# Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Hi @Patrick Welsh, I see that you reverted my recent edit, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.
I edited the following sentence: "Dewey accepted much of Hegel's account of history and society, but rejected his (probably incorrect) conception of Hegel's account of absolute knowing."
I removed the parenthetical statement "probably incorrect". 
My thought process was threefold: 1) It is redundant: if Dewey rejected Hegel's conception, then that means, by definition, that Dewey thought that Hegel's conception was probably incorrect. 2) Since I don't have access to the book cited, I could not confirm if this was a direct quote from the book, or a synthesis of what the book says. 3) Absent a direct quote from the book, the parenthetical looked like original research to me.
I've had this account since 2008, so I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm just getting back into it after an extended absence. I am open to learning, and would appreciate a constructive criticism of my edit. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to clarify—and thanks for using the talk page!
As I stated in my edit description, it was obviously a good-faith edit. I'll quote just the most salient paragraph from the page cited, which, as always, would be best read in its larger context:
The American pragmatist and naturalist John Dewey (1859–1952) could be seen as a Hegelian who accepted Hegel’s account of society and history, while rejecting Hegel’s absolute as he interpreted it. Like Hegel, Dewey argued that individuals and society are mutually self-constituting, and so he rejected any attempt to reduce one to the other. Dewey also believed that knowledge must be understood in terms of what a given society counts as knowledge rather than transhistorical or ahistorical standards. However, he did not accept the concept of an absolute, and he denied that there is necessarily progress in history. Whether there is progress depends on what sort of society people create for themselves.
What is incorrect is Dewey's interpretation of Hegel's concept of the absolute. I believe this to be established in this article with multiple high-quality references and also by Fritzman's own earlier analysis. The absolute is just knowing what knowing is. History is a mess, as Hegel duly acknowledges—and proceeds to ignore in his efforts to uncover a deeper "logic" (which is not at all the same as a unified narrative of progress) beneath all the noise.
Even if Dewey is right to reject Hegel's concept of the absolute, he fails (at least per Fritzman) to take seriously the claims central to Hegel's philosophy regarding the ultimate orientation of spirit toward freedom and truth. (Probably he should have aligned himself with Herder instead, which Hegel deliberately declined to do.)
Whatever the merits of Dewey's position, this criticism of "Hegel" misses the historical Hegel as preserved for us in his writings and a great deal of secondary literature.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply, Patrick.
Although I found everything you wrote & quoted to be fascinating, I think I might be missing the point.
If I am understanding you correctly, the "probably incorrect" parenthetical is referring to Dewey's interpretation of Hegel's concept of the absolute. In other words, "Dewey rejected Hegel's account of absolute knowing, but Dewey's conception of that account was probably incorrect."
Is that right?
If no, then please forgive me for not keeping up. If yes, I don't see how the passage cited supports the parenthetical in question. Maybe the "high-quality references" and "Fritzman's own earlier analysis" that you mentioned could be cited to support the passage?
Or perhaps the sentence could be re-worked for clarity? I'm no genius, but the current sentence is confusing to me, so I suspect it may be confusing to others, as well.
I appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this. Pecopteris (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
What is incorrect (per my own understanding and Fritzman's as I understood him at the time of reading) is Dewey's understanding of Hegel's concept of the absolute. The concept that Dewey rejects is not Hegel's concept; hence, per the article, his (probably incorrect) conception of Hegel's account of absolute knowing. As the paragraph cited above states, Dewey rejected Hegel’s absolute as he [Dewey] interpreted it, which is a major qualification even just in the context of this isolated paragraph.
In any event, what needs to be clear is that the absolute rejected by Dewey is not Hegel's absolute. If there's a better way to communicate this without repeating too much of what has been covered above, or unduly elongating the section on American pragmatism, that's would be great. By all means implement yourself or, if you prefer, run a proposal by me and other talk-page followers here.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps we could say something like "Dewey accepted much of Hegel's account of history and society. He rejected Hegel's account of absolute knowing, although several scholars have argued that Dewey misinterpreted it."
Then, the relevant works by those scholars could be cited at the end of the sentence. I would defer to you about what the proper sources are, because I am not as familiar with them as you are.
That would be a lot more readable, to my eye. What do you think? Pecopteris (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I guess I would consider the onus to be on Dewey scholars to defend his interpretation as anything other than an obvious misunderstanding contradicted by the majority of recent Hegel scholarship (as documented in the body of the article above).
I might be able to turn up a second supporting source in Richard J. Bernstein's The Pragmatic Turn (just in terms of what's on my shelves about these thinkers in relation to one another), but I'm not seeing a larger problem here. It's no shame on Dewey for getting something wrong about Hegel—especially working in English more than 100 years ago.
