What is the difference in between left and right hegelianism?

Basically Hegel, as early as the Phenomenology of Spirit, defended the concept of nation states, nuclear families, and monarchs.

Left Hegelians (read, Marx) liked Hegel's method, but not the conclusions Hegel reached from it. Marx applied Hegel's dialectic to property throughout history, for example, to come up with his historical materialism.

Other Left Hegelians come to completely opposite conclusions on things Hegel wrote about, like David Strauss who writes that the Christian incarnation doesn't make any sense in a Hegelian framework. This is particularly strange, because for Hegel the incarnation is one of the things that makes Christianity the "best" religion; it's the universal making itself particular, the notion making itself actual, etc.

>Is it more to it that the left takes a more secular perspective on what the absolute notion is?

I think this is right. Someone like Bruno Bauer who sees history as progressive secularisation is the epitome of left-Hegelian thought.

As the other user said, the trick with Hegel is that he very clearly seems to endorse social conservatism and constitutional monarchies but his philosophy it seems allows so well for history to surpass that. So in some ways left-Hegelians will say the fact that they've been more faithful to Hegel's method allows them to modify Hegel rightfully.

Basically Hegel was a sorcerer and the Left and Right being lobotomized bastard children of Liberalism and Conservativsm don’t get this. He advocated for a supreme divine state much like the Reich or the USSR’s plans for Europe and so you can take his insights and use them to justify extreme statism or some kind of techno-socialist autarchy. Right Hegelians focus on his dealings with Spirit, Leftists focus mostly on the Dialectic itself and try to secularize that as some type of silent-pneumatic machinery that drives history towards class conflict and communist statism. They’re both insane and Hegel’s phenomenology is a form of memetic psychoactive agent that binds the minds of everyone who reads it. Its venom, pure necrotizing linguistic magic. He was a genius for this reason. Also if you’re not an autistic retard he basically shows you how the techno-alchemical engineers of civilization are transforming humanity into a sacrificial killing field for otherworldly forces but that’s not interesting to rightists or leftists because they’re castrati golem creatures who only exist to poke holes in the barrier between man’s conscious rational awareness and his subconscious cthonic realm. If you wait long enough Hegel’s name will come up in most discussions by these groups. He’s the root of all their lunacy.

is this your brain on Voegelin?

v good post imo

>Also if you’re not an autistic retard he basically shows you how the techno-alchemical engineers of civilization are transforming humanity into a sacrificial killing field for otherworldly forces but that’s not interesting to rightists or leftists because they’re castrati golem creatures who only exist to poke holes in the barrier between man’s conscious rational awareness and his subconscious cthonic realm.

You're gonna have to elaborate on this one, user

More or less. Both are correct to some extent, but go too far. It's not a matter of what Hegel himself thought, much of that is rather clear in his old age with his violation of his own method in defending social relations that were already on their way out.

Hegel's method does lead to far different conclusions than the Philosophy of Right, but it is in no way communism nor is it atheism. Hegel was a Christian for logical reasons, and only endorsed it insofar as it fit a logical role in his system. Any religion that can be construed to do the job Christianity does is just as good for Hegel, i.e. having the trinity metaphysics + the concept of the spiritual community. Hegel didn't think we could do without religion, and in a very broad sense he is undeniably right. Even atheist countries have secular religions and myths they cannot do without in their culture.

Just to note: It is complete bullshit to 'like' Hegel's method but not its conclusions as if you can choose modes of it. Hegel's method is a phenomeno-logical method which links through structures of fit.

You see this most clearly outside of the Science of Logic, where the movements are linked by a logical structure which is identified with an empirical form. In this manner of choosing the existent form, Hegel's method is most certainly revisable and must be revised by Hegel's own admission. The Philosophy of Right must be revised, but not because Hegel chose a wrong starting point, but because the forms he chooses and advances are in many places a contrived and illogical form. If you are starting somewhere else with something else, you're not disproving Hegel, you're merely doing something else.

i have a general question about hegel.

so it seems that he on one hand says that the highest reality is to realize the aboslute notion in which failing to see it in ourselves as pure consciousness, we look towards other things, only to come back into ourselves through work.

Now he says that the external reality is something that exists outside of us coming to realize it. But it seems to be a little bit of a contradiction to say that the Notion is the realization of absolute reality, if these objects can somehow exist outside of us realizing them.

Although they do play an important role in realizing the absolute notion, how is it that they can remain separate from the absolute notion?

Natural objects are real, but not for themselves. We, as self-conscious beings, play the role of nature's self-consciousness as a whole.

>so it seems that he on one hand says that the highest reality is to realize the aboslute notion in which failing to see it in ourselves as pure consciousness
Hegel does not privilege consciousness. Spirit is not reducible to consciousness or self-consciousness.

>Although they do play an important role in realizing the absolute notion, how is it that they can remain separate from the absolute notion?
The Notion/Concept as the absolute form is NOT something tied to human beings. Those things of nature out there are also their own embodiment of the Concept, just a less complete/developed form. We are the Concept in its highest form in Nature, the only one more complete being the pure concept of philosophy.

Read Jame's Kreines' essay on the Absolute Idea and its relation to life here:

www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/jkreines/conclusion james_kreines.html

Hegel was a drunkard that slayed pussy when he was young. He didn't give a shit what he was writing. Most people studying Hegel, tho, take his shit way to serious since most of them never or hardly witnessed pussy. Virgins are a mistake.

good post

Bump