Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/Archive 4

Revise to conform to Wikipedia rules

Wikipedia rules state that 'articles must not contain original research' and'any material...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.'

There are multiple cases in which both of these rules are violated by the editor in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.65.246 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot here that should be removed for this reason. Once before, however, I removed just a few of the more egregious pieces and was promptly reversed and chastised for not having discussed everything first. Do editors actually want this acted upon? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hegel's racism

So his racism is well documented, why is there nothing about it in the article? --LH7605 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The academic article you cited concedes his racism wasn't unique in historical context ("The source of his racism can be traced to the general ideology of the nineteenth century") and that passages from his works are "rather ambivalent" about race when viewed in isolation (only revealing themselves as racist when studied holistically). That said, if someone feels confident making a case that his racism was contextually unique and/or has a particular & fundamental bearing on his philosophy, I'd say go for it. Deadseaweed (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to add this to the Controversies section, I would recommend chapter 4 of Allegra de Laurentiis's 2021 Hegel's Anthropology as a strong contender for the most scholarly and objective treatment of the issue in that text. That said, however, think the only real reason to include this would be to push back against hyperbolic claims sometimes leveled against Hegel by scholars in other fields. (The only people who actually read Hegel's Anthropology are serious enough not to be taken in.)

If such a subsection could also be extended to treat Hegel's East-to-West historical narratives, esp. in the Phi World History, but also Phi Art and Phi Religion, that would make it much more valuable. This aspect of Hegel's work is problematic in a way that I think might have philosophical implications that his (at least seemingly) one-off racist comments in the Anthropology probably do not. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's brother

This article says:

Hegel had a sister, Christiane Luise (1773–1832); and a brother, Georg Ludwig (1776–1812), who perished as an officer during Napoleon's 1812 Russian campaign.[59]:4

[59]:4 is Pinkard, Terry (2000). Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-49679-7. At https://archive.org/details/hegelbiography0000pink on page 4 it says:

Hegel's brother, Georg Ludwig, had a breif but apparently glorious career as a military officer, rising to the rank of captain; he was ennobled and thereby because Georg Ludwig von Hegel; he [went] with Napoleon on the Russian campaign in 1812, never to return. His sister, Christiane, was to outlive him only by a few months

But https://archive.org/details/hegelcair00cairuoft/page/5/mode/1up (Hegel by Caird, Edward, 1835-1908; Publication date 1883; Topics Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770-1831; Publisher Edinburgh Blackwood) says:

He had a younger brother, Louis, who became a soldier--and a sister, Christiane, between whom and the philosopher there appears to have been a strong bond of affection. [Also https://archive.org/stream/hegelcair00cairuoft/hegelcair00cairuoft_djvu.txt]

So what is the brothers name? (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georg-Wilhelm-Friedrich-Hegel didn't help.) Also it said that he never returned, not that he perished. Did he die in Russia, go MIA, or was he declared dead in absentia? --User123o987name (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@car chasim, as you're currently engaged with Pinkard's bio, have you by chance cleared this up? Or could you, without too much trouble? This issue is completely irrelevant to Hegel's philosophical and historical significance. The article should be correct, but it would be nice to close out this objection, removing it from the Talk page. Thanks– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section seems a tad technical and complicated - contrary to the "clear, accessible style" mandated by the wikipedia manual of style. I get that it's Hegel, and so it's necessarily going to lean towards the more complicated side of things, but if anyone who knows more about Hegel than I do can make it clearer and more accessible, that would be great. Farleigheditor (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears the lead section has become even even more technical and complicated in the last two months. This does not seem like a suitably concise summary of his thought for an introductory paragraph. Can I suggest moving this paragraph to a later section and replacing it with a brief summary of Hegel's chief contributions to philosophy? Sittlichkeit1807 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, much of the second paragraph is incomprehensible to non-specialists. Some of it is also incorrect without further qualification, which would only exacerbate the issue.

Also, a separate issue: do others agree that all the Heidegger references in the last paragraph are excessive? It seems fine to mention that Heidegger considered Hegel's system "the completion of philosophy," which conveys a general sense of importance that I believe is historically warranted. Heidegger's history-of-being account of Western philosophy, however, is highly specific to Heidegger's own idiosyncratic phenomenological project. It does not belong in the lede [sic], and maybe not even in the article—not any more, that is, than Hegel's views on all of his precursors belong on all of their pages, Hegel's history of philosophy being equally specific to his philosophical project. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh I don't think I've utilized a Talk Page before (I'm more the type to fix typos and grammatical errors), so please excuse my lack of experience. I came to this article looking for an overview of Hegel's ideology, to better inform my reading of an online paper that mentioned him. I bring this up because I think it speaks to the necessity for summarization and the readability of an article. I agree with the points made previously: Of course, this isn't exactly a subject easily boiled down to fit inside a nutshell, but only the folks who actually understand it in the first place would know how to "layman-ize" it appropriately. I honestly tried to wrap my head around that first section but it seemed the more I read, the less I understood, as more concepts were thrown in and it felt like I couldn't anchor myself to any one thread of explanation. I guess I haven't added much here except to say there's ongoing interest in this article being more accessible to the non-specialists. BeepThisIsNotaTest (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this expression of agreement. The Wikipedia citation policies serve philosophy quite poorly, being as it is a field in which there is a great deal of disagreement among the experts themselves. Maybe I'll take a go at it though.

In the meanwhile, I would point you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (all entries are written by established scholars) or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is also reliable. Both are free and are pretty much always a better place to look than Wikipedia. Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree as well, I think there's a pretty good case based on the WP:RS policy that other philosophers like Heidegger and Derrida don't really count as secondary academic sources for what Hegel believed, they should probably just be used as primary sources in the influence section. In their place, there are plenty of Hegel scholars who publish in English (most of who are cited on SEP and IEP) whose work could probably be used to improve this article (e.g. Terry Pinkard, Stephen Houlgate, etc). - car chasm (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I was already working on the biographical section, so I've rewritten the lead entirely and merged in the progress I had already made on rewriting the biography. There's a very rough outline of Hegel's system now compared to what there was, but I think that may be better than what we had. I like to preserve other's contributions whenever possible, but I have absolutely no idea what the removed content in the lead was trying to say, despite being somewhat familiar with Hegel's philosophy myself. - car chasm (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better. Thank you. I made just a few small edits, which you can review in the page history. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Karl Popper

Whether or not his criticism of Hegel is indeed reflected in the Rothbard source cited, Popper was neither American nor an economist. Would be better to cite Popper's own work and refer to him accurately in terms of nationality and profession. 2601:645:0:F480:7174:1D3C:790E:4747 (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty good case for not including Popper's criticism of Hegel on this page at all really, it may be more appropriate on Popper's page as there have been many arguments by people like Walter Kaufmann that Popper never even read Hegel directly. - car chasm (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Popper influenced the public perception of Hegel, and so I think it is fine to mention him in the Criticism section. I've removed the reference from the Legacy section, however, because it's redundant and, arguably, never belonged there to begin with. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible original research in philosophical work section

It looks like there are a lot of claims being made about the interpretation of Hegel's work being made in the philosophical work section - are these supported by any secondary sources? There do not appear to be any secondary sources cited in that entire section, and many of the claims being made about the meaning of Hegel's Logic seem to be highly original - I haven't seen any of them before. A lot of the quotations also seem to be pulled from different parts of Hegel's works without any clear justification. If these are not supported by any secondary sources, I believe they should all be removed as a violation of WP:NOR. - car chasm (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

After verifying with the source I have removed the uncited sections - please do not re-add any material that is unsupported by secondary sources. The SEP, Houlgate, and Kaufmann might be good places to start. - car chasm (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Green eggs and HUM - Before editing again, please have a look at wikipedia's core content policies, specifically the ones on No original research and verifiability. Do not re-add any material from your own interpretations of a translation of Hegel's works, and do not remove cited information from a secondary, academic source again without justification. This is not optional or negotiable, this is a core content policy of editing the encyclopedia. - car chasm (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, addressing the concern that Walter Kaufmann may somehow be biased because he is primarily a scholar of a different 19th German philosopher: Kaufmann's monograph on Hegel has been cited over 400 times on google scholar, in many cases by books published by WP:CHOPSY university presses. It continues to be heavily cited (sympathetically) by Hegel scholars even in the past few years. I can see no reason to suggest why it is an inappropriate resource to cite. - car chasm (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Issues with section on Philosophical system

This is the most important section for an entry on a philosopher, and it needs a lot of work. I have a few things I hope to soon contribute. In the meanwhile, however, I’d like to confer with other editors about some stuff that I think needs to be revised or, if not, simply eliminated.

1) In the section lede, Kaufmann is quoted as claiming that Hegel (effectively) relativizes the subject matter of philosophy to the “existential reality” of human experience. This would have horrified Hegel, who consistently presented his system as being grounded in a metaphysical logic altogether independent of human existence. Kaufmann’s claim is an outright misrepresentation of Hegel’s views. At best, it captures something of his procedure in the PhS, Hegel’s introduction to properly scientific philosophy.

2) Why is there a whole subsection devoted to the elaboration of something that, as far as we know, barely ever crossed Hegel’s mind? If there is to be a section on dialectic, shouldn’t it instead offer a positive characterization? It has long seemed to me that people who know almost nothing of Hegel are altogether much too proud of “knowing better” than a largely imaginary “everyone else” committed to this misrepresentation. If anyone seriously believes that debunking this old myth deserves more than a sentence, please do state your case.

Separately, but in the same section, the distinction between “dialectical” and “speculative” seems overly technical—at least as expressed here. (I have an informed guess as to what Dunayevskaya is saying, but I cannot be sure just on the basis of what is written.) Also, discussion of objective freedom belongs elsewhere unless it explicitly clarifies or illustrates something that does belong here.

3) The section on Absolute spirit is almost all devoted to Christianity—including even work that predates Hegel’s concept of spirit. Yet, however important, this is only one part of Hegel’s account of absolute spirit, which is not even here defined.

Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity is, however, a topic of considerable interest and debate. Should this perhaps have its own section? Then this subsection would be free to provide a more focused and succinct account of absolute spirit and its moments. (Plus, much less likely to be sabotaged by partisan ideologues.)

4) Is there any reason at all for the section on The Thing in itself? I find its genetic account of Hegel’s use of Ansich questionable. That claim needs a source. Also, while I’m fond of the quotation provided, it does not clarify anything about Hegel’s objection to the Kantian Ding an sich — much less Hegel’s philosophical response (its dissolution in the concept of the Sache selbst).

Thanks, all, for reading through! I look forward to your thoughts. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

1) The full quote from Kaufmann is "The basic idea of the Phenomenology of the Spirit is that a philosopher should not confine himself..." so I think that clarifying that it's really about the outset of the Phenomenology is fine. Or if other editors think it will be confusing and is better left out, I have no objections to removing the quote and using better wording.

2) I think thesis, antithesis, synthesis as Hegel's dialectic is still a pretty common misconception and it often gets debated on here - Pinkard talks about how common a misconception it is in his intro to his Hegel biography, and "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" certainly continues to be quoted by both non-academic Marxists and Dialectical behavioral therapists alike. I do think what is there now could certainly be improved and probably shortened, and I doubt many people familiar with Hegel would need this debunked, but sadly I think someone who's reading this wikipedia article for the first time and never heard of Hegel probably has a good chance of coming here because they heard about "Hegel's Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis." So I think it needs enough coverage somewhere in the article to properly "debunk" the misconception.

3) no disagreement, I think rewriting this to prevent vandalism is a great idea.

4) I was on the fence about removing this part - there is the citation by McCumber so i didn't want to remove it as "original research" but I don't feel strongly about keeping it. I think it's probably better to just start from scratch in the Influence section on Kant. - car chasm (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

1) Hmm. Perhaps the quote, with appropriate qualification, could be integrated into the section I started yesterday on the PhS? Maybe also mention as evidence of influence this text had on existentialist movement, esp. via Kojève? (Kaufmann's "reinterpretation" of Hegel is not without Nietzschian and existentialist bias.)

2) Fair enough. The Kaufmann block quote is solid. The surrounding discussion, however, is largely redundant and seems to me only to make this scholarly non-issue seem important. Maybe move it to the Legacy section, keeping as well the reference to Chalybäus for historical contextualization? Also, if mention of the Hegel Renaissance is retained, is there a way to make that link to the later section of the article? (When I first read through this entry, I thought the term would be confusing to readers. The treatment below, however, is actually quite good.)

3) Okay, I am hoping to fix up the Philosophy of Spirit section to at least accord with the top level of Hegel's own Enc TOC. It will be good to have proper scaffolding in place, even if it takes a while to flesh out the various sections. When I get to Absolute Spirit, I'll move the x-ianity stuff to its own section. Or, if someone else wants to move first, by all means do.