Unless there's a more serious problem than I recognize, however, it's on you to provide a more properly nuanced account of James' critical reception of Hegel. While I understand your initial edit, I don't understand the ongoing issue with the section. Dewey learned from Hegel without becoming a Hegel scholar or a Hegelian. That's totally fine. Maybe the John Dewey article would benefit from a more detailed discussion, but I don't see why it is needed here. Patrick (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. It's totally possible that I'm missing something, so if you don't see any merit to the following remarks in this comment, I'll cease and desist unless/until a 3rd editor weighs in.
My issues are that 1) the sentence is written in a confusing manner, and 2) the cited source does not support the parenthetical. My proposed solutions are to 1) re-write the sentence to make it clearer, and 2) cite a source that directly supports the claim (that Dewey misunderstood/probably got wrong Hegel's account of Hegel's absolute).
To be clear, I totally defer to you, a subject-matter expert, on the facts of the matter. If you say that Dewey got Hegel's account of absolute knowing wrong, I believe you. I just wonder if, absent a source to directly support the claim, the sentence may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
That's all. It's obviously a minor issue, if it's an issue at all, but since I'm trying to exercise my atrophied Wikipedia-editing muscle again, I figured I'd bring it up here per WP:BRD. Pecopteris (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
No, I appreciate your close attention to the article. If you still think it would improve the article, go ahead and remove the parenthetical again. The "his conception of" qualifier is more strongly supported by the paragraph cited above, and it should be enough for readers here, as it is there in the source.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The article reads:
"Among the first to take a critical view of Hegel's system was the 19th-century German group known as the Young Hegelians, which included Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, and their followers. The primary thrust of their criticism is concisely expressed in the eleventh of Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" from his 1845 German Ideology: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
Why would Marx's Theses on Feurbach, a criticism of Feurbach, in which he says all philosophers, including Feurbach, have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it, be the primary thrust of both Marx's and Feurbach's criticism of Hegel? 
My point isn't philosophical, I just think this is a very confusingly worded sentence for an encyclopedia article to have and might be a factual error.
Were this article to highlight Marx's critique of Hegel it would probably be better to quote from Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" in the 1844 Manuscripts, or Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. 
Shama From MySpace (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Shama From MySpace,
I'm pretty sure this is my work, but upon review it does arguably violate Wikipedia policies about not performing any WP:synthesis and preferring WP:reliable secondary sources over primary sources (which, yes, is the opposite of the general practice in academic contexts).
Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements? Just rereading it quickly now, I am inclined to further subsume the Marxism subsection under "L v. R" and try to solve the issue you raise in the process. This article is already quite long, and I think that the best course would be to wikilink folks out to the relevant pages more directly addressing the Hegelian-Marxist legacy.
If you have something better, please by all means just edit. Otherwise, I hope you will share further thoughts here.
Thanks for checking in on the talk page!
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated reply, and thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't think synthesis / primary sources is the issue. I might take a crack at an edit shortly once I have reviewed the appropriate materials.
Cheers, Shama From MySpace (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This article has many textual items such as Chistiane Luise. I guess that perhaps the |de}} somehow refers to a German Wikipedia? I guess that it is a learned and clever format, but it is unfamiliar to me, I don't understand it, and I don't intend to try to nut it out. It seems not to work properly here. Because I don't understand it, I am not going to try to fix it, but I am suggesting that a local expert editor fix it throughout the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I edited to the lead to the text below in this revision, and was reverted in this revision. User:Patrick Welsh, could you elaborate on where you object? The current version of the lead is rather vague and unclear in places, and I think my version improves on it in several ways: naming absolute idealism and crucial concepts like the Absolute and Spirit/Geist, explaining early and prominently that Hegel's main contribution was developing a comprehensive system, a concise explanation of his dialectics/speculative philosophy/sublation, and very importantly his influence on later philosophers and currents.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (27 August 1770 – 14 November 1831) was a German philosopher. He is a major figure in German idealism and one of the fundamental figures of modern Western philosophy. His influence extends across the entire range of contemporary philosophical issues, from epistemology and metaphysics to aesthetics, philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, and the history of philosophy. Working in the post-Kantian period, Hegel developed a comprehensive philosophical system, known as absolute idealism, to account for reality, history, and consciousness as a unified whole.
Born in 1770 in Stuttgart, Holy Roman Empire, during the transitional period between the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement in the Germanic regions of Europe, Hegel lived through and was influenced by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. After teaching at the University of Jena and the University of Heidelberg, he became the chair of philosophy at the University of Berlin, where he remained until his death in 1831.
Hegel's principal achievement was his systematic philosophy of the Absolute, which he presented in his Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. The system is divided into the science of logic, the philosophy of nature, and the philosophy of spirit. His other major works include The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), the Science of Logic (1812–1816), and the Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821). Across these fields, a central theme is the concept of Spirit (Geist) coming to know itself through a historical process. In his political philosophy, he is known for his claim that "world history is progress in the consciousness of freedom." Hegel's characteristic procedure is often termed dialectical, though he himself preferred the term "speculative" (spekulativ). It describes a progression in which a concept or form of consciousness is shown to be one-sided or contradictory, leading to its sublation (Aufhebung)—a process that both cancels and preserves the initial stage, raising it to a higher, more comprehensive level.
Hegel's influence has been wide-ranging. After his death, his followers split into rival camps of "Right" and "Left" Hegelians. The Left, or Young Hegelians, which included Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, developed a radical critique of religion and society that was instrumental in the formation of Marxism. Søren Kierkegaard developed his existentialism in large part as a reaction against Hegel's system. In the 20th century, Hegelian thought influenced movements such as British idealism, American pragmatism, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. His concepts, such as the lord–bondsman dialectic and the idea of an "end of history", have become part of the broader intellectual and political landscape.

 — Goszei (talk)  02:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Goszei,
Thanks for starting the conversation. In terms of WP standards, my primary point of reference is MOS:INTRO, in particular,
Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology, symbols, mathematical equations and formulas. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.
This is the primary reason I believe we should, as much as possible, avoid terms like "the absolute", "spirit", and "sublation". Although these are English words, the normal reader will not be familiar with the last, and even an intelligent guess as to what Hegel means by "absolute" or "spirit" is sure to capture, at most, a very small amount of Hegel's actual definition.
A few other remarks:
"Absolute idealism" was at the time mostly associated with Schelling, then later with the British idealists. It is common to see it used to describe Hegel (he himself does so on a few occasions), but I don't love it in the first paragraph.
The proposed revision also contains some unnecessary WP:PUFFERY.
His major published works already appear prominently in the infobox. I would avoid also mentioning them by name in the lead without specific reason.
Although some of the secondary overview sources upon which this article relies do include a chapter or section on Hegel's legacy, most only mention later figures in passing. The reason for this is that they contribute almost nothing to our understanding of the declared subject of the article, which is Hegel. His influence has already been noted in a general way, and I don't see why there should be any more detail in the limited space we have in the lead.
Twentieth-century debates about the supposed "end of history" have almost nothing to do with anything in Hegel's philosophy.
(Also with respect to WP:UNDO and WP:PROPORTION, I believe the Life section is at least twice as long as it should be, and that the Influences section could be expanded several times over. Nevertheless, cutting that much sourced material from the former would probably annoy someone, and I cannot think of any way to expand on Aristotle and Kant without losing the general reader in details or irritating the specialist with the looseness of more accessible glosses.)
All that said, I agree that the current version could be made more accessible and, I'm sure, improved in other ways as well. I'll look forward to your further thoughts.
Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@Patrick Welsh: Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback.
While I understand your points regarding MOS:INTRO and accessibility, I disagree that avoiding Hegel's core technical vocabulary serves the reader. For a philosopher whose entire contribution is his system and its specific concepts, omitting terms like Absolute or Spirit results in a lead that is not just simple, but vague to the point of being uninformative. MOS:INTRO advises us to place essential but uncommon terms "in context, linked, and briefly defined", which I believe my proposal does.
To me, phrases like "Spirit (Geist) coming to know itself through a historical process" and "world history is progress in the consciousness of freedom" successfully communicate Hegel's system in a concise and accessible way. I also think my explanation of his dialectical method is necessary and consistent with the amount of words in the body that explain it, though agree that sublation doesn't need to be mentioned here. I've cut down the mentions of his works to the two that are already mentioned in the existing lead.
A figure's encyclopedic importance is inextricably linked to their influence. Briefly naming Marx and Kierkegaard (themselves towering figures) is not incidental detail, it is the most efficient way to communicate to a non-specialist the sheer scale and nature of Hegel's impact, demonstrating immediately why he is considered one of the "fundamental figures of modern Western philosophy."
Compare my proposal to Britannica's introduction section on him, which calls him an "absolute idealist", mentions Marx and Kierkegaard, and briefly explains dialectics (albeit with the Fichtean schema).
That said, your points about conciseness are well-taken, and I agree we can find a more effective synthesis. I propose this compromise version that I believe starts to bridge our approaches:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (27 August 1770 – 14 November 1831) was a German philosopher and a major figure in the tradition of German idealism. He is one of the fundamental figures of modern Western philosophy, whose influence extends across a wide range of topics from metaphysical issues in epistemology and ontology, to political philosophy and the philosophy of art and religion.
