Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Hegel's writing style, as noted by his biographer Terry Pinkard, was influenced by two specific people: Holderlin and Fichte. From Holderlin, he inherited a penchant for inventing complex terms and a mindset for the reader to play by his rules. Fichte, after moving to Jena, when his style changes dramatically in the direction of complexity – the desire for rigor, systematicity and “science-like” (do not understand this as a derogatory term, this is my tracing paper from the adjective wissenschaftlich). Hegel wanted to be a spiritual mentor to the people, but by the time he was thirty, attempts at “practical intervention” in their spiritual and moral renewal had come to nothing, and “popular” texts had brought him neither money nor publications at all, so he quite consciously decided to try his hand as an academic philosopher and make his texts more complex, following Fichte's example. For a new systematic, rigorous, and scientific philosophy, a radically new vocabulary of terms was required, and Hegel, thanks to the influence of Holderlin, decided to create it, which made his texts difficult to understand.
As for Husserl, I have often heard that the peculiarities of his style were explained simply by the fact that he was a mathematician and never specifically studied literature.
SO ARE 99% of philosophers and scientists.
VERY RARE MASTERS are able to explain complex things simply, clearly, and effectively – this is called methodical skill.
The MAJORITY of 99% are able to do the opposite – simple explanations are difficult and muddy-this applies to both scientists and teachers/teachers.
In addition, at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, attitudes towards science changed significantly in Germany, as well as in many other European countries (England does not count). So, the science for the education of every citizen, and in general – the nation of citizens, is art, which cannot be interpreted, but you can listen to it and be enlightened spiritually (read, to comprehend the spirit – for Hegel this is definitely the same as comprehending the truth). This state of affairs frees the hands of philosophers who can talk about more complex matters and more complex, but quite understandable in their own narrow circle. Critical articles appear in student journals, and access to these journals is quite high, but it requires a certain background for an accurate understanding of what is written
Neo-Marxists were a clear proponent of this complex academic language. Although not every one of them wrote so difficult (the same Marcuse is quite readable), but Hegel, Marx (who is also not so easy to read) and others were supported
But Schopenhauer, on the contrary, criticized such “verbiage”, as he would say, and criticized in many ways precisely for their style. They say that nothing is hidden behind it, except for uncertainty in its concept
On which side of the barricades to be-it's up to you)
The subject of philosophy is awareness of reality. For an ordinary person, the obvious circumstances of existence are quite enough. At the same time, natural relationships are 99% hidden from clarity and, therefore, do not carry direct knowledge. To find a way to master the world order of things, you need a deep understanding of the system of scientific achievements, from which the method and logic of knowledge are developed. Since science is formalized in professional terms, philosophy as a pre-science seeks the foundations of the methodology of cognition, understanding, comprehension and awareness, forming its own vocabulary and thesaurus. Due to the fact that philosophy is broader than science in the search for foundations and looks deeper into the essence of phenomena, the terminology of presenting philosophical meanings takes a specific form of texts. The more original the philosopher's judgments, the more difficult they are to be perceived by the uninformed.
The objective idealistic picture of the Hegelian worldview and Gusserel's phenomenology went beyond the schools of previous philosophers and are difficult to perceive, because they require a co-author's participation in reading their works. Who but experts can claim to have penetrated the methodology of these authors ' teachings? To do this, it is necessary to merge with them with your own thinking at the level of their penetration into the matter of a philosophical understanding of reality?
If a person understands what they are talking about and what they would like to say, then in this case they express their thoughts as clearly as possible. If a person gives the appearance that he understands, even though he probably understands only a small part of it, then there is a natural desire to hide the true state of affairs from everyone and conceal his own ignorance.
As for Hegel, it may be necessary to read him in the original in order to get an objective idea of his genius. If we judge him by the works translated into Russian, then he clearly earned not for the content of his works, but for the number of pages in them. I have never seen more twisted and incomprehensible phrases that have little connection with each other anywhere.
Since there are enough fools in scientific circles, they are ashamed to admit that they do not understand anything about Hegel's works, so they can only agree with the generally accepted notion that Hegel is an outstanding philosopher.