how can we keep it as pure as possible, yet still completely effective in reality? Was Lenin a traitor to Marxism when he approved the NEP ?

>beyond that state Fascism
But as interpretations of ancient empires, doesn't that mean that a fascist state needs to expand? That it is a core element of its being? Are there essential differences between certain nationalities or can nationalities be absorbed by a fascist empire?

>>4318579
Haven't heard of it before, but sounds interesting. Thanks!

Sorry for the late response. I wasn't at home the entire day.

>>4320293
>itz really circular lol
>2edgy4me

>>4319138
>One stage on Fascism is the idea of that Absolute represented by the state.
Hm, so the concept of state is synonymous with Hegel's idea and therefore the cause of all things that were and all things yet to come. Is this an attribute of states themselves or of fascist states alone ?

>>4324300
>so the concept of state is synonymous with Hegel's
Not exactly, more like based on.
>the cause of all things that were and all things yet to come
Yes. They coincide about this. That's imho, the central point.
>Is this an attribute of states themselves or of fascist states alone ?
Huh, tough question. if you take Schmitt's theory, the only possible well-working state MUST be this kind of state (therefore, liberal democracies as we know them today are decadent, since they introduce inside the state the dichotomy friend/enemy (sorry for the inaccuracy of the terms, I read it in Spanish) by implying the existence of different political parties, and that corrupts the base of what should constitute the ideal of Modern State.

I think he was schizophrenic

bump

surpringsly good thread

>>4316480
Is Death Grips occult? Or are they another group who is using the imagery and words to shock and intrigue