4) I'm going to axe it. The problematic of the thing in itself in post-Kantian German Idealism is hugely important. This paragraph, however, does not speak to any of the pertinent issues. If someone later wishes to do a better write-up, it would probably best be done from scratch and placed elsewhere in the article. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

All the revisions described above are now complete. Corrections or further suggestions for improvement are, however, (of course!) most welcome. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with the framework as it now stands (even if much still needs to be filled in).

For completion, this section should also have, at the beginning, a header on Hegel's so-called Early Theological Writings and one or two subheads devoted to Faith and Knowledge and the Difference essay. These are all important texts.

Then, at the end, there should be a header for Hegel's Berlin-era Lecture series. Each of the four series would get a subhead and one or two paragraphs about its content. We then link out to their individual pages for any editor who wants to expand upon the lengthy historical narratives found in these texts.

Finally, change the title of the section to Philosophical Thought (or something like that).

How does this sound? Am I missing anything important? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on the current state of the article, I would now leave the Early Theological Writings to the Christianity section.

Faith and Knowledge and the Difference essay could be treated under the heading of Early Development or Towards the System, or something like that at the beginning of this section. It would be nice to have a little something on this, but I do not believe it is essential to the article. (These texts have at least already been mentioned in the Life section.)

The article needs a top-level section on Hegel's philosophy of art, but otherwise I think treatment of the Lectures is now fine. Readers should be referred out the the relevant off-shoot articles for more details. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Influence on Heidegger

Hegel is cited in the lede and near the end of the Life section as an influence on Heidegger. But what is the evidence for this?

I am not an expert on Heidegger, but the Index of Theodore Kisiel's _The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time_ provides (inconclusive, of course) evidence against Hegel as an early influence.

The citation to Heidegger's later PLT collection also seems irrelevant—if not outright misleading. They mean very different things by "metaphysics." And that is to say nothing of the content of Hegel's lectures on fine art as contrasted with language as "the house of being."

And, again – while not an expert, not having reread the essay – I think that Heidegger's remarks on Hegel as a comprehensive metaphysician need to be interpreted negatively, which is not how they are here represented.

Hegel was a force against which Heidegger recognized he must contend (and, in published seminars, did contend), but I believe the burden of proof for anything more positive than this lies upon anyone who would affirm some relation of affirmative influence. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Section on Objective Spirit

I’ve rewritten this section. The previous version was highly disorganized and quite arbitrary with respect to the topics mentioned. Also, the only secondary source traceably cited is to an article on Tocqueville by someone who does not appear to be a Hegel scholar (and whose confusion about Hegel’s use of the term “civil society” is therefore irrelevant). In any case, the discussion of the influence of Hegel’s treatment belongs elsewhere in the article. If anyone believes I have overwritten anything benefiting the article, please do restore it wherever is appropriate.

How much do others think my brief outline should be elaborated? I’m inclined to think that Ethical Life and World History deserve further treatment one level down, given their historical importance and the amount of attention Hegel gives to them. (There is a separate page for the EPR, but it is not very helpful.)

Lastly, a query: does Wikipedia have a policy on section epigraphs? (If we are to keep this one, its meaning ought to at least be addressed—which is probably a good idea in any case.) I like the two currently on the page, but it seems weird to have them for some sections but not others. Thoughts? (I know a lot about Hegel, but not very much about Wikipedia policy.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed both epigraphs, but preserved them as quotations in the body of the article. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I came to the conclusion that the TOC could not be elaborated in plain English with any sort of concision. I think that belongs on the Wikipedia page directly devoted to the EPR. I hope that the discussion with which I replaced it will be more useful to the general reader. Any thoughts or opinions?

I think I will add a paragraph about world history at the end. I'm divided as to whether Ethical Life needs some discussion, but I am still leaning yes. If I can find a good way to integrate a few remarks, I will do so. If anyone else is so inspired to make such an addition before I might get to it, please by all means do. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Legacy section

I eliminated the lede by moving material to subordinate sections and simply removing, as appropriate, undocumented assertions.

At least two of those undocumented assertions, however, have merit. Hegel's influence on communitarian political philosophy is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the article. Charles Taylor has a short monograph that could be cited to this effect. Peter Singer (of all people!) also emphasizes this dimension of Hegel's thought in his (extremely partial and highly selective) "very short" introduction to Hegel.

Hegel's influence on American pragmatism is also quite important, and should be mentioned in this article. I cannot, however, provide a great source off-hand. Maybe something by Richard J. Bernstein? Or anyone who knows Pierce, a little help? There is definitely a literature on this. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on this:

1) I know that I'm the one who put it here, but probably the Christianity section belongs in the Controversies. I mean, to this day, some scholars think he is a brilliant Christian theologian and others contend that he is an outright atheist (with lots of others somewhere between). As it stands, however, the article does not reflect this debate. Maybe I'll dig up a few sources to justify the move.

2) I think it would then be helpful to effectively make the Neo-Hegelianism and 20th Century Renaissance section the Legacy section and introduce subheads. Topics I think should be covered are (i) Marxism, (ii) Pragmatism and Anglo-American Analytic philosophy, and (iii) Hegel in France. This procedure would also discourage other editors from muddling the section with trivia: anything not important enough to warrant a subhead is probably not important enough to merit inclusion. It would also make it easy for anyone who does have a contribution to make to do so without introducing jarring shifts in topic.

The claim about Giovanni Gentile should probably go down to the Politics section in Controversies. (Or does anyone believe that fascism ought to be considered part of Hegel's legacy? I don't really see how one could interpret him that way...)

Besides this, just about everything currently there could be retained under (i) or (ii). (And I have a Tom Rockmore essay that could fill out (iii).) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot communitarian political philosophy. Make that (iv). PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added a section on American Pragmatism.

Turns out the reason I thought of Bernstein on this is that I have read and marked up a book-chapter of his on precisely this topic. Funny thing, memory.

(Long may you live on in your work, Dick. You were a Mensch.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not started work on this yet. Reviewing what is there, however, I believe that two of the subsection under Controversies should go, preserving just a small piece of each elsewhere in the article.

While I do believe the infamous difficulty of Hegel's prose should be noted somewhere in the entry, I do not see what justifies a section just cataloguing the dismissive remarks of philosophers famous for contributions unrelated to Hegel scholarship. Best, in my view, to keep just one or two in support of difficulty acknowledgment—and hopefully, too, for a note of levity.

The "hermetic" reading of Hegel is crazy marginal. Magee's book contains some good scholarship on influences typically overlooked in the scholarship. I intend to add a reference to it in the Influences section. As to his larger thesis, however, I do not think that even he believes it. There is probably somewhere on Wikipedia it belongs, but not the main Hegel page. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Made the hermeticism edit as described.

As to allegations of incomprehensibility, I'm inclined to keep Schopenhauer because (a) it provides evidence of contemporary criticism and (b) it is funny (will have to track down the proper reference, however) and also Ayer because he is representative of a major philosophical movement in Anglo-American philosophy that is in no small part responsible for the neglect of Hegel in the first part of the 20th century. The rest, however, I do not think have a place here; or, if they do, it should be a specific place in the article with its own justification.

As to where to put the two I've identified (or whatever others might be decided upon in discussion), I am inclined to put them right in the article lead. This practice would be in keeping with most introductory volumes devoted to Hegel's thought. (Plus: it would alert readers to expect some unavoidable difficulty in the article to follow.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reorganized this section into at least somewhat more historical order and sometimes under what I hope are more useful subheads.

I have also removed the section on Allegations of Incomprehensibility for the reasons stated above—and also because I just discovered that they are all nevertheless well preserved on the WikiQuote page, linked at the bottom of the entry.

The section still needs work. I have not removed the Template Disclaimer. This edit, however, I hope will facilitate that work. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed Template Disclaimer. Everything now looks to me to be well-referenced. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Influences section

At present, this section is rambling, somewhat off-topic, and without any supporting citations (unless you count the one Hegel quote, which actually is relevant).

This is a daunting task (H.S. Harris's study of Hegel's development up to 1806 fills two hefty volumes!), but there are a few things that obviously need to be included:

(1) The intellectual debates surrounding the reception of Kant's Critical philosophy, probably with an emphasis on the thing-in-itself.

(2) The importance of Aristotle to his thought, maybe the Ancients more generally.

(3) Lutheranism and his theological training, the importance of Boehme.

(4) The French Revolution.

I could go on, but these seem the most important.

Am I missing anything big? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What I put up is slightly less than described above, but should be at least a good starting point. It's not particularly advisable, in any case, to attempt comprehensiveness with respect to something so nebulous as "influences" of such an omnivorous reader as Hegel. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree about not attempting comprehensiveness, and I think that something like Influences on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel could probably be its own article quite easily given how much scholarly literature there is on that topic alone. And i think that what you've added is probably the most critical to include in this article, though, as it deals with the most immediate influences. - car chasm (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Section on Hegel's Works and Translations

Is there any reason for this to be here at all? The "Main article" to which it links out looks good, but what is on this page is woefully incomplete and, in general, just a total mess.

My primary inclination is to delete the whole section. Sampling a handful of "Good articles" in philosophy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Philosophy/Good_articles> indicates that such a section is not standard, much less required.

I could also, however, replace it with an appropriately comprehensive list from the Bloomsbury Companion to Hegel. (It does not include information about translations, but I do not see how that belongs here anyway—especially since it is almost always certain to be incomplete.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Axed it. Anyone with objections, please do air them here. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Decided it would be nice to have a comprehensive list. That way, there is less need to be persnickety about dates and editions in the body of the article. (I'm talking about myself here.)

Also, just having all the lecture dates in one place is great. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Images?

The Life section is very nicely illustrated. (A tip of my hat to those responsible!)

With the exception of quite a nice owl, however, the rest of the entry lacks images. If anyone were so inspired, the addition of a few would improve the page. Maybe one or two of the original title pages of Hegel's books in their Gothic/Fraktur font? Something related to Christianity for that section?

(I'm sure I could figure this out, but the one time I added an image to a page it was taken down for copyright reasons. And it was the official logo of a journal for which I at the time worked, which I was just trying to add to our Wikipedia page. There is clearly just some hoop to jump through that I do not know about... Also, currently focused on organization of page and sourcing of claims—would be great is someone else could run with this.)

The "Good article" criteria includes the presence of illustrations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. This article is quite a ways off from meeting those criteria, but it would be a real help if someone were working to address this particular criterion.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes, Citations, References

Could anyone provide any illumination as to what would be best practices for these sections of the article? I looked briefly through Wikipedia guidelines, but they appear to be flexible from one article to the next—provided only internal consistency.

I believe that, mostly through the information provided under the Citations heading, readers will be able to find the sources cited—which is, of course, that most important thing.

Nevertheless, this part of the article is a big, ugly mess.

Is there not some way to enter references so as to auto-generate a proper Works Cited section?

Also, none of the works listed as Primary Sources under References are primary sources on Hegel. If there is to be such a list, it should contain references to the editions of Hegel cited in the article and, possibly, also to Kant, Fichte, etc.; Karl Popper, e.g., is a (decidedly third-rate) secondary source on Hegel. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I added references to the best English editions of Hegel's major works and moved the non-primary sources into the secondary sources category. Even though most of the Hegel texts are not cited directly in the article (per bonkers Wikipedia on "original research"), they are referred to throughout and so it makes sense to include the bibliographic information in the article.

Primary sources could be divided into Hegel and non-Hegel categories, but right now the only non-Hegel entry would be the First Critique, so I just listed it as secondary. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's Christianity

After weighing multiple options without finding anything satisfactory, I realize that Hegel’s Christianity requires its own top-level section following "Philosophical System."

I am reluctant to do this because I fear editing wars, but Christianity was important to Hegel throughout his entire intellectual life. It appears frequently even in parts of his philosophy not that do not directly concern religion (and so it cannot be relegated to a separate page on his LPR).

As I draft this section, I am doing my very best to acknowledge controversy while maintaining a neutral point of view.

I do believe, however, that there should also be a separate section on Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity in the Controversies section (or the equivalent in this section)—for this dispute is very much a part of Hegel's ongoing historical legacy. To this day, well-credentialed experts have strongly held positions in direct contraction with one another. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

First draft of the new section is now up. It was hard to write, and I am sure I will return to make further improvements.

Rather than sit with it, however, it seemed best to put it out for public consideration. (Also: I want to move on to other things...)

However much revision it might require, however, I believe that the heading structure (at least) will benefit the article going forward.

As to the earlier section that I deleted, a few remarks:

--I do not know Jon Bartley Stewart's work, but he does appear to be a credible authority. The quote, however, would require several paragraphs of explication to be made intelligible to anyone who does not already know Hegel's logic and phi religion. I think what I wrote about the Trinity captures most of what this was intended to express. I would, however, welcome the re-addition (in more readily comprehensible prose) of anything that I missed.

