Is It Still Possible to Be a Hegelian Today? (Yes, but only with qualifiers.)

A few pieces of Commentary:

  • I have been arriving to a similar conclusion as Zizek: Hegel is not simply teleological, in the moment of absolute necessary emerges from moments of complete openness.  In other words, the issue at hand is not a simple acceptence of a pure task, but the realization of the possibilities created by absolute inversion.  The movement of the dialectic applies even if there is no end school. No Endstaat.
  • One can most definitely be a Hegelian, but not a Hegelian without qualifiers.  Hegel is more of an event to which those of us take up his precedures are subjected to in a way that is a trace, but a trace that moved forward in history and whose moment is different.
  • Vulgar Hegelians in inferior to vulgar Marxism, but Marxism is a materialization of Hegel.   Yet it would contra to the spirit of both Marx and Hegel if we pretend that time is not changing things within a totality.


About these ads

About El Mono Liso

Por una civilización de la pobreza.

Posted on April 27, 2012, in ideology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. This is so timely! I happen to be writing on the very same topic (My wkng. hyp. is that “a copy of the problem is already written into the solution” and thus encountered the antithesis of the Dialectic.)

    I agree that Hegel survives Marx, because Hegel, as an open-minded thinker, was able to help restore the natural human spirituality as Geist that the Dialectic killed (at least in text but not “common” humanity). I use the Greek and pre-Greek “menos.”

    My “experiential” view (or feeling) of the Dialectic is that it is the “math” of capital both as economics as as Plato’s “city on the hill,” or republic.

    I was shocked to see how Trotsky (victim of Stalin) rationally-reducing Hegel’s addition of Geist, but it helped explain why communist struggle is so violent and absent of the “sentimentalism” that is respect for other life: the humaneness of the so-called “99%.” This explained to me the inability of the many social activists on the Lower East Side of Manhattan (that I know) to join with environmental and humane movements just a few blocks to the West in the East and West villages (which are my political base).

    My writing on the topic creates a formidable frame-work , in my opinion–but is embryonic. What I have, however, are two absolutely current examples of how the Dialectic is being implemented today in revolution (from study of the Occupy movement).

    The writing has been rejected by a “juried” sites, and banned by another “educational” site–so, I believe I have struck a nerve!

    The part that I am struggling with now is the “anger” of the “Being” that is the antithesis that attacks new ideas–or thesis. Using Hume as an example, thesis comes from God. Of course I don’t believe that, but I see that it links to inspiration, faith, and all that other good stuff that that Plato’s dialectic killed, and Hegel restored, and Marx and Trotsky killed again.

    Seeing that the Dialectic is so communist, yet so capitalist, perhaps China is the best model for what we have: a pure Dialectic–that will kill us.

    The on-going draft is here:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,416 other followers

%d bloggers like this: