Talk:The Secret of Hegel

message: It would be nice if the Wikipedia article clearly and briefly communicated the Secret of Hegel. Knowing Hegel, the Wikipedia article itself will probably have to propound the secret in an obscure manner. One wonders: why would any author express his important thoughts in a coded, unclear, cryptic, secret way?Lestrade (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Secret of the Wikipedia article

message: The Cambridge History of English and American Literature made an attempt to communicate Hegel's secret in its Volume XIV, The Victorian Age, Part Two, I, § 31, "Stirling’s Secret of Hegel." There it is written that Stirling "first heard of Hegel in accidental conversation. Hegel was described as the reconciler of philosophy and religion…." Hegel's Absolute Ideal was the latest of God's epiphanies. Regarding the famous secret, which is the topic of Stirling's 751–page book, the Cambridge History can only give its readers the presumptive sentence: "What Stirling meant by the 'secret' of Hegel was presumably the relation of Hegel’s philosophy to that of Kant." The most important result of Stirling's labors seems to have been that "[i]n Hegel’s construction he found a method and point of view which justified the fundamental ideas of religion…." The secret, however, seems to have remained a matter of presumption to the authors of The Cambridge History.Lestrade (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Presuming Hegel's secret

message: According to Stirling, Hegel's secret was making "explicit the concrete Universal that was implicit in Kant." At the risk of making statements about the Emperor's garments, a reader might question: (1) what is a concrete Universal? and (2) where in his writings did Kant imply that a Universal is concrete?Lestrade (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A "concrete universal" is a contradiction between the adjective and the noun. It is equivalent to saying "particular generality." This is of the same type of contradiction as "round square" or "eight–sided triangle." As such, it is senseless and illogical. No example can be given of a concrete universal. This is typical Hegelian logic which always attempts to reconcile opposites. There are many people who delight in this type of apparent nonsense. Zen Buddhism is famous for its koans. Mystics frequently make obscure pronouncements. Heraclitus reveled in contradiction. Many academics have built careers interpreting philosophical irrationalities. In a way, it becomes a matter of taste. Some readers enjoy these poetic terms. Others want their philosophy to be clearly prosaic and meaningful. It is the reader's choice as to whether he or she wants to spend time reading and thinking about concrete universals.Lestrade (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the "concrete Universal that was implicit in Kant" is the Leibnizian "kingdom of grace" or the moral, intelligible world or corpus mysticum [mystical body] that "can and ought really to exercise its influence on the sensible world" [Critique of Pure Reason, A 808].This is one of Kant's most "far–fetched" concepts.Lestrade (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for elucidation

message: According to the Universal (metaphysics) article, D. M. Armstrong asserts that universals are concrete [Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction, Westview Press]. Answers.com explains that a concrete universal is "The view prominent in Hegel that ideas or concepts can be seen as historical forces, having actual effects in the real world." Dictionary.com defines a concrete universal as "a principle that necessarily has universal import but is also concrete by virtue of its arising in historical situations." Can anyone give an example of a concrete universal?Lestrade (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hegel's secret reification may have led to this kind of "reification." Lestrade (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The secret of concrete universals