--Kaufmann's position here flies in the face of all available biographical and textual evidence as to Hegel's religious identification. K. is projecting his own atheism onto his subject. (I am, for the record, also an atheist not infrequently embarrassed at having to explain Hegel's theological language. No axe to grind on this. But just look at the evidence with any semblance of impartiality.)

--The content of the Pinkard reference is captured by one of my Hodgson references, which was almost certainly one of Pinkard's sources, and which will provide any reader who follows it with a more detailed and substantial discussion. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's philosophy of art

Okay, I have just added a top-level section on this. (The difficulty I had deciding whether or not to put it instead in Philosophical System is reflective of the sometimes awkward place of the philosophy of art in Hegel's own presentation.) It needs to be fleshed out and probably divided into subsections, but it is a start.

Structurally, I believe that the article is now complete. It could be arranged differently than it is, of course, but I believe that any additional top-level headers on this arrangement scheme would mostly likely be going too much into the scholarly weeds. I hope that more experienced editors speak up about what needs to be clarified or expanded to meet the Good Article criteria. Cheers– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's Christianity

After weighing multiple options without finding anything satisfactory, I realize that Hegel’s Christianity requires its own top-level section following "Philosophical System."

I am reluctant to do this because I fear editing wars, but Christianity was important to Hegel throughout his entire intellectual life. It appears frequently even in parts of his philosophy not that do not directly concern religion (and so it cannot be relegated to a separate page on his LPR).

As I draft this section, I am doing my very best to acknowledge controversy while maintaining a neutral point of view.

I do believe, however, that there should also be a separate section on Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity in the Controversies section (or the equivalent in this section)—for this dispute is very much a part of Hegel's ongoing historical legacy. To this day, well-credentialed experts have strongly held positions in direct contraction with one another. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

First draft of the new section is now up. It was hard to write, and I am sure I will return to make further improvements.

Rather than sit with it, however, it seemed best to put it out for public consideration. (Also: I want to move on to other things...)

However much revision it might require, however, I believe that the heading structure (at least) will benefit the article going forward.

As to the earlier section that I deleted, a few remarks:

--I do not know Jon Bartley Stewart's work, but he does appear to be a credible authority. The quote, however, would require several paragraphs of explication to be made intelligible to anyone who does not already know Hegel's logic and phi religion. I think what I wrote about the Trinity captures most of what this was intended to express. I would, however, welcome the re-addition (in more readily comprehensible prose) of anything that I missed.

--Kaufmann's position here flies in the face of all available biographical and textual evidence as to Hegel's religious identification. K. is projecting his own atheism onto his subject. (I am, for the record, also an atheist not infrequently embarrassed at having to explain Hegel's theological language. No axe to grind on this. But just look at the evidence with any semblance of impartiality.)

--The content of the Pinkard reference is captured by one of my Hodgson references, which was almost certainly one of Pinkard's sources, and which will provide any reader who follows it with a more detailed and substantial discussion. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes, Citations, References

Could anyone provide any illumination as to what would be best practices for these sections of the article? I looked briefly through Wikipedia guidelines, but they appear to be flexible from one article to the next—provided only internal consistency.

I believe that, mostly through the information provided under the Citations heading, readers will be able to find the sources cited—which is, of course, that most important thing.

Nevertheless, this part of the article is a big, ugly mess.

Is there not some way to enter references so as to auto-generate a proper Works Cited section?

Also, none of the works listed as Primary Sources under References are primary sources on Hegel. If there is to be such a list, it should contain references to the editions of Hegel cited in the article and, possibly, also to Kant, Fichte, etc.; Karl Popper, e.g., is a (decidedly third-rate) secondary source on Hegel. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I added references to the best English editions of Hegel's major works and moved the non-primary sources into the secondary sources category. Even though most of the Hegel texts are not cited directly in the article (per bonkers Wikipedia on "original research"), they are referred to throughout and so it makes sense to include the bibliographic information in the article.

Primary sources could be divided into Hegel and non-Hegel categories, but right now the only non-Hegel entry would be the First Critique, so I just listed it as secondary. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's philosophy of art

Okay, I have just added a top-level section on this. (The difficulty I had deciding whether or not to put it instead in Philosophical System is reflective of the sometimes awkward place of the philosophy of art in Hegel's own presentation.) It needs to be fleshed out and probably divided into subsections, but it is a start.

Structurally, I believe that the article is now complete. It could be arranged differently than it is, of course, but I believe that any additional top-level headers on this arrangement scheme would mostly likely be going too much into the scholarly weeds. I hope that more experienced editors speak up about what needs to be clarified or expanded to meet the Good Article criteria. Cheers– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Archiving and cleaning up Talk page

I archived this Talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel/Archive_4 and then deleted topics that appear to be resolved. (I also accidentally created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel/Archive_4, which I cannot figure out how to delete. Help?)

If anything appears to have been inappropriately removed, please do restore. This page was just getting very long, and much of it was effectively just me justifying and talking myself through recent revisions. Anyone who wishes to discuss any of those, however, may also (as they prefer) just start a fresh thread here. I will be monitoring the page in at least the near future and am very happy to discuss ideas for further improvements. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Good Article" aspirations

The Wikipedia article ranking criteria are quite new to me. It would be great, however, if we could get this article up to "Good Article" status.

These are the criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria.

Here is a list of current Good Philosophy Articles, which might be useful as models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Philosophy/Good_articles.

There is also an open request for peer review of this article. I have no experience with this process, but it looks like input from this process will appear on a separate page, which you can access from the link at the top of this Talk page. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and put in the request. The article seems to meet the criteria now, and I still have some additional improvements I intend to make. (Apparently it sometimes takes months to pick up a reviewer...) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Thanks for the work on the article. From an initial read-through, I think it's going to fail the GA process at this time. There's probably quite a lot to be done for it to meet the GA criteria, particularly in terms of inline citations, but I'll provide some pointers as to areas that I think can be worked on. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for so quickly picking up this nomination! Your initial verdict is disappointing, of course, but I will welcome any feedback you might provide.

(If it is mostly just a matter of claims lacking secondary sources, however, I can probably supply them in short order. According to my own internalized set of norms, this article is over-sourced—but my norms are not those of Wikipedia.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Copyvio Check - I reviewed the several matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. The large-percentage matches are mainly titles and attributed quotations.

Images *Images are all Public Domain or CC, so no issues with that.

• Alt text could be added to improve Accessibility. See MOS:ALT.

*Although the page displays OK on my screen, be mindful of MOS:SANDWICH. Perhaps some of the images could be moved.

• Most of the images seem relevant and to have appropriate captions. I'm not sure that the Trees, Priestess of Delphi and Sermon on the Mount images are very relevant, though.

General comment

It's good to see that the talk page has been used to explain developments to the page and to invite discussion. A peer review has been requested, but I think that this should have been closed before the nomination to GA. (WP:PRG says "[Peer review] may be used for potential good article nominations" (emphasis added by me.) That page suggests "Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests." Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy might be one place you could invite editors to contribute to the peer review.

Citations

• Some of the citations are broken, e.g. Kaufmann 1965, Kaufmann 1966, Kaufmann 1966b, Hamburg 1992 and Siep 2014, don't seem to be in the list of sources; I think Beiser 1993 should perhaps be Westphal 1993; and there are a few other issues.
• Ten of the primary sources are not actually used as references (or possibly have broken links to them), e.g. Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, Early Theological Writings

Further reading

• Not a blocker to being a GA, but these works are presented inconsistently, e.g. some with ISBNs but others not. (You could use this tool to standardise ISBN format, but again that's not a requirement for GA.

Lead and infobox

• These seem to be fine, although a reviewer will want to check that everything there is supported by citations in the body. I haven't checked this yet.

Verifiability

I was going to fail the article as I believe that it It is a long way from meeting the good article criterion that the article should be "verifiable with no original research". The reason for this is that there are numerous statements that are not supported by inline citations, e.g.

• "Also in 1797, the unpublished and unsigned manuscript of "The Oldest Systematic Program of German Idealism" was written. It was written in Hegel's hand, but may have been authored by Hegel, Schelling, or Hölderlin. While in Frankfurt, Hegel composed the essay "Fragments on Religion and Love". In 1799, he wrote another essay entitled "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate", unpublished during his lifetime."

• "This interest, as well as his theological training, would continue to mark his thought, even as it developed in a more theoretical or metaphysical direction."
• "This led to his engagement with the philosophical programs of Fichte and Schelling, as well as his attention to Spinoza and the Pantheism controversy, the mark of which is to be found, in particular, in his Phenomenology of Spirit."
• "There is, however, no scholarly consensus about the Phenomenology with respect to either of the systematic roles asserted by Hegel at the time of its publication."
• "This is to say that, in Hegel’s technical sense of the term, the concept (Begriff, sometimes also rendered “notion,” capitalized by some translators but not others) is not a psychological concept. When deployed with the definitive article (“the") and sometimes modified by the term "logical," Hegel is referring to the intelligible structure of reality as articulated in the Subjective Logic. (When used in the plural, however, Hegel’s sense is much closer to the ordinary dictionary sense of the term.)"
• "The idea, in other words, refers to the concept as it is present in natural and spiritual existence, or put differently, it refers to reality according to its varying degrees of rationality, that is, the naturally and historically contentful existence of the concept in time."
• "what is perhaps his most famous passage"
• " It is back to Hegel that Wandschneider would direct philosophers of science for guidance in the philosophy of nature."
• "It is, in other words, (at least predominantly, dialectically) an account of what Isaiah Berlin would later term positive liberty."
• "Or, put differently, it is an account of the institutionalization of freedom."
• "This part of Hegel’s philosophy is presented first in his 1817 Encyclopedia (revised 1827 and 1830) and then at greater length in the 1821 Elements of the Philosophy of Right (like the Encyclopedia, intended as a textbook), upon which he also frequently lectured. Its final part, the philosophy of world history, was additionally elaborated in Hegel’s lectures on the subject."
• "The community of spirit does not become adequate to its free self-concept in the world without impersonal sacrifice of individuals."
• "That is, the only "thing" (which is really an activity) that is truly absolute is that which is entirely self-conditioned, and according to Hegel, this only occurs when spirit takes itself up as its own object. The final section of his Philosophy of Spirit presents the three modes of such absolute knowing: art, religion, and philosophy."
• "Or, rather, what hierarchy there is, is philosophically systematic, not evaluative."
• "Although Hegel’s discussion of absolute spirit in the Encyclopedia is quite brief, he develops his account at length in lectures on the philosophy of fine art, the philosophy of religion, and the history of philosophy."
• "That is to say, we are not fully satisfied with art; yet, neither can we, finitely embodied individuals, be fully satisfied – fully know or be with [bei sich sein] ourselves – in the pure universality of logical thought. Hence, according to Hegel, the ongoing need for art as a mode of absolute spirit."
• "Although he did not return to this Romantic formulation, the unification of Athens and Jerusalem would remain a preoccupation throughout his life."
• "In other words, according to Hegel's philosophical interpretation, Christianity does not require faith in any doctrine that is not fully justified by reason. What is left, then, is the religious community, free to minister to individual needs, to forgive one another's inevitable failings, and to celebrate the absolute freedom of spirit."
• "The interpretation of Christianity that he advances, however, is still very much that which he presented in the Phenomenology—only now he is able to expound at greater length and with greater clarity upon what he had covered earlier in such a condensed fashion."
• "No Hegelians of the period ever referred to themselves as "Right Hegelians", which was a term of insult originated by David Strauss, a self-styled Left Hegelian."

(I think 20 examples is enough.) However, in case fixing this is not as big a task as it looks to me, I'll keep the review open and see how it (and the peer review) progress. I'd recommend going through the policies on verifiability (WP:V) and "no original research" (WP:OR) before tackling the uncited material. The structure of the article seems reasonable. I would need to assess the article against other criteria (well-written, broad, neutral) after the issues above have been addressed and I'd done some checks to satisfy myself that the sources are used appropriately.

@PatrickJWelsh: thanks for your work so far on this important article. Hopefully my comments above give some ideas for next steps - feel free to ask me here if you have any questions, or indeed want to challenge any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose,

Thanks for these comments. Here a few immediate impressions:

Images

I clarified the relevance of the Delphic oracle. The other two images are strictly decorative. I added them because I thought it was considered good style (and I do actually think they make the page look nicer). Anyone who disagrees and wishes to remove them, however, will get no argument from me.

Citations

I’ll look at the missing references you mention. Is there an easy way for me to generate a complete list or highlight them in the body of the article?

As to the Primary Citations, these are the best English editions available of works discussed in the article. If they are not cited directly, that is because Wikipedia so discourages the use of primary sources. Readers, however, should be able to find them easily.

