Talk:Absolute idealism

message: Does anyone know if this is true? --goethean ॐ 15:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian science 

message: ATF:The philosophers and philosophies described in the entries for Neo-hegelianism, Absolute idealism, British idealism as well as German idealism are all very similar and repeatative. I propose we bring all the versions of Absolute idealism or Neo-hegelianism (both German and British wings) into two sections of one article on all of Absolute idealism. I am by no means a Hegel expert, but I have just begun reading some Absolute Idealism and I cannot find any reason for why it has 4 different entries on wikipedia. - Atfyfe 22:39, July 31, 2006 UTC
:The basic problem with having these as a single entry is that "British Idealism" and "German Idealism" name historical traditions, while "Absolute Idealism" names a particular variety of idealism that certain figures within each tradition held. Kant is always included among the German Idealists, and arguably one should trace the tradition back at least to Leibniz. Kant and Leibniz were certainly not "absolute idealists", however. Similarly, within British Idealism, there are a number of figures who are not "absolute idealists", McTaggart being a prominent example. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by DPt3
::ATF:Perhaps the case for merging British Idealism into the entry on Absolute Idealism is stronger than the case for merging German Idealism into Absolute Idealism. What if both a German Idealism and a British Idealism section appear inside the entry for Absolute Idealism, but that the German Idealism section only appears as a short recap of the main article on German Idealism and as a link to the main article on German Idealism. While the British Idealism entry can be merged to appear in-full under its section of the Absolute Idealism entry. Any errant philosophers inside the British Idealist school (e.g. McTaggart) can be better dealt with by giving a short paragraph about their departures from the core doctrines of the school rather than making British Idealism its own entry. --Atfyfe 18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Discussion 

message: That entry About Russell should be removed from the Other notable neo-Hegelians section. He was a Hegelian for only a short period in his life and he was continually critical of Hegel. Does anyone have an opinion on the matter?
Exiledone (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell 

message: "it is Hegel's account of how being is ultimately comprehensible as an all-inclusive whole."
What does it mean?
Mark.camp (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence isn't clear to me 

message: Everything of merit flagged as in need of references in this section is covered with solid support by secondary academic sources on the Hegel page. Should the material here just be deleted and replaced with a Wikilink?
If that is not appropriate, it should be made clear in the article what criticisms are directed at Absolute Idealism in general and what apply to Hegel's canonical, yet specific, articulation of the doctrine. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticisms" section