Mfw people keep telling me Hegel was a reactionary, proto-fascist, and highly authoritarian

"The State is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State.

—Philosophy of Right, "The State"

His doctrine of the State as the divine Idea as it exists on the earth is pretty authoritarian. Obviously not reactionary or proto-fascist, since it led to Marxism of all things, but certainly authoritarian.

>His doctrine of the State as the divine Idea as it exists on the earth is pretty authoritarian.
I'd say that's pretty close to Italian fascism already.

Is there anything good that Russell did outside of his work on logic and mathematics?

"The nation [Volk] to which such a moment is allotted as a natural
principle is given the task of implementing this principle in the course
of the self-development of the world spirit's self-consciousness. This
nation is the dominant one in world history for this epoch, and only once
in history can it have this epoch-making role (see § 346). In contrast with
this absolute right which it possesses as bearer of the present stage of
the world spirit's development, the spirits of other nations are without
rights, and they, like those whose epoch has passed, no longer count
in world history."

-Hegel, Philosophy of Right, 347

You'll never guess which nation he thought was the final one to have it's own realm of world history, and who's world dominance he ends his book with.

I'll never guess hegel was writing about Hebrews.

PRRRRRRRRRRRUSSIA

He actually does mention the Jews. Their are four realms of world history: Oriental, Greek, Roman, and German (of course). In the Roman realm, he notes that the suffering of all was blamed on the Jews.

Interestingly, in his Phenomenology of Spirit he notes that observational Reason ends up conjecturing about phrenology, and that it instinctually rejects this, and turns around. He compares this to the Jews in the following:

"Just so, it may be said of the Jewish people that it is precisely because they stand before the portal of salvation that they are, and have been, the most reprobate and rejected: what the people should be in and for it self, this essential nature of its own self, is not explicitly present to it; on the contrary, it places it beyond itself." -Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, 340

I know this, murica. lel

How did that influence Marxism? I thought Marx envisioned a society without a state, similar to Thomas More's Utopia.

Tbqhwymn, his work on mathematics has long since been thrown in the trash, so the 'List of contributions Bertrand Russel made to Philosophy' is empty.

Did Marx have to agree with Hegel's views to be influenced by Hegel? Marxists think Hegel has a lot of great insights but doesn't follow them consistently - for example, Hegel thought that alienated being would be reconciled in the modern state and people would be able to, basically, clearly think for themselves and integrate. Marxists see capitalist wage-slavery as peak alienation which fundamentally constrains the creative powers and liberty of individuals, and needs to be overcome. Further, they saw this overcoming as only secondarily taking place in the philosophical sphere, as it is essentially an issue of political economy, of developing the material productive forces to direct the technological capabilities of capitalism into new relations of production. These would in turn facilitate the transformation of social relations into less alienated forms, not dependant on the sale of labour-power and coercive institutions.

But what is left then?

Is this you?

Attached: Francis_Fukuyama_2015_(cropped).jpg (504x695, 83K)

Sounds pretty fascist to me.

His work in Logic Theory wasn't worthless. He has a paper "On Denoting" that is still considered valuable, and rightly so.