If it’s an actual problem, the list can be pared down. But I don’t know why anyone would want to do that.

Lead and infobox

Good. I think the lead is almost innocuously neutral. If anything needs to be fixed, that should be a simple task.

Verifiability

Here we might, indeed, have problems.

I do agree that some of the passages you flag are in need of (or, at any rate, would benefit from) supporting citations.

Quite a few, however, are just entirely neutral statements of fact or simple rephrasing of what was just stated with references.

For instance, this is the first passage you call to my attention:

"Also in 1797, the unpublished and unsigned manuscript of "The Oldest Systematic Program of German Idealism" was written. It was written in Hegel's hand, but may have been authored by Hegel, Schelling, or Hölderlin. While in Frankfurt, Hegel composed the essay "Fragments on Religion and Love". In 1799, he wrote another essay entitled "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate", unpublished during his lifetime.”

I do not think that anyone mentions this ms without acknowledging the disputed authorship. That is not a claim that, per Wikipedia verifiability criteria “is likely to be challenged.” (I did just review the criteria as you suggested.) Nevertheless, I added a source that provides some useful discussion. For, although not controversial, it is a substantive claim inviting further inquiry.

That he wrote these other texts, however, is without any controversy whatsoever. They have been available in English translation for decades. Am I really supposed to cite a bibliography to support this fact?

At least one other citation you flagged is of this nature.

I will continue to supply citations where I agree they are lacking, or else I will either remove the claim or, if I think the claim is true and belongs but I cannot find a good reference, I will flag it in the article for other editors.

I suspect, however, even after these edits, passages you flagged will remain, by my assessment, uncontroversial and supported by well-sourced surrounding text (e.g., both of the passages you flag in the section on Objective Spirit).

All that said, thanks again for your attention to this article. This review process is sure to improve the entry, whatever its outcome.

Cheers, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have completed the corrections you suggest and that I agree were needed. (There are three claims I have also marked as in need of citation. None are major but I believe them to be true and to merit inclusion in the article.)

Some of what you list, however, remains unchanged. In these cases it is because I do not see how these passages do anything more than restate in a potentially helpful way what has already been well-sourced in direct proximity. (I am making every effort not to draw new conclusions from separate sources.) Moreover, I don’t see how any of the outstanding claims could be considered controversial such as would place them in violation of the Verifiability policy. (I do have views that are controversial. But I am doing my very best to keep them out of my Wikipedia edits.)

May I respectfully submit that your interpretation of the Wikipedia policies to which you directed me is rather more severe than what is to be found actually stated on those pages?

While it is true that a citation can be dusted-up for anything so uncontroversial as not to require a specific citation, by the same token, it would be misleading to attribute such claims to any one (or two, or three) specific sources. There is not a literature-review to cite on most of these issues.

If we are to do a second round of these kinds of edits, it would make it easier for me to respond in a more focused way with corrections (or objections!) if you were either to place “citation-needed” tags directly in the article or else to use a numbered, rather than bulleted, list on this Talk page.

Thanks! PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and this does not have anything to do with the article itself, but I think that the Top-level ranking of this page in WikiProject Christianity / Lutheranism and WikiProject Religion is either a mistake or an act of vandalism. Hegel's thought is relevant to both projects, but almost certainly Low-importance. Not sure how these things work, but someone might want to change this—just for general Wikipedia hygiene. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion about this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: I'm pretty sure that the script showing me the broken citations is the one here. You can see Wikipedia:User scripts/List for instructions about how to install user scripts. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: I take the point about tagging in the article or placing inline tags being more useful than a bulleted list. Obviously whilst there are citation needed tags, it can't pass as a GA. (Such tags were the reason that the first GA nomination in 2015 failed.) I'm happy to give you time to either either find citations for these or remove the claims, whichever is more appropriate in each case. I had a brief scan of Socrates and Aristotle, which are both good articles, and I don't see any uncited text there that "restate[s] in a potentially helpful way what has already been well-sourced in direct proximity". If we don't agree on interpretations of after a bot more discussion, then there are options that include asking for a second opinion WP:GAN/I#2O). I'll read through the article and tag anything else that I see - this may take a few days as I'll be referring to sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That's entirely reasonable. I think the article would suffer very little if I simply removed the claims currently marked as in need of citation. That would feel like cheating though. So, if I've got a few days, I will make an effort to track down good citations. (Maybe other editors will also chime in!)

I'm less sure about how to proceed with what are, in my judgment, already well-sourced claims. For here, I think the article actually would suffer if they were simply deleted. Yet, it seems very weird to just re-cite sources from the previous sentence. (Although I guess, if that would resolve the issue, then...whatever? Not my preferred resolution, though.) Maybe what is "obvious" to me ought to be made explicit for a wider audience in some such way.

Hegel is notorious for his jargon, and (again, according to my judgment) the more he can be translated into regular English, the better served visitors to this article will be. (Witness, for instance, the page on what, per Hegel, is his most important work: Science of Logic. Based on just a cursory reading, I believe the article is accurate [up to the point at which it just stops, that is], but it is nevertheless completely, unintelligibly, useless.)

I will take another look at other GA philosophy articles, should they provide useful guidance in this respect.

Cheers, and thanks again– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There are still some issues with broken citations. (FN is the footnote number as at the current version of the article). Either the relevant sources need to be added to the references, or, if the link is broken (e.g. wrong year) then they need to be fixed. I'll need this to be sorted (even if not completely) before I can meaningfully continue with the review.

1. FN13 Luther 2009, pp. 65–66.
2. FN19 Hoffmeister 1974
3. FN31 Siep 2014, p. xxi.
4. FN32 Kaufmann 1965.
5. FN46 Hegel 2010, p. 29
6. FN79 Hegel 2010.
7. FN84 Dien Winfeild 2011
8. FN85 de Laurenttiis 2021.
9. FN89 Magee 2010, pp. 179–84.
10. FN108 Dien Winfield 1995, p. 9,
11. FN123 Hegel 1991, p. 22.
12. FN128 Löwith 1964.
13. FN137 Berlin 2001.
14. FN138 Chalybäus 1846, p. 367.
15. FN140 Mueller 1996, p. 301.
16. (In note L) Houlgate 2007, pp. xxii–xxvi

There are ten "Secondary Sources" that are not used for citations in the article; if still unused after fixes, I think they should be moved to "Further reading" (where relevant).

1. Berlin, Isaiah (2003). Freedom and Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty.
2. Brandom, Robert B. (2019). A Spirit of Trust: A Reading of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
3. Chalybäus, Heinrich Moritz (1848). Historische Entwicklung der spekulativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel.
4. Dein Winfeild, Richard (2011). "Hegel's Solution to the Mind-Body Problem"
5. Dein Winfeild, Richard (1995). Systematic Aesthetics
6. Houlgate, Stephen (2005). An Introduction to Hegel. Freedom, Truth and History
7. Popper, Karl (2011). The Open Society And Its Enemies.
8. Robinson, Paul (1990). The Freudian Left: Wilhelm Reich, Geza Roheim, Herbert Marcuse.
9. Siep, Ludwig (2021). Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
10. Wells, John C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the full lists! I believe they have all been addressed. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes those are sorted. A couple of new ones:

1. FN33 Siep, p. xxii. (year of publication is missing)
2. FN83 de Laurenttiis 2021.
3. FN106 Dein Winfield 1995

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed those—and my apologies for the typos. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Life

*The section is heavily reliant on a single source, Pinkard's biography. However, that’s a reliable source.

• "Hegel's mother ... but they narrowly survived" – page ref seems wrong (it's page 3 in the edition I’m looking at - 2001 Paperback edition).
• I think that "While in Frankfurt, Hegel composed the essay "Fragments on Religion and Love". In 1799, he wrote another essay entitled "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate", unpublished during his lifetime." Should have a citation so that a reader would be able to verify this from a reliable source. (We may disagree on this and other cases. My view is that "All content must be verifiable." (WP:BURDEN]] would apply for details such as these.)
• "In 1801 … Jakob Friedrich Fries ahead of him" there’s a lot of information here, not all of which is verified by the single-page citation "Pinkard p.223"
• "With his finances drying up quickly … city of Jena" needs citation(s) IMO.
• "Terry Pinkard notes" – add a couple of words of intro, e.g. "Hegel’s biographer Terry Pinkard" or "Scholar Terry Pinkard"
• "Terry Pinkard notes ... accomplished in practice" – this is on pp228-229 in the edition I’m looking at, not just p228. Not a big deal, but it would be helpful to add in more details about the editions of books used.
• "In 1811, Hegel married ... and Immanuel Thomas Christian (1814–1891)" – the ref used, Pinkard p.773, seems to be within the index. That's adequate for the years (e.g. "1814–1891") but a little unorthodox, and it doesn't verify all of the info that precedes it.
• "In 1817 ... Prague, and Paris" – I don’t have access to Siep (2021) – is all of this really verified on the single page cited. (Presumaby it’s a biographical summary section, so that may be the case.)
• "were compiled from the lecture notes of his students and published posthumously. Hegel's posthumous works have had remarkable influence on subsequent works on religion, aesthetics, and history because of the comprehensive accounts of the subject matters considered within the lectures," – needs citation(s) IMO.
  • Part now cited; part removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

*(Note: Last two paras of Heidelberg, Berlin (1816–1831) not yet reviewed)

@BennyOnTheLoose, Thank you for such detailed proofreading/fact-checking! I'm sure you are right about the page errors in Pinkard attributions. I will confirm and correct.

With respect to some of your requested citations, however, might I direct your attention to section 2 of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not? If you are willing to put in the extra work to make suggestions exceeding what is required by GA criteria, I'm sure I will in many cases gladly implement them. But I just want to be sure that we are on the same page with respect to which requested edits are GA-required and which are above-and-beyond.

For instance, the only thing I would add to the report of what Hegel wrote during this time (which is not "likely to be contested") is a reference to the title under which they can be found in English translation. But this is probably not required by GA criteria and, in any case, is already included in the brief discussion of their contents in the Christianity section (with additional bibliographic information available in the Primary Sources listings).

The last thing I want to do is pick a fight with someone giving so much time to this article. But I don't want either of us to do extra work, either, unless it improves the quality of the article for its readers, e.g., improves readability by editing wording, format, or organization.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If this means I need to add a General References section, I can easily do so. I think it would only contain four works (all of which already have many inline citations in support of specific claims). PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

All right. I fixed the mistaken page references. (I'm working from the hardback edition, but pagination is the same.)

I am holding off, however, on adding more citations at the level of individual sentences to claims of fact that are not likely to be disputed. (If I had written this section, I would probably just cite by chapter at the end of each para. Would it be too weird to do this without removing the more precise citations, which I would be loath to do?)

I can also confirm Siep does verify that claim. It's a weird source for that fact, but it's perfectly scholarly. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's OK with you, I'll compile a handful of examples (say about 5 or 6), both of "factual" and "explanatory" uncited statements from the article, wait for you to comment them, and then seek further opinions from editors (e.g. on the GA talk page). Does that sound reasonable? (Otherwise I'll just be producing a longer list which we will respectfully disagree on.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good way to proceed. You know far more about Wikipedia policy than me, and so it is very possible that I am leaning too hard on article (b) of the GA Verifiability criteria.

Let me quote, though, the most pertinent passage of the page I linked above:

"Point (b) names five types of statements for which the good article criteria require some form of inline citation:

1. direct quotations,
2. statistics,
3. published opinion,
4. counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and
5. contentious material relating to living persons.

"This standard is higher than the absolute minimum standard set by policy, but noticeably lower than many editors' personal preferences."

So, setting my own views on style to the side, this is where I am coming from in terms of Wikipedia policy (as best I understand it).

Regards, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Oh, and incidentally, I think you will find me much more amenable to citationally bulletproofing the later sections of the article devoted to Hegel's influences, thought, and legacy. For a great deal of this material is, unavoidably contentious, and I want to make it difficult for anyone not actually qualified to come in and muck things up.) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, let me have a scan through those sections in the next couple of days and we'll see if some end up cited (I'll add "citation needed" tags inline), so that we're not appealing for a third opinion on something we already agree on! Thanks for fixing the issues with broken citations. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Influences

1. I'd mention Harris in the text as the sources for the quotes. (I think this is in the spirit of MOS:QUOTE / MOS:QUOTEPOV)

Done PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "This interest, as well as his theological training, would continue to mark his thought, even as it developed in a more theoretical or metaphysical direction" - needs a secondary source IMO.

I'll try to dig something up. (It's definitely true.) In the meanwhile, though, I think the material in the Life and Christianity sections, particularly with the addition of the quotation from the Logic in the endnote, sufficiently buttress this claim.

