|
I want to shout and say to the whole world that Hegel is the greatest philosopher of all, but I am frightened to do so; Platonists or Aristotelians might kill me for saying that! Hegel was a German philosopher who was born in 1770 in Stuttgart, Germany and died in 1831 in Berlin.
Hegel's philosophy is not easy to understand. Hegel, according to most students of philosophy and many philosophers including Bertrand Russell, is hard to understand, and his philosophical works are probably the hardest to follow. It is chiefly because of this philosophical abstruseness and Hegelian abstract thinking that Hegel is not read as widely as he should be; and it is a pity, because his works are philosophically stimulating and intellectually enriching. Furthermore, Hegelian philosophical system, here and there, is 'seasoned' with 'mystical spices', and perhaps this is more manifest in his dialectics and in his dialectical thinking. In fact there are many, perhaps most, Hegelians and writers on Hegel who would say the whole philosophy of Hegel is mystical. I will talk of this later.
Hegel's influence especially in the West has been tremendous; not many philosophers have been so influential in different fields as Hegel has been. He is the idealist to whom Absolute Spirit/Mind is the highest, and also it is central to his philosophy. To Hegel philosophy must be about uncovering the truth, and concepts are to unfold the 'hidden reality'. And the 'reality' to Hegel is only in the 'whole', and nothing less than whole is real; this is central to his dialectics.
Hegel's dialectics is the heart of his logic, which is entirely different from Aristotle's logic. It has nothing to do with syllogism; it needs neither premises nor is concerned with 'conclusion' as such. To Hegel logic is a process of attaining to the truth, or it is a 'tool' for finding'the Reality. This is achieved, in Hegel's dialectics, through a series of contradictions --- in Hegel's dialectics such clashes and cotadictions give rise to an exposition of conceptual unfoldings.
Those who know something about Hegelian dialectics most probably also know about the three oft-repeated terms: Thesis, Anti-thesis, and Synthesis. Hegel never used these terms; they are the creation of Hegelian translators who invented these terms, most probably, in order to facilitate the process for the readers of Hegel to understand his idealist dialectics --- and in a way they did a good job too; it works.
Hegel is not the inventor of dialectics but the discoverer of it. The dialectical process has been in existence since the beginning of Existence. Anywhere there is action, movement or something going on, or whenever there are interactions of minds, the dialectical process is at work. In fact, the world and even the whole universe operates in a dialectical way. And the ultimate purpose of this 'cosmic dialectics' is the attainment to Absolute Idea(lism), which is all that matters in Hegalianism; anything outside the reality of the 'Absolute Idea' is unreal, painful, transitory, insubstantial --- a delusory world.
Hegel's dialectics, dialectical method, is a process of the exposition, the unfolding, of 'reality'. It is an upward movement to stages of higher order, and each stage, through such movement, gets closer to the 'whole' which, according to Hegel, is 'the only reality'. Let me explain it briefly and simply and in my own way; I hope this will enable the reader to have a general idea of what Hegel's dialectics is about.
Let us begin with a situation, position, condition or any 'starting point', usually referred to as 'Thesis'. This thesis on its own, when it comes to accomplishing a task, is not adequate, it is probably weak or not self-sufficient. Sooner or later an 'opposition' will emerge to confront the thesis. This opposing element, or counter-force, usually is referred to as 'Anti-thesis'. The thesis confronts the anti-thesis, and both go through their contradictory phases. A problem arises! The problem is that the anti-thesis, too, is not strong enough, not self-sufficient, to perform its duties or capable of being satisfactorily functional. After having been engaged in their clashes for a while, they give up (what else can they do!). They put aside their conflicts and disentangle themselves from their contradictions or silly confrontations; they come together and try to reconcile ----- and reconcile they do. Such 'coming-togetherness' and reconciliation give rise to their 'unification'. This 'reconciliatory unification' of thesis and anti-thesis, is called 'Synthesis' which is a state or a stage of higher order, i.e. higher than from where it all started ('the starting point'). But usually this is not the end. In great majority of dialectical instances, the process of contrdictions and reconciliations will go on, and very often on and on. This means each time that the synthesis is obtained it (the synthesis) becomes a 'new thesis', i.e. a new starting point, for which there again will be an anti-thesis; so the process will go on being dialectically repeated, thus, stages of 'ascending/higher Order' will continue to be created until the 'whole' has been attained to. This means through the dialectical process a series of unfoldings take place until 'Reality' (which according to Hegel is only in the whole) has been uncovered ------ uncovering the reality. And central to Hegel's Logic is "to endeavour to reach the truth, or to uncover the reality".