Born in Stuttgart, Hegel's life spanned the transitional period between the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement. His thought was profoundly shaped by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, events which he famously interpreted from a philosophical perspective. His academic career culminated in his position as the chair of philosophy at the University of Berlin, where he remained a dominant intellectual figure until his death in 1831.
Throughout his work, Hegel strove to correct what he argued were untenable dualisms endemic to modern philosophy. His principal achievement was the development of a comprehensive philosophical system, often termed absolute idealism, to account for reality as a unified whole. Central to this system is the concept of Spirit (Geist), which Hegel presented as a collective consciousness that comes to know itself through a historical process of rational development. Hegel's characteristic procedure, often termed dialectical or speculative, assesses concepts and forms of consciousness according to their own internal criteria, revealing their contradictions and one-sidedness. This leads to their resolution in a higher, more comprehensive unity which both cancels and preserves the initial stage. His major works, including the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and the Science of Logic (1812–1816), detail this systematic vision. In his political philosophy, he famously asserted that "world history is progress in the consciousness of freedom."
Hegel's influence has been profound and divisive. After his death, his followers split into rival "Right" and "Left" Hegelian camps. The Left, including Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, adapted his dialectical method for their materialist critiques of religion and society, while thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard developed existentialism in direct opposition to his all-encompassing system.

What are your thoughts on this as a path forward?
— Goszei (talk)  07:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Goszei,
Thanks for your patience in waiting for this response. I suddenly have a lot more responsibilities that are testing my time-management skills. But I do care about this article, and I'm happy you're here to improve it.
Most of your draft looks good to me. In the first paragraph, I would be inclined to ditch at least one of "major" and "fundamental". There's more than enough material here to speak for itself on the matter of Hegel's general philosophical significance.
We should follow the practice of recent translators in using ordinary capitalization rules for "spirit" and other technical terms. (Normally, I would also object to including the German in a parenthetical in the lead, but – given "zeitgiest", for instance, in English – I think it's appropriate in this case.)
We need something better than "collective consciousness" as a gloss of spirit. It's not wrong, but that term has been used by too many other people in other technical senses. Maybe just "..as humankind coming to know..."? Very open to other suggestions.
With respect to the last paragraph, I don't love the Right v. Left framework because it's an after-the-fact imposition on figures that basically no one reads anyone. It's common in the tertiary literature, however, and so I'm not going to make a fuss about it.
The inclusion of Kierkegaard is an issue for the lead just because it's an issue with the article. The secondary literature abundantly supports his inclusion, but, in the current version, he is only barely mentioned in passing. If you want to add a short subsection to the article, that would be great. Otherwise, I think it would be better just to replace his mention in the lead with something about "French Hegel" as currently presented.
Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Patrick Welsh: I have edited in a version incorporating the modifications you proposed. Feel free to edit it further. — Goszei (talk)  20:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! You'll see I just made a few changes, but this mostly looks good to me. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh, you undid my edit. It attributed Hegel's last words to Heinrich Heine, and added the disclaimer that they are considered apocryphal by some.
Your edit-summary was Unexplained removal of sourced content, change to article structure, and drastic cuts to the lead — pls. make use of talk page to discuss. It doesn't seem like any of these apply to me, but I thought I'd try the talk-page anyway.
Heinrich Heine is the source, and it's already in the article, so there shouldn't be a problem with that. The source I added was Will Durant's Story of Philosophy (page 294), which states that "Ruthless critics, as we might have expected, challenge the authenticity of the story." Durant himself seems to be a Heine believer, but he acknowledges that Hegel's last words are considered apocryphal by many.
I think this is an important addition, because the article as it is now somewhat uncritically asserts that his last words were indeed, "There was only one man who ever understood me, and even he didn't understand me." The only source is Heine. I can't read German, and the source is in German, but I know that Heine was well-known for his jokes. I think depending solely on Heine for this gives it undue weight, and it should be counterbalanced with the fact that it is apocryphal. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BeatrixGodard,
Thanks for your attention to this detail, and I'm sorry your edit was unintentionally caught up in my revert of another editor's much broader changes to the article.
I agree with Durant that this sounds made-up. For that reason, I've simply removed the claim. If, however, you want to reintroduce it with the sourced qualification that it may be apocryphal, I have no objections.
Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I did re-add it. I don't think it's wrong to include the supposed last words themselves in the article, since they've been widely reproduced, and it's from Heine, who (I believe) was a student of Hegel. I just also think it's important, given Heine's well-known sense of humor, to make it clear that it may have been a joke. Durant is the only other source (and the only English one) I've found on this, but I'll add more if I find any. BeatrixGodard (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)