1. I'd be inclined to remove "with no particular agenda vis-à-vis Hegel" from footnote d.

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a few statements like "Although he later elevated Aristotle above Plato, Hegel never abandoned his love of ancient philosophy, the imprint of which is everywhere in his thought" where I'm of the opinion that one reliable source is OK for GA.

Good to know. (If you're asking for an edit here, could you restate?) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

My intention is to number items for action or discussion, and bulletpoint comments "for the record". Thanks for your prompt attention. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC) (I'm not worried about the numbers changing if you reply below the points; it's only for our collaborative purposes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)_

Philosophical system

1. Are there some useful wikilinks that could be added to "the science of logic, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit"?
2. "The Phenomenology of Spirit is infamously dense." - needs a secondary source IMO.
3. "most comprehensive commentary" - needs a secondary source IMO.
4. I'd mention Wandschneider inline for the quote at the start of the Logic subsection.
5. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?
6. "The Science of Logic is Hegel's attempt to meet this challenge by providing an entirely presuppositionless logic" - needs a secondary source IMO. The text following does not include the words "supposition" or "presupposition".
7. "Doctrines of Being and Essence," - probably obvious to someone who knows the subject but the introduction of these with a capital D without them being explicitly defined with those names previously didn't seem helpful to me.
8. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?
9. "The idea, in other words, refers to the concept as it is present in natural and spiritual existence, or put differently, it refers to reality according to its varying degrees of rationality" - I am concerned that without citations, this looks like WP:OR. From what little I remember from studying philosophy, commentators can have quite divergent opinions about how to interpret texts.

• The quote from Pinkard is quite lengthy, but, I feel, justified in the context.

1. "the Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit – is an ongoing historical project." - I haven't referred to Hegel 1991a - is this supported there?

• Another lengthy quote, from Hegel, in "Philosophy of the Real". Seems approriate in context.

1. "Although this easily reads – and is frequently read – as an expression of the impotence of philosophy, political or otherwise" - I haven't referred to de Laurentiis 2005a - is this supported there?
2. "reminds us of what all the English translators forget," - needs a secondary source IMO.
3. "(Some older translations render it as "mind", rather than "spirit.") - I'd prefer a citation, but this is one where I wouldn't insist on it.
4. "As is especially evident in the Anthropology," - would be useful to have a few words to introduce what "the Anthropology" is

response to requested revisions of Phi System

(New section here to avoid an editing conflict.)

Philosophical system

1. Are there some useful wikilinks that could be added to "the science of logic, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit"?

I added link to sci logic. There are no pages for phi nature or spirit as such. I looked at a couple related pages, but I think linking to them would just be confusing. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "The Phenomenology of Spirit is infamously dense." - needs a secondary source IMO.

Basically every commentary/companion opens with some such statement. I supplied one rather arbitrarily from a Pippin essay. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "most comprehensive commentary" - needs a secondary source IMO.

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I'd mention Wandschneider inline for the quote at the start of the Logic subsection.

Done. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?

I shortened the quoted material just a little bit. I'm really trying not to use my own words in this section, though, because Hegel's are generally incomprehensible and any others are inevitably interpretive. Much better her interpretation than mine. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "The Science of Logic is Hegel's attempt to meet this challenge by providing an entirely presuppositionless logic" - needs a secondary source IMO. The text following does not include the words "supposition" or "presupposition".

Houlgate 2006, part I is the source. He uses this language ad nauseam. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "Doctrines of Being and Essence," - probably obvious to someone who knows the subject but the introduction of these with a capital D without them being explicitly defined with those names previously didn't seem helpful to me.

I've clarified with parentheticals that these are titles of the books/volumes of the SL. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Can the quotation from Longuenesse be summarised per MOS:QUOTE?

(as above) PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "The idea, in other words, refers to the concept as it is present in natural and spiritual existence, or put differently, it refers to reality according to its varying degrees of rationality" - I am concerned that without citations, this looks like WP:OR. From what little I remember from studying philosophy, commentators can have quite divergent opinions about how to interpret texts.

Okay. I was trying to repeat in other words what had already been sourced. But I don't think the section will suffer if I just delete this sentence. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• The quote from Pinkard is quite lengthy, but, I feel, justified in the context.

Glad you agree. I don't love it either, but the book is insanely difficult to summarize in a non-controversial way. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Those responses seem suitable, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

more response

"the Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit – is an ongoing historical project." - I haven't referred to Hegel 1991a - is this supported there?

I take this to be a direct consequence of it being "its own time comprehended in thought." If it's not, I can dig something up. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Another lengthy quote, from Hegel, in "Philosophy of the Real". Seems approriate in context.

"Although this easily reads – and is frequently read – as an expression of the impotence of philosophy, political or otherwise" - I haven't referred to de Laurentiis 2005a - is this supported there?

I will check shortly and add another citation if necessary. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"reminds us of what all the English translators forget," - needs a secondary source IMO.

She says this directly in the article. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"(Some older translations render it as "mind", rather than "spirit.") - I'd prefer a citation, but this is one where I wouldn't insist on it.

Any citation on this would seem rather arbitrary. If I find a good discussion of why "spirit" is preferred, I'll add an endnote with that text. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"As is especially evident in the Anthropology," - would be useful to have a few words to introduce what "the Anthropology" is

There is one directly below. This clause could also just be deleted if confusing. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophical system cont.

1. "This part of Hegel's philosophy is presented first in his 1817 Encyclopedia (revised 1827 and 1830) and then at greater length in the 1821 Elements of the Philosophy of Right (like the Encyclopedia, intended as a textbook), upon which he also frequently lectured. Its final part, the philosophy of world history, was additionally elaborated in Hegel's lectures on the subject." - needs sources IMO.

#"has been controversial from the date of its original publication" - is the (primary) reason for this it's apparent defense of the Prussian state? If so, I'd suggest reworking this para to mention in the same sentence that it has been interpreted as one, and perhaps why that would be controversial.

1. "Recht in Hegel's title does not have an English equivalent" - would be it right to say "Recht in Hegel's title does not have a direct English equivalent"?
2. "That is, the only "thing" (which is really an activity) that is truly absolute is that which is entirely self-conditioned, and according to Hegel, this only occurs when spirit takes itself up as its own object. The final section of his Philosophy of Spirit presents the three modes of such absolute knowing: art, religion, and philosophy." - needs sources IMO.

• Now has a citation. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Although Hegel's discussion of absolute spirit in the Encyclopedia is quite brief, he develops his account at length in lectures on the philosophy of fine art, the philosophy of religion, and the history of philosophy.

• Comment: there is a relatively high proportion of quotes in the section; however I don't think that they are excessive. There are also some short paragraphs in succession, e.g. in "The Philosophy of Spirit". This is, I think, more helpful to a reader than combining short paragraphs that cover different ideas.

Response

(Let's try this format to not mess up your lists or create editing conflicts.)

1. I don't think this one needs a source. It's what Hegel explicitly says he is doing, and I have never heard of anyone suggesting otherwise. You could probably find a citation in just about any essay, commentary, or translator's introduction, but it just seems weird to do that for an uninterpreted fact.

2. It's been controversial for a variety of reasons, although the appearance of being a defense of the status quo was the first and probably the most persistent accusation leveled against it. I added "autocratic" to describe the Prussian State to clarify why readers would object to the phi right on this interpretation. (It is supposed to be a philosophy of freedom, after all.) Further criticisms, however, I believe are best left for the Legacy section or the child page devoted entirely to that book.

3. I had to read that twice, but yeah, I think your formulation is more accurate.

4. Really? How does this not follow from the previous two quotes? I even open with a "That is," clause to indicate that I'm just trying to restate a little less technically what Inwood and de Laurentiis were just cited as saying—to which Jaeschke is promptly added. These are all top-notch scholars, but I don't think it's a good idea to assume their formulations completely speak for themselves.

5. If you're asking for a source here, my response is the same as it is to (1). It would be extraordinary if someone were to challenge this claim—and, if the challenge were in earnest, quite easy to support from almost any of the introductory literature on the subject. This is not me sneaking in an interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy of Art

#"In the Phenomenology, and even in the 1817 edition of the Encyclopedia, Hegel discusses art only as it figures in what he terms the "Art-Religion" of the ancient Greeks. In the 1820's, however, Hegel begins lecturing on the philosophy of art as an explicitly autonomous domain." - needs sources IMO.

1. "Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik" - I suggest adding a translation in parentheses.
2. "sober-minded commentator" - remove "sober-minded"; or, maybe replace with the name of the commentator?
3. "(Werke, XI 151/[LFA] 111)" - is there a reason to keep this in the text rather than as a citation.

Response

All complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Christianity

#"Hegel's earliest writings on Christianity date between 1783 and 1800. He was still working out his ideas at this time, and everything from this period was abandoned as fragments or unfinished drafts" - not verified by Section I of the introduction in Kroner. (I'm looking in a 1961 edition) IMO this should be cited - perhaps to Knox.

1. Note O: " the corresponding section of Harris 1997 " - is the section in Harris "Christianity in The Phenomenology of Spirit", or something else?
2. Note P: "This translation follows the commentaries of H.S. Harris" - I think it would be helpful to provide one (or more) example(s) of a Harris commentary, rather than "the commentaries of H.S. Harris"
3. Note R: "in useful detail" should be removed or rephrased IMO.

Dialectics, speculation, idealism

#Is there a suitable wikilink for "mentalistic idealism"? (Subjective idealism?)

Legacy

1. "Some historians present of Hegel's influence" - looks like a stray "of"
2. Are all the direct quotes from "The Right Hegelians, in any case ... though the Marxist tradition" from Rockmore 2013 p.305?
3. Note v: "The literature on this is enormous. Marcuse 1999, however, is one classic introductory text." - reword to avoid WP:NPOV issues.
4. "Frankfurt School critical theorists" - can this be reworded to "critical theorists of the Frankfurt School" (per MOS:SEAOFBLUE)?
5. "This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno, Ernst Bloch, Raya Dunayevskaya, Alexandre Kojève, and Gotthard Günther among others." - needs source(s) IMO.
6. I can't think of a reasonable alternative formulation of "Italian Fascist Giovanni Gentile" - but if there is one, then re-word (MOS:SEAOFBLUE)
7. "For instance, in the words of Walter Kaufmann:" - if this can be added to the preceding paragraph, I'd probably not be worried about the lack of a citation after "terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is inaccurate."
8. "For these reasons it is best to avoid this terminology." - needs a source IMO.

• • No longer in the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• 9. "Against this, Beiser repeatedly stresses the Aristotelian character of Hegel's metaphysical commitments." - needs a source IMO.
• 10. "Yet, since then, the most prominent non-metaphysical interpreter, Robert B. Pippin, has recanted his earlier position, most notably in Pippin 2019." - needs a source IMO.
  • Amended, OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• 11. "What remains in dispute, however, is how to properly characterize Hegel's (avowedly post-Kantian) metaphysical commitments." - needs a source IMO.

Publications and other writings

• Looks fine - the single source is reliable.

Thanks again for tackling the article. I'll probably do a couple more spot checks on sources, but as I've not found any significant issues so far, I'm not excpecting to have to go through every source. I'm conscious that I've offered very little in the way of prose sytle improvements, so I'll have another read through later to see if I can add anything else in that respect. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

==Christianity==

In response to (2), Harris (1997) is literally a paragraph-by-paragraph explication of Hegel's text. So reference to a "corresponding section" will be entirely clear to anyone consulting it.

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, done.

==Dialectics, speculation, idealism==

(1) Subjective idealism is very close, but the Wiki page explicitly distinguishes it from absolute idealism (Subjective_idealism#Overview). I tried a few other search terms, but I'm not finding anything that fits.

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

==Legacy==

(1) Cannot believe I missed that! Thanks.

(2) Yes.

(3) Honestly, I don't even like this book, which I find overly simplistic (however usefully broad its historical coverage). I'm just reporting that it is widely considered canonical. For evidence, I guess I would just point to the fact the I'm citing a 100th Anniversary Edition. The fact that it is a "classic" makes it less arbitrary for me to mention in the body of the article. If the adjective is a problem though, you can go ahead and delete on your own authority.

I looked at some definitions of "classic" and I'm OK with the wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

(4) Sure.

(5) I don't really think this requires a source. But it is an arbitrary list, and the Frankfurt School was just mentioned. So I've deleted it. Anyone who wants to more meaningfully elaborate on Hegel's Marxist influence on others is obviously welcome to do so in the future.

(6) Better?

(7) All right.

(8) This seems to me to follow directly from the immediately above. Do you have a suggestion for an innocuous replacement to avoid ending the section with a blockquote? That's the only reason I'm not happy to simply delete.