Incidentally, in Hegel's Dialectics the contradictions, negations, and the negations of negations form the 'dialectical interrelations', and these are carried through and preserved, thus remaining as part of the process.
The dialectical process like mystical process is an 'upward movement' (an 'ascending process') to stages of higher level, or higher order. There is somehow a parallel between them. In Mysticism the practising mystical aspirant (through carrying out the essential practices and the required disciplines, which involve also certain psychological 'ups and downs' and ambivalent experiences) aims at moving progressively to Higher Levels of Consciousness within the realm of Spirit for the sole purpose of attaining to the State of Union with "Ultimate Reality". In Hegelian dialectics the whole process aims at moving (through a series of contradictions and opposing elements) to the stages of Higher Order for the sole purpose of attaining to "The Whole"----i.e. aiming at uncovering the Reality, because according to Hegel 'Whole' is the only Reality; and nothing less than 'whole' is real in its true sense.
Hegel's dialectics sometimes has been called (and regarded by many as) 'the algebra of revolution'. I believe the first person who coined it thus, was Alexander Herzen. Indeed, Hegelianism in general and the philosophy of Hegel's dialectical process in particular, is somehow of 'revolutionary' nature. Put another way, Hegel's dialectics is, so to speak, a 'road' to Complete Transformatiom. Perhaps it is this 'implicit revolutionary' aspect in Hegel's philosophy that has fascinated many of the 'Radical Minds'. A radical mind that has some understanding of Hegelian philosophy, and particularly a reasonable degree of insight into and also an adherence to Hegel's Dialectics, I call a Dialectical Mind. A truly dialectical mind also is necessarily a '(W)holistic mind'. I will come to this later.
Some of the greatest minds of the 19th and 20th centuries were influenced by Hegel's philosophy and were fascinated by Hegel's dialectical thinking. The nature of such influence and fascination has not been always explicit and straightforward. Sometimes, in some cases, it has been unclear and strange --- intellectually complex and emotionally ambivalent. Such complexity and ambivalence towards the Hegelian world is not difficult to understand, for Hegel's world is highly complex and also ambivalent. The world of Hegel and Hegelianism, in general, is not easy to grasp: it is easy to love and easy to loathe, easy to ignore and easy to embrace. No wonder after his death his world was divided into two parts, the Left (Young) Hegelians and the Right Hegelians. The young Karl Marx was amoung the Young (Left) Hegelians. Here I am going to talk mainly about a few 'dialectical minds'. The first and foremost has to be Karl Marx, who had a most radically dialectical mind.
