Ah thanks. Yes, well the interest isn't really in what he examined, so much as the dialectical apparatus with which he studied.
Just set up a group for critical discussion of Hegel. PS: I wouldn't go that far in my appreciation of hegel
i herd u liek Hegel. How are we going to go about starting up this study-group?
Not quite sure I could just now. I know that Kierkegaard had a major beef with Hegel and thought that he disregarded the individual. I myself am still trying to see just how much the two philosophies can be reconciled. I think that to live authentically one must have some Marxist understanding of the world, but I don't think society can determine our essence: only our facticity. We are responsible, say, for being a proletrian because we choose to live as one instead of kill ourselves.I know this is an extreme example, but it goes to show that by making our basic choice to live, we become a part of society in some way.
Thanks for your carefully thought out reply. I'm reading up on Hegel at the moment, and he has an interesting conception of freedom. Similar to Kant, but not as a rigid. I think your point about freedom from being influenced by externalities is an interesting point. Freedom is not as simple as "I'm free because I can do what I want"; in a consumerist society there is so much external pressure from billboards, the TV, magazines, adverts, newspapers, the media etc etc. This is something that Hegel is quite strong on. Are there any sources or books you can recommend that serve as an introduction to subjects like existentialism? Thanks.
But Kierkegaard always speaks highly of "communities," so I think these idealist type existentialists confuse "the crowd" with social norms dictated by class division (facticity). So what I think they are getting at is not that the individual should prioritize themselves over the crowd, it just means they shouldn't rely on the social norms brought about by forces out of their control to determine how they live their lives.
Also, Nietzsche is not all that coherent of a thinker, which makes it hard to take anyone who claims to follow him in a dogmatic way seriously. He dabbled in Nihilism, Existentialism, Postmodernism, and Christianity, so he doesn't have all that complete a unity of thought. I'd suggest reading some Kierkegaard. I would call him the father of existentialism more than I would Nietzsche. I like Kierkegaard's take on the authentic individual and existential despair, and if you can get past his religious mysticism (like Hegel) I think you'll find it really supplementary to Marxism. One thing he, and most other existentialists do that might put a bad taste in a leftists mouth is that he calls society, or the "crowd" an untruth, and says the individual should break away from the crowd...
I wouldnt get all in arms because of Nietzsche. I think the biggest problem is that people take Nietzsche out of context. Nietzsche wasn't all that interested in things such as society, economics, politics. Neitzche was first and foremost a critic of religion and morality. His talk about "Ubermenschen" has totally been distorted, particularly by the Nazis who utilized a few quotes from him to legitimize their cause. Ubermenschen simply refers to strong willed people, who are able to live a moral and meaninful life without turning to "God" for guidance. It had nothing to do with race or class. In fact, Neitzche largely regaurded the Prussian Bourgeosie to be quite inauthentic, and fetishism of money and wealth would have been counter to Neitzche's philosophy.
I like it how you call us "Bolshevik-Leninists" rather than Trotskyist but then again, it was first thought up as a pejorative I think. Yes, I do have an interest in Sartre and his attempted reconciliation of Marxism and existentialism. I wouldn't say I know enough about existentialism to have a coherent enough position on it though. What I do know I will try and discuss; I find it interesting how existentialism derives pretty much from Nietzsche, (at least I'm fairly sure it does) yet Nietzsche had some seemingly rather anti-Marxist ideas. For example ubermensch, which is basically the concept that "great men" make history. This seems to directly oppose the working class perspective, Marxian, materialist conception of history. What are your thoughts on this?
Hey comrade, I see you are interested in existentialism, and are also a Bolshevik-Leninist like myself. We should talk sometime