(9) He does that throughout the entire book. Although it is presented as an introductory text to the philosophy of Hegel, pretty much the whole thing is an indirect polemic against "non-metaphysical" readings of Hegel. Since Beiser doesn't want to touch the Logic, instead he just brings up Aristotle at every possible opportunity—well in excess of what might be useful to any novice reader of Hegel. (Beiser is one of the top scholars in the field, but this particular book is a mess.) Yet, citing to the whole book would be confusing, and putting what I just wrote here into an endnote definitely violates NPOV.

OK - I'll accept this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(10) In a move all too rare in academia, Pippin repudiates the non-metaphysical position (upon which much of his fame has been based) in the very title of the book. The whole book is the source.

I still think "the most prominent non-metaphysical interpreter" needs a citation; that would be better than removing it, which is another option. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I replaced the text with a quote from Houlgate's critical discussion of Pippin's interpretation. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's good - just need to fix the link which is currently to "Houlgate 2005". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(11) I guess in this case, the argument is the edited volume itself; so I just cited to that. It's not a controversial claim, however. Everyone in the field acknowledges that this is an matter of ongoing discussion and dispute. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S., feel free to make any prose style improvements on your own authority if comfortable doing so.

Probably safer to leave it, there's nothing realy jarring to me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you accidentally change the meaning of something or muddle a technical distinction, I will undo from page history and, if possible, edit section to make it clear why the specific language matters.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I expect you've seen the comment from Phlsph7 at the Peer Review. I noticed that you've made some further changes to the article in the past couple of days - please ping me when the current round of changes is done so I can have another look. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I had not seen the comment from Phlsph7. Thank you for calling it to my attention!

As to future changes, I do not see this article ever being finished. There are lots of things that I still hope to improve myself. And I expect that others will step in with their own specializations and priorities.

Can't you just assess as is?—trusting that, if the quality degrades in the future, it will be accordingly demoted?

Regards, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:IMPERFECT ... "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required". A good article review is at a point in time, against the relevant criteria. There is no ongoing monitoring after that, although there is a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment process which is sometimes invoked. However, whilst there are changes during the review, I need to look at the latest version. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll stop unsolicited editing until the process is complete.

Cheers, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose, as I have not heard from you in a few days, I am continuing to make improvements along the lines suggested by @Phlsph7. I will, however, refrain from adding new sections or initiating major rewrites on my own.

Please just let me know if at some point you wish me to stop changes altogether for 48 hours (or whatever) so you have a stable document with which to work.

Hope all's well— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm probably not going to have time to look at this properly until Wednesday (UK time), so feel free to continue improving up til then. Unless you you're really keen to make further changes at that point, I can have a proper look then. I've reviewed a couple more sources and I'm confident that there is no misrepresentation (to the best of my ability to assess it) or inappropriate copyvio/close paraphrasing relating to them. Are you planning to add any more images, and are there any sections that you're not planning to work further on in the coming days? If I get a bit of time I'll try to make a start earlier than Wednesday. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (or WP:BRITANNICA for a more direct link), "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available." However, given that the Hegel entry was written by Thomas Malcolm Knox, I have no concerns about it being used as a source for the Hegel article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I have no plans to add any more images; I found one of a Hegel stamp in WikiCommons, but it's not clear where it might fit on the page. (I did, though, buy one for myself on eBay.)

Any revisions I initiate (i.e., not in response to someone else's edit), will be in the "Philosophical system" and "Speculation, dialectics, idealism" sections. Possibly I might tweak the Lead as well. But if I'm correct that the source for claims in the Lead is the article itself, then you would have to wait to do that last anyway.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Long sentences and many long quotations

At the peer review, I mentioned two main points that could be improved: there are some very long sentences in the text and the text uses many long quotations. I don't have much experience with the GA criteria so it's difficult for me to judge how important these points are. Fixing some of the remaining long sentences shouldn't be too difficult and I could contribute to it myself if needed. But I'm not sure how to best handle the quotation issue. Some relevant guidelines here are MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:LONGQUOTE. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I take your point about the block quotes. These are not, in general, good style. If I "translate" them, however, the result is liable to look like (to be?) interpretative "original research." What is your take, @BennyOnTheLoose? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to eliminate a few longer quotations in these edits. Could someone check whether these reformulations and paraphrases are acceptable? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those are good. Thanks.

I've eliminated a few more blockquotes besides.

Those still there, I think are well-justified as dealing authoritatively with difficult and controversial issues.

Sentence length does not register as an issue for me—but perhaps this is because I've spent too much time reading German philosophy. Anyone who wants to break up the prose a little bit more certainly has my blessing.

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem with the blockquotes has been solved. I've found this paraphrase rather challenging so it might be good if someone gave it a close read. There are still a few paragraphs that consist mainly of quotations strung together but the main problem has been addressed.

The same goes for the long sentences. I've shortened the examples mentioned in the peer review. There are still a few rather long sentences out there that could be improved. But I don't believe that this is too serious. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. I clarified just one minor point. Although I was rather fond of the tour-de-force of summarizing the whole book in a sentence, you are probably right that breaking it up is more appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Thanks again for all your attention to this page!

Cheers— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Another look - 21 September

• There are some new matches using Earwing's Copyvio Detector. However, looking at the top matches, these are either backwards-copies, titles, or common phrases.
• The newer images seem OK.

Text that I still think should have citations:

• This part of Hegel's philosophy is presented first in his 1817 Encyclopedia (revised 1827 and 1830) and then at greater length in the 1821 Elements of the Philosophy of Right (like the Encyclopedia, intended as a textbook), upon which he also frequently lectured. Its final part, the philosophy of world history, was additionally elaborated in Hegel's lectures on the subject.
• Although Hegel's discussion of absolute spirit in the Encyclopedia is quite brief, he develops his account at length in lectures on the philosophy of fine art, the philosophy of religion, and the history of philosophy.
• Yet, it is now widely agreed that explaining Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is inaccurate.
  • I still think this sentence needs a source. According to the Stanford article on Hegel's Dialectics, "Versions of this interpretation of Hegel's dialectics continue to have currency (e.g., Forster 1993: 131; Stewart 2000: 39, 55; Fritzman 2014: 3–5)." - this doesn't contradict the "widely agreed" part, but it does suggest, to me, that the statement might be questioned.
• Against this, Beiser repeatedly stresses the Aristotelian character of Hegel's metaphysical commitments.

Done.' Please see descriptions in edit history for details.Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks - there is just one of the above that I think is not fully covered by your changes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I commend you for your fact-checking! Yet, although the SEP is the best go-to source for philosophy on the Internet, this particular article is well below their usual standard.

  The emphasis in the claim you quote should be on "versions of." Indeed, Maybee herself goes on in the very next paragraph to partially disavow or water-down such a reading:

  We must be careful, however, not to apply this textbook example too dogmatically to the rest of Hegel’s logic or to his dialectical method more generally (for a classic criticism of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis reading of Hegel’s dialectics, see Mueller 1958). There are other places where this general pattern might describe some of the transitions from stage to stage, but there are many more places where the development does not seem to fit this pattern very well.

  It is similarly the case with the three sources she cites.

  Here is Foster (1993), p. 131:

  Many more interpreters characterize Hegel's method in terms that simply remain too vague. For example, according to Acton, it is "a method in which oppositions, conflicts, tensions, and refutations are courted rather than avoided or evaded." And according to Pop­per, it is the theory that something, such as human thought, devel­ops in accordance with the pattern "thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis." The problem with these characterizations is not that they are false. In particular, the 'thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis' model does capture the intended general structure of the method reasonably well; Hegel does not, as Kaufmann claims, "deliberately spurn" and "deride" this model in the preface of the Phenomenology of Spirit or any­ whereelse). The problem is just that such characterizations remain too vague to be of much help.

  The Abstract to Stewart's paper (to which I cannot get full access):

  Hegel’s theory of dialectic has long been a source of both endless confusion and bitter debate. It has, for instance, been oversimplified and characterized as the mechanical movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. In a similar vein, some philosophers in the analytic tradition have reproached Hegel’s notion of dialectic, claiming that it amounts to an outright and absurd denial of the law of contradiction. The dialectic has, moreover, been co-opted and developed by some of Hegel’s most impassioned critics such as Marx and Kierkegaard. One of the most controversial aspects of Hegel’s theory of dialectic has been his perplexing doctrine of determinate negation, which has proven to be difficult for even the most sympathetic interpreters to make sense of. Determinate negation is Hegel’s way of referring to the positive aspect of the dialectic which makes the conceptual movement a constructive one and not a purely destructive or negative one."

  (He goes on a bit, but does not mention thesis, antithesis, or synthesis again.)

  And Fritzman (2014) p.3:

  If there is a single concept that is associated with Hegel, it is dialectics. People with only a limited exposure to Hegel’s dialectics frequently believe that it consists in three steps. First, there is the thesis, a partial statement of the truth that is mistaken for the entire truth. Second, there is the antithesis, a corrective to the mistakes of the thesis which nevertheless misses the aspects of the thesis that are correct. Finally, there is the synthesis, which incorporates the correct aspects of the thesis with the correctives supplied by the antithesis. The synthesis then itself becomes another thesis, again giving rise to another antithesis, and then to another reconciling synthesis that becomes yet another thesis. This process continues until we reach the final synthesis that actually is the full truth and so does not require a correcting antithesis.

  This account of Hegel’s dialectics is itself only a partial comprehension that requires correction. Before criticizing, however, let us first note three features that it perceives correctly.

  Michael Inwood, in his Dictionary points out that while Hegel does tend to work in triads, the t-a-s language appears only in a very limited context in which he is discussing Kant's use of those terms (pp.297-98).

  All of this to argue that — If, not only the best examples of this interpretation that Maybee can find, but even Maybee herself, do not invoke this language without immediately distancing themselves from it and partially disavowing the interpretation, I would say that "it is now widely agreed that explaining Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis–antithesis–synthesis is inaccurate."

  But, if you still disagree, I will not argue the point any further than this. The article would still stand without it.

  (The reason, incidentally, that this perhaps apparently minor detail matters is given in the material from Stephen Houlgate immediately following the Kaufmann quote: it implies there is an external method being applied to the content. That, however, is gross misrepresentation of Hegel's actual procedure, and it is with this misrepresentation that the terms are most associated.)

  Regards— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and Foster's rebuttal of Kaufmann misses the mark. Of course Hegel does not deride these specific terms. It is against such external conceptions of method in general that Hegel polemicizes in the PhS Preface. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. My concern is around WP:SYNTHESIS (!) - which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." If you can't provide a source for the "widely agreed" part (my brief, inexpert, search didn't turn one up) or amend the statment to one that is sourced, then it can be deleted as a last resort. (We're nearly there, this is the very last point I have outstanding.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Delightful that this section should be in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.

As might be evident from the description of my previous edit, I actually thought that I had made a bigger change than I actually did. Only half of my intended edit was executed. Hence my indignance that you wanted the claim pared back (in my mind) still further.

Reviewing and introducing one of the sources in Maybee, however, helped me reach a better solution (I think) than either sourcing or deleting the empirical claim about "wide agreement."

Let me know if anything about this edit requires further work.

Glad to know we're near the finish line! The article is definitely much better than when we began.

Cheers— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll note that ISBN's and edition details aren't included for books, but that seems to be fine by WP:CITETYPE and WP:PAGENUM.

• Ref 117 - Magee 2010, p. 186. - I'm not sure if this should be to Magee 2001, Magee 2011, or if Magee 2010 is missing from the list of secondary sources.
• de Laurentiis, Allegra (2005b). Subjects in the Ancient and Modern World; and Kelley, Donald R. (2017). The Descent of Ideas: The History of Intellectual History are listed as secondary sources but aren't used to support the article. Optionally, they could be moved to "Further Reading"

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm now satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks for all your efforts on the article, Patrick J. Welsh. Thanks also Phlsph7 for ypur valuable contributions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical notes on Hegel's terminology and method

(Edit: renamed section "Dialectics, Speculation, Idealism") — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This to the attention of @BennyOnTheLoose, in particular:

Providing an account of Hegel’s positions on major issues, I have made every effort to avoid his technical vocabulary. For, too often (in past versions of this article and elsewhere), once introduced, definitions of technical terms tend to overshadow the content of Hegel’s actual philosophical contributions.

However – with respect, not just to GA criteria pertaining to appropriately "broad coverage," but also to reasons for which ordinary readers might find themselves at this page – I do acknowledge that something ought to be said about Hegel’s core technical terminology. (Hence my introduction of this edit in the middle of a GA-article review. All my apologies for any inconvenience it may cause.)

The article should say something, for instance, about "Hegel’s dialectic”—even if it is less of a real thing than is claimed by many secondary (or tertiary) sources. For there are definitely plenty of people who arrive at this page for clarification of just such (sometimes altogether phony) methodological/terminological issues.