.Karl Marx's psychological affinity with Hegel and his intellectual relation to Hegelian philosophic system is not a simple one. However, Hegel was the greatest influence, 'formative influence', on the young man called Karl Marx. Furthermore, it would be true to say that he, Karl Marx, lived practically as a Hegelian though he did not adhere to Hegel's Idealism. What I have just said can be deduced (explicitly or implicitly) from Marx's ideas, language and thinking expressed or stated in his writings and from his way of writing. The early writings and language of Marx in both style and syntax are very much Hegelian. Furthermore, Many of the well known 'Marxist jargons' - political, social and economic - are Hegel's. But later Marx developed his own style of writing, and his own language, thus always trying to be original. Though not a Hegelian as such, deep in his heart Karl Marx remained a man with great affinity for Hegel. Marx knew well that when it came to his 'intellectual development' he owed a lot to 'his philosopher', Hegel. Am I trying to discredit or belittle Karl Marx? Absolutely not. I am not a Marxist but an admirer of Karl Marx. He was a great man and a genuine revolutionary; he will remain as one of the great men in human history. In some of his major writings we see the originality of his thoughts and the forcefulness of his arguments that he puts forward. Marx is one of the most (perhaps the most) misrepresented men in human history. His name was used and his philosophy is still misused by many of the so-called Marxists and also by a few (especially in the past fifty or sixty years) unscrupulous States in certain parts of the world largely for their own 'ulterior motives' or for attaining their corrupt aims and inhumane ambitions. In this respect there is a parallel between Marxism and Darwinism. Darwin's name also has throughout been misused and Darwinism abused by many of the atheistically motivated biologists, and intellectually dishonest geneticists mainly for the sake of achieving their secular goals.
It is said that Karl Marx stood up Hegel on his head; or he turned Hegel upside down. By this they mean Marx turned Hegel's dialectical idealism into dialectical materialism ---- in short, he changed the dialectics of mind into the dialectics of matter. This is not true - not true at all. Throughout his life, Marx neither in his writings nor in his speeches/lectures used the term 'dialectical materialism'. Perhaps there would be 'some truth' in saying Engels, a close friend and the collaborator of Marx turned Hegel upside down. I say this because Engels was a staunch materialist and effectively all the materialist aspects of Marxism were written by him; however Engels claimed that he read the manuscipt (what he had written) to Marx and Marx approved of it ---- be it as it may. But let me also be fair and say that Engels did not use the term 'dialectical materialism' either; in his writings only twice he uses the term 'materialist dialectic' as an opposing reference (counterpart) to Hegel's 'Idealist dialectic'. Here I must say that it was Ludwig Feurbach (a whole-hearted materialist philosopher) who, when it comes to materialist philosophy, had the most influence on Karl Marx. Such influence and its effect, however, gradually diminished as Karl gracefully matured into maturity (I am aware of my tautology).
The truth is that the overzealous materialist Marxists 'shrouded' the name Marx and the term Marxism in the discredited label, 'dialectical materialism', and by their vigorous propaganda they tried to sell the 'package' to the whole world. It was, however, Plekhanov who 'invented' and also largely popularised the term 'dialectical materialism' in Soviet Union where it became the major part of the philosophy of Communism. Such philosophy has nothing to do with 'Socialism', which is a civilized and humane economic system. Socialism ('ethical socialism' based mainly on moral grounds and not purely on ideological ground) aims at running an organized economic system that serves the great majority of the people, even the whole society; it is based on Social Need, not on individuals' greed. Such system, a special mode of production, is administered by relying chiefly on human cooperation and not on ruthless compitition (as is the case with exploitative system of capitalism). Socialism maintains that the Society (say, the great majority of the people) are entitled to benefit from the wealth and the economic prosperity of the Socialist Economic System, since the distribution of the wealth is the major object-principle of this kind of organized system of economy. Socialism holds the view that the means of production, ought to be owned by the people (the great majority of the people) and not by a tiny minority of people. Look at the state of the world today! Despite all the wealth and all the resources of the Earth, millions and millions of people in many parts of the world are hungry. Hundreds of thousands of children are dying from hunger every day; and what about the death from diseases, mal-nutrition and lack of medicine and medical help? These are all the consequences of the exploitations (at different levels and in various ways) of human beings by human beings. It is the unjust systems of economy as well as the wicked political systems, run by greedy and ruthlessly selfish individuals, that give rise to all the injustices and wicked inequalities in the world. Yes indeed, it is a world in which the money and the wealth is in the hands of a small minority instead of being distributed among the people (and for the well-being of the people) of the world.