This section could go on forever. (There are three book-length, English-language dictionaries on Hegel’s technical vocabulary – two of which are frequently cited in the article – that anyone with a serious interest might consult.) We do not want, however, for there to be a section just listing and defining all of Hegel's technical vocabulary.

Yet, if I have omitted anything that seems essential, please do, yourself, emend or else call to my attention.

I have had a hard time deciding how best to include this information (or I would have done so earlier). Please share if you have suggestions for anything more felicitous—or any other kind of suggestion for improvement.

Cheers– PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Further reading

Per suggestion of GA review editor, I have standardized the format of these and edited the list to (i) be more reflective of sources relied upon in the article and (ii) to exclude outdated references or those not likely to be useful to an introductory audience. I have, however, retained reference to some good volumes not currently used as references in this article. (For if these are not allowed, there truly is no justification for this section to exist.)

My own view, for what it is worth, is that we should simply delete this section entirely. Any list will be arbitrary and contentious. Just look at the Chitty bibliography linked at the bottom <https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sefd0/bib/hegel.htm>. (And there's some good stuff he has so far missed!) Plus, does anyone actually rely on this for reading suggestions?

By all means, however, do restore your favorite author if I have axed your favorite Hegel source. Just please keep the format consistent. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I am deleting this section. Per WP:Further_reading, it is optional and "many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it. As of 2016, this section was present in fewer than 3 percent of Wikipedia's articles."

My primary reasons are first, as stated above, every possible list will be contentious, and, second, stuff that clearly does not belong will be added so long as there is such a list. I have been intermittently checking in on this page for several years now, and I can attest that really bizarre stuff shows up that is in no way useful to the general reader. So let's just sidestep altogether pointless debates about what does and does not merit inclusion.

Anyone who wants to find an introductory volume on Hegel's philosophy would be better served by searching Amazon and perusing user reviews (or other such equivalent procedure).

(The External links, by contrast, I think are useful and should continue to be curated and maintained.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

new top-level section on history

Without intending to when I sat down to write this, I combined Hegel's doctrine of the world history of objective spirit with his account of the history of philosophy. A cleaner version would separate these with sub-heads, but I think what I added is a good starting point that fills a gap in this article's coverage. There's additional stuff I hope to add. But this seemed good enough to publish for the inspection of other editors.

Brief mention or discussion of the historical parts of the philosophies of art and religion should probably also be added to those sections. This is not, in my view, Hegel at his best, but I can probably pull something together. Anyone who really wants to develop this part of Hegel's philosophy should probably do so at the child-pages for those lecture series. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Arnold V. Miller translator of Hegel

In 1969, Oxford University Press published Arnold V. Miller's translation of Hegel's Science of Logic. In 1977, OUP published Arold V. Miller's translation of Hegel's Phenomenology, with the Findlay Forward and commentary in 1977. But who was translator A. V. Miller? Here is an obituary of Arnold V. Miller, supplied by the Hegel Society of Great Britain:

BULLETIN OF THE HEGEL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN

Obituary • ARNOLD VINCENT MILLER A V Miller was a true scholar. He combined an awesome intellect with an equally awesome modesty, gentleness, humility and humour. He was one of the last Victorians, being 92 when he died and his life spanned most of this century. By virtue of circumstance and his own search for truth through Hegelian philosophy, his life makes a fascinating chronicle of one man's journey through a century of almost unimaginable change in the outer world and the triumph of his own intellectual and spiritual quest.

He was born in 1899, the fourth child in four years, to a poor, but devout, Water Board Inspector and his wife and reared in the rigid doctrines of the Strict and Particular Baptists and the respectable working class. His intelligence showed itself early on by winning him a scholarship to Hilldrop Road County Secondary School in North London, whence he matriculated at sixteen. He was already outgrowing the dogma of the Baptist and began his philosophical quest by flirting with Theosophy before being called up to the Rifle Brigade in March 1917. After a year's training he arrived in the trenches of N E France in March 1918. His experience of trench warfare must be one of the shortest in history. No sooner had Arnold dug his hole on the first morning in action than Jerry appeared out of the mist and promptly made him a prisoner of war. Because of his knowledge of German and French he was moved to a German military hospital at Charleville - Mezieres where he spent the rest of the war as a theatre orderly. There, he experienced all the horrors of a World War One operating theatre, as well as malnutrition, dysentery and lice. Somehow, amongst the degradation and carnage, a close-knit cosmopolitan community of priests, nuns, doctors, nurses, captors and captives sustained and supported each other through their common humanity and their search for mutual understanding.

What a breeding ground for philosophy that must have been. Following his demobilisation and fruitless attempts to find work, Arnold volunteered to go to Vienna with the Quakers and distribute food to the starving children. He travelled on the first post-war Orient Express to cross war-torn Europe and arrived in Vienna in 1920. It was there that he developed communist leanings, had a great deal of fun, and with his dolichocephalic head, Roman nose, shock of wild, wavy red hair, laid back manner and insatiable appetite for debating the eternal verities, he anticipated the hippie life by forty years. Back in London, in the 20s, and still unemployed, he was drawn irresistibly to the soap boxes of Hyde Park Corner. Turned out of the Park at midnight, he and a fellow soap box orator would spend the rest of the night pacing the miles, back and forth across London between their respective homes in Chiswick and Islington - still in earnest debate. It was this same Chiswick chemist who directed Arnold to Whiteway, a small commune on the Cotswolds, where he met Francis Sedlak, a Czech refugee and Hegelian philosopher, whose disciple and friend he became. This meeting marked the crossroads in his life. By the late Twenties his outer life had become conventional and his remarkable inner journey into Philosophy had begun. He became a civil servant, married his beloved Francesca and eventually sired two daughters during World War Two. In Hegel he had finally identified his Pole Star and from that moment he left the external world to take care of itself and followed Hegel with unfaltering steps. World War Two diverted his attention only temporarily with the nightmare of commuting to London by day, air raid warden duty by night, and rearing two babies in an air raid shelter. With the war over he spent most evenings after work steeping himself in Hegel. Alone and completely self taught, untutored by any formal academic structure, he struggled to grasp Hegel's great dialectic "through which the individual soul finds itself on a new elevation and with new powers".

His by now considerable knowledge of German soon enabled him to realise that the only English translations of Hegel were but vapid shadows of the original. They were frequently inaccurate and a travesty of the Master's work. Tentatively, he began to experiment with his own translations, the better to test his understanding and make good the deficiencies. Meanwhile, mainstream philosophy was travelling another road - and in the opposite direction. Neo-Hegelianism had long since been relegated to some dusty cupboard of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the publication in 1936 of Language Truth and Logic. By the 1940s Logical positivism was the order of the day and philosophy identified itself almost exclusively with mathematics and the natural sciences. There is nothing so sweet to those seeking to establish an ideology as a common enemy, and so Hegel became an anathema and was castigated as the evil genius behind totalitarian continental philosophy. Arnold's unorthodox Hegelian voice had yet to be heard but there was to be one lone voice which would herald him, from within the establishment pale, and without whom Arnold's voice would never have been heard. That voice belonged to John Findlay, Professor of Philosophy at London University. In 1958 he published Hegel - a Re-examination and the academic world sat up and took notice. Findlay approached Hegel neither as Communist, Theologian nor Natural Scientist, but as a Phenomenologist. While Logical positivism held sway, those like Findlay, who specialised in Hegel, were themselves in a philosophical backwater. Findlay was no exception, but his book marked a watershed and the tide imperceptibly turned. Arnold suspected that in Findlay he might find, if not a kindred spirit, a sympathetic colleague, as proved to be the case. In the late 1950s, shortly before his retirement, he submitted samples of his translation to Findlay, who immediately recognised the quality of his scholarship and invited him to an introductory meeting. The years of isolation were over. With Findlay's backing, the longer Logic was published in 1969 to unanimous international acclaim. He spent the next 17 years translating and publishing most of Hegel's major works, six volumes in all, the Logic alone comprising more than 800 pages. He attended Hegelian conferences and seminars both in the UK and the US up until six months before his death when he was rising 92. Undaunted by his lack of formal education, he tackled Higher Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and the Greek Philosophers. He seemed to inhabit Hegel's mind as though it were his own and the very fabric of his being. A V Miller brought Hegel to the English speaking world and made his work available to anyone who could read and had the tenacity to stretch the mind and spirit to a formidable level. Hegel is no easy taskmaster. Of course, the longer Logic and the Phenomenology are of special interest to Hegelians because they are seen to contain his basic methodology. Arnold, however, considered the Logic alone to be Hegel's masterpiece and the Phenomenology an optional extra, to the point where he resisted for several years all demands to translate it. For him, the specialised fields of the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of the Subjective Spirit were of overriding importance and led him to the very heart and essence of Hegel, despite the fact that these long and complicated works were ignored by more orthodox Hegelians. But it was Frances, on the home front, ever Arnold's bridge to the external world, who issued the ultimate spiritual challenge. Faced with rearing two daughters in the post World War Two era, she demanded to know the relevance of Hegel to the spiritual development of their children. Arnold reflected and found Hegel and Christianity to be essentially sympathetic. In 1946 he was baptised, along with Ann and Mary, and almost immediately confirmed into the Church of England. Church membership became a focus of family life and Arnold regularly read the lesson, doing more than a little justice to the effortless prose and understanding of the Authorised Version of the Bible.

Philosophy to Arnold was no mere intellectual exercise but a living, breathing organism. He brought this unshakeable conviction, alongside his astounding scholarship, into the halls of Academia. By translating in his beautiful, lucid manner he presented Hegelians with a challenge in informed, modem English. His quiet presence, modesty and disarming, unaffected humour, justly earned him the love and respect of all who knew him and he became something of a legend in his lifetime. The experiences of a World War One German military hospital scarred him for life. As children we grew up with the honor stories of that time. But, because he told of unspeakable things, as though they were just everyday events and tacitly disclaimed the impact that they surely must have had, we, too, accepted the starvation, dysentery, crude amputations, limbs mixed up in coffins, blood, butchery and pain as just something that had happened. He was not in a hospital again until his 89th year, and it was only then that he relived those earlier experiences, with all the anguish of an 18 year old boy, utterly unequipped for such indecencies and with tears running unchecked down his cheeks. The tears flowed down our cheeks too and we realised, at last, that he like so many, had carried those wounds to the heart and the spirit for more than 70 years. It was perhaps why, when not engrossed in Hegel, he turned so often to laughter and light entertainment, to anything that was comfortable and not disturbing. In retrospect, much of his life may well have been the flight from too much pain, endured too young; unhealed, because it was never acknowledged or validated. Perhaps, too, it was why he was so passionately committed to mind and spirit. What men do is too terrible to contemplate. Arnold was wise, too, in his choice of partner, for his Frances supplied all the practical applications of intelligence which he so obstinately abjured. Frances and Arnold, or "Frarnold" as they were affectionately known, were a family firm. He relied on her totally to pay the bills and provide all his creature comforts and the means of survival. Without "Frarnold" there would have been no A V Miller, Hegelian philosopher and translator. As father and friend, he was a rare gift. But, he, wise man though he was, was blessed with his fair share of human folly. He could never resist an invitation to play, or discourse, or tell stories, but he could be difficult to live with. His exasperating refusal to address the molehills of day to day living could effectively offset the unswerving vision of the Mountains of Truth, Reason and Wisdom where his towering intellect and humility had their proper home. He was no mean pianist and could harmonise any tune by ear and the old music hall songs like "Nellie Dean" and "Lily of Laguna" were an integral part of life with the Millers. He was a genial man, entertaining and a natural wit. The family home was always open to an ever-increasing circle of friends. Nearly a hundred people gathered to celebrate his eightieth and then his ninetieth birthday.

It was easy to think that he might delay the act of "perfect restoration" to his divine nature for ever. But the last two years witnessed a gradual but progressive weariness. He had only one ambition left; to write his own major work. It was not to be. His genius lay in translating and illuminating the work of his master, Hegel. Arnold was surely the man of whom it was written: Before the living spirit which indwells a philosophy can be revealed, it must be brought to birth by a kindred spirit. It was both a joy and a grief to see Arnold receive the acclaim of the Hegelian world with such naive and delighted surprise. He was utterly without hubris or the intellectual arrogance that is so often endemic to academic life. Perhaps his was, after all, the better part, spared the petty jealousies of the intellectual elite - for he remained outside the system to the end. The acclaim was never substantiated or officially recognised by the accolade of an honorary degree. No university ever welcomed him into its fold. It never occurred to him that they should - he was blissfully unaware of such worldly trappings. But to his family and friends and doubtless to many students, lecturers and professors who owe him so much, a tribute to that mammoth contribution of solid and inspired scholarship should have been made. His death was unhurried, a joyous celebration and affirmation of a life complete. We who knew him loved him and we honour his greatness - the man and his work. -- Mary Lettington Arnold Vincent Miller, Hegelian philosopher and translator, born London 10 January 1899, published translations of Hegel: Science of Logic 1969, Philosophy of Nature, 1970, Philosophy of Mind 1971, Phenomenology of Spirit, 1977, Introduction to Lectures of History of Philosophy 1985, (coUab). Philosophic Propedeutic 1986. Married 1933 Frances Reeve, (two daughters), died Cirencester 19 March 1991. 2601:280:CA80:8970:F964:E72:CE4F:AC81 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the Owl also ran an obit that I might be able to find for you if you plan to create a page for him, which would be welcome. Otherwise I'm not sure why you're posting this here more than 30 years after his death. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hegel's racism

So his racism is well documented, why is there nothing about it in the article? --LH7605 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The academic article you cited concedes his racism wasn't unique in historical context ("The source of his racism can be traced to the general ideology of the nineteenth century") and that passages from his works are "rather ambivalent" about race when viewed in isolation (only revealing themselves as racist when studied holistically). That said, if someone feels confident making a case that his racism was contextually unique and/or has a particular & fundamental bearing on his philosophy, I'd say go for it. Deadseaweed (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to add this to the Legacy section, I would recommend chapter 4 of Allegra de Laurentiis's 2021 Hegel's Anthropology as a strong contender for the most scholarly and objective treatment of the issue in that text. That said, however, think the only real reason to include this would be to push back against hyperbolic claims sometimes leveled against Hegel by scholars in other fields. (The only people who actually read Hegel's Anthropology are serious enough not to be taken in.)

If such a subsection could also be extended to treat Hegel's East-to-West historical narratives, esp. in the Phi World History, but also Phi Art and Phi Religion, that would make it much more valuable. This aspect of Hegel's work is problematic in a way that I think might have philosophical implications that his (at least seemingly) one-off racist comments in the Anthropology probably do not. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My earlier dismissal of racist claims in the Anthropology as "one-off" now reads to me as embarrassingly glib. There is a middle ground between giving Hegel a total pass and passing categorical judgment upon him by today's standards. I will try to put together a short section on this.

With respect to the integrity and success of his philosophical enterprise, however, I continue to believe that the racist/imperialist, East-to-West structure common to his Berlin lectures is more significant than his more generalized racist attitudes – which, although he (like Kant, in his lectures on anthropology) was in a position to overcome, failed to do so – that were entirely typical of his time.

I do not know this part of his philosophy very well, however, and do not have secondary sources immediately at hand. Anyone with recommendations of good sources on racism/imperialism in Hegel's philosophical histories, if you do not wish to simply edit directly, please do offer your suggestions here.

Thanks— PatrickJWelsh (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I finally got around to adding mention of Hegel's racist comments. It is, however, just a mention – see the section on subjective spirit – and would benefit from additional sources and discussion.

There will need to be more on colonialism (which, as I understand it, depends upon racist ideology) whenever I or someone else (please step up!) gets around to adding a section on Hegel's philosophy of history. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

There is now mention of the Euro-centrism of Hegel's philosophy of history.

For good measure, I also added a short paragraph clarifying his position on slavery. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory info

The biography section states that The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy is Hegel's first book. However the philosophy section states that The Phenomenology of Spirit is the first one. What's going on here? Billcipher123 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Great catch Billcipher123. This is a Hegelian article on Hegel, where the first book is also the second book, because the identity of the inner vs the outer, as compared to in the extreme, becomes the penultimate contrast of its other. To simplify, the converse of the first must necessarily be the indicative of the last, or possibly the second, if it is indeed going against itself, against the way of the world.

To make matters more confusing, the Hegel#Publications and other writings section claims in 1798, he published anonymously a book that came before the The Difference and POS. As long as this source is accurate, then I think it would be safe to remove claims to which book came first. However, I can't seem to find the source for this claim.

Let's add more confusion: Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel_bibliography does not have the book in 1798 published anonymously, but claims the The Difference as being the first.

One thing is clear: POS does not come first. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Billcipher123, thanks for your close attention to this article! The mistake is actually calling the Difference essay a book when it is actually a long essay. (It exists as a short book in English only because two long editors' introductions double the length of the text.) I don't know anything about the 1798 translation, but you can't really call the translation of someone else's work a book by Hegel. The source, though, which is given at the top of the section, is good (The Bloomsbury Companion to Hegel [pp. 341–43], Kenneth R. Westphal).

That said, I don't think there's any need to revert the edit. I'll just fix the bio section. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

New lecture notes found

4,000 pages of notes on Hegel's lectures in 1816-18, thought to be by Friedrich Wilhelm Canové, have been found and are to be published: Tor, Sara (29 November 2022). "Manuscript treasure trove may offer fresh understanding of Hegel". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 November 2022. Hegel expert please add to the article. Errantios (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is exciting news, but I'm not convinced it belongs in an encyclopedia article. For point of comparison, see this catalog of Hegel's lecture transcripts and other miscellaneous writings already published in critical editions, practically none of which are mentioned in the article: https://meiner.de/editionen-werkausgaben-ausserhalb-der-phil-bibl/g-w-f-hegel-vorlesungen-ausgew-nachschriften-u-manuskripte.html?limit=all.

If you are not persuaded this consideration, where in the article do you think it might be appropriate to include this item?

Cheers— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it the same person who keeps adding this material? If so, please make your case for inclusion. I do not see how it is of interest to anyone other than specialists, who, in any case, are already aware and do not consult Wikipedia.

Also, this article already links out to a child article on the Aesthetics, which contains the news item. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Pop culture" sub-section

Although it seems weird to include a section like this in an encyclopedia, this is after all an Internet encyclopedia and lots of other articles have such sections. Plus, hey!—they can be fun.

Right now, though, there does not seem to be enough material to warrant inclusion in the article. What is there is well-sourced and clearly a good-faith contribution, but nevertheless consists only of two quite minor references in rather obscure cultural artifacts.

I propose pulling it out of the article, but preserving here on the Talk page to be potentially restored at such a time as someone compiles a more substantial catalog of references to Hegel in better-known pop cultural sources. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As per above:

=== Pop culture ===

Further information: Aufheben (album) and Hegelian Dialectic (The Book of Revelation)

Hegel has been referenced in visual media of early 21st-century popular culture. In the video game Event 0 is he quoted in graffiti on an abandoned, luxurious spaceship, and some possible plot lines in which the ship's artificial intelligence evolves to become an equal partner with the player have been bruited as illustrating dialectical development. (The game itself uses an apparently emergent AI engine.) The second volume of the trade paperback graphic novel Injection by Warren Ellis, Declan Shalvey, and Jordie Bellaire has two panels referencing Hegel: the Sherlock Holmes character Headman contemplates his grave in a flashback, and on the next page quotes him from a book he is holding: "Education is the art of making man ethical." Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

"Urgrund" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Urgrund has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 16 § Urgrund until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

the lead

I've just updated the lead, removing some bland historical facts and replacing them with a more substantial report on Hegel's central philosophical claims.

Did I get anything wrong? What is still missing?

I would like a tidy remark defining his idealism. Possibly also something on his anti-dualism. Everything in the lead, however, must be substantiated by the body of the article, and I don't feel we've nailed these topics quite yet. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks great- Hegel is a hard figure to write a lead for but this is fairly concise. For such an influential figure, we've got a good list of genres of study attached to him, but maybe a few lines on the well known cultural inheritors of Hegel would be appropriate, really any of the subtopics in Criticism and Legacy. This could go at the end of the first paragraph, and would be good for readers who aren't as versed in philosophy to understand why and how Hegel influenced philosophy (ie, through Left/Right Hegelianism, Marx, Thesis–antithesis–synthesis even though its a misunderstanding, etc).

I think you're right that a bit more on his core philosophy would be great and that also the article should be expanded to contribute in this area. I might add a brief summary of the famous Master-Slave dialectic in PoS, and use that a springboard for anti-dualism. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal, thanks for weighing in!

To your points:

1) I agree with you in principle about some mention of his tremendous legacy. The problem is that, in practice, this has proven fraught. Everyone wants to add their favorite Hegel-quip by their favorite author and so the lead ends up a weird unrepresentative mess. But maybe something more along the lines of this:

"Hegel's thought continues to exercise an enormous influence – both positive and negative, direct and indirect – across a wide variety of traditions in Western philosophy."

It's bland, but maybe better than nothing. (And we are, after all, supposed to be aspiring to the prose of an encyclopedia...) If at a later day someone produces a more substantive paragraph, we can just make another change.

It would also be a good idea, whether or not we edit the lead, to add a claim to this effect with supporting citations (won't be hard to find!) to the opening/lead of the Criticism and Legacy section.

2) The lord-bondsman dialectic is famous enough to merit inclusion in the PhS section. I left it out because I think its importance is overstated and because one's interpretation is inevitably controversial, leading to editing wars and pointless argument. See, e.g., my slightly pedantic endnote to the first section in the Reception in France section.

Also, I was concerned that the main Hegel article not fall into the task of summarizing of the entire Phenomenology of Spirit, which has its own page—as does the lord-bondsman dialectic.

Particularly though if you think you can link up a discussion of this dialectic to larger themes or characteristics of Hegel's philosophy, such as anti-dualism, do by all means take a go. If I think there are issues with your reading, we can just talk it out here.

Cheers, and thanks for your interest in the article —

Patrick Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I completed (1). I didn't see an obvious place to make edit (2), but perhaps I will at a later date if no one else does first. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Hegel is a difficult figure in practice to write summaries for. I think your line for 1) is succinct.

If/when I get more time I will add the master-slave dialectic, and add it to PoS section. You're right there are numerous pages that already cover it, but I feel its a relatively famous section of PoS that is part of Hegel's legacy (I am sure I can find a source that attests to its fame), and just like the PoS has the main article linked to it, I will link to lord-bondsman dialectic. If/when I add something I assure you it will be brief.

I want to thank you too for the incredible work to this article. I know you have been quite active towards it in the past little while and it has paid off. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome for the work. The quality of philosophy entries in general is a huge problem on Wikipedia. With Hegel I at least knew the content already, and I've enjoyed much of the time spent organizing and presenting it in what I hope is accessible language.

I do agree with your contention about the importance of the lord-bondsman dialectic meriting mention in the section on the PhS. If I put something up before you do, don't think I'm trying to preempt you from saying what you think should be included. Just edit away!

Cheers— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In the lead to "Criticism and legacy," I have added a third source documenting Hegel's general influence beyond what is specifically described in its subsections. I have also restored language that had been removed for concision from the final sentence of the article lead, lest it be misinterpreted as editorial boosterism. ("Influence" can be mistaken to mean "positive influence" or "inspiration.") If @Voluntari Tau or anyone else has any objections or suggestions for further improvement, please air them here for discussion before just editing the lead. Thanks! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Absolute (philosophy)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Absolute (philosophy) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 27 § Absolute (philosophy) until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Added partial translation

Added partial translation:

Anna.Bonazzi (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Hegelese" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hegelese has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Hegelese until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Urground" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Urground has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 21 § Urground until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinks to PhS and SL

@X-Editor, you recently modified Wikilinks in the article lead without discussion or summary/justification for the change. The reason that they were pointed to Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit and Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Science_of_Logic, rather than Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic, is that the latter two pages suffer from serious shortcomings, especially the latter. Most obviously, they are objectively incomplete in they set out to cover the whole book and then just stop well before coming to any kind of conclusion. They are also poorly referenced.

I would love for these entries to be improved so that we could not only link out to them in the lead, as would be typical, but also so that we would not need to spend as much time covering these works in this long article. Until such a time as someone steps up to do this, however, I propose we keep the Wikilinks in the lead pointing to their respective sections in this article. Curious readers will be better served.

Both have "Main article" links to the individual pages so that readers can still easily link out if they please. My concern, however, is that anyone who links out right from the top will learn very little from the individual pages and not bother to return to this one.

In consideration of this, I'd ask you justify your edit here or else please revert.

Thank you! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and manually reverted this myself. BTW, if anyone is ever interested in spearheading an overhaul of either of these articles, please do tag me, and I'll do what I can to help.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Philosopher Infobox

Normally with other philosophers on Wikipedia there is a subsection in their infobox called "Influenced" where all subsequent thinkers have cited this particular philosopher. Hegel does not have one, granted his towering influence over subsequent western philosophy I believe this should be addressed.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @FictiousLibrarian, Thanks for your interest in this article! An earlier list of influences was removed as part of the Good Article editorial review process. Infoboxes are not supposed to contain information not supported by the article (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Since Hegel's influence extends far beyond what is mentioned in the Criticism and Legacy section, including just those mentioned would be highly misleading.

If you are interested in starting a list with the aim of more completely cataloging his influence, you might consider creating a stand-alone list. We could then link out to that with a "See also" under the section head.

I hope this makes sense?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)