I am going to talk a little more about 'Karl Marx and Materialism'. A materialist philosopher is one who elaborates on materialism philosophically, and puts forward vigorously his arguments in order to substantiate its validity, and also as a philosopher, gives an exposition of his materialist stance and defends it forcefully. Did Marx do this? No. He never bothered to do this, because he was not a materialist. Marx, in my view (a view shared by many), took materialism largely for granted and also in part he toyed with it. No, I am not saying Karl Marx was a religious man, nor am I implying that he was spiritual. He was not. All I am saying is that he was not a 'materialist' in the true sense of the word. It is true that he was not an idealist but he was a man of ideas; ideas and ideology to him meant a great deal. He rejected Hegel's 'idealism' but he fully accepted his 'dialecticism' (dialectical method) which he applied (for the first time in France during Class Struggles) to his study of society and historical analysis of that period.
What troubled Marx, perhaps most, as a consequence of his societal studies and socio-economic analyses was his realization of the exploitation of man by man, and the injustices and the terrible inequalities that were (and of course still are) so prevalent in capitalist societies. In Marx's heart and mind was some Hegelian humaneness. Karl Marx better than anyone else knew that Hegel's philosophy and especially his dialectical method has a mystical 'flavour' to it; nevertheless he read it, and he read it diligently and he learned from it a great deal. He found it both interesting and rational; he then used it in his philosophical works. Here he is, in a letter to his friend Engels, talking about Hegel's logic --- the dialectical method. Let us listen to Karl Marx himself and judge for ourselves, from the language that he uses in this letter, whether he was a hard-hearted materialist (as is the common belief in the West) or a human being with some human heart. He says,
'In the method of treatment, the fact
that by mere accident I again glanced
through Hegel's Logic has been of great
service to me ..... If there should ever
be time for such work again, I would
greatly like to make accessible to the
ordinary human intelligence, in two or
three printer's sheets what is rational
in the method which Hegel discovered but
at the same time enveloped in mysticism.'
On the tombstone of Karl Marx are engraved a few words from one of his theses:
'Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.'
And indeed, he wanted to change the world of greed, wicked inequalities, social injustice, and of course the exploitation of human being by human being.
Many great men and women of the past, as has been said earlier, were influenced by Hegel ---- learning from his philosophy and his dialectical method. These 'Hegelian relationships' have not always been simple and straightforward. In fact in some cases they have been strange even at times bizarre 'love-and-hate' relationships. One such case is evidently that of Kierkegaard's antagonistic attitude to Hegel and his philosophy. But before delving into 'Kierkegaardian affairs' with Hegel, I want to say a few words about our own Bertrand Russell's relationship with Hegel.
Bertrand Russell, arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, described Hegel as one of the hardest philosophers and Hegel's philosophy as probably the hardest to understand. Despite experiencing such philosophic difficulties, Russell spent his 'philosophic honeymoon' with Hegel and Hegelian philosophy. This was when he was in his 20s. This Hegelian flirtation and dialectical infatuation lasted several years. Then his Hegelian love began to diminish so that gradually he realized that his love for Hegel is being replaced with a dislike for Hegel and his philosophy. In short, the time came that Russell found himself to be a true anti-Hegelian, which of course is a 'norm' among 'Hegelian Lovers'. Russell, however, does not accept the full responsibility for such 'act of philosophic unfaithfulness' (or, 'Hegelian treachery'). According to Russell, the philosopher Moore, and he (Russell) together rebelled against Immanuel Kant and Hegel, and even between them it was Moore who was the 'real rebel' ---- "Moore led the way, but I closely followed in his footsteps". There is a book written on this idealist period of Russell's life; its title is: 'Russell's Idealist Apprenticeship' - an apt title too.
Now let us come to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher and renowned for being the 'father of existentialism' (and one of my favourite social and philosophic writers) built his reputation, at least partly, at the expense of his 'apparent hatred' to Hegel. Put another way, the 'impetus' for his being a copious writer, to some degree, was his 'obsessive resentment' against Hegel. Many have said that such hatred or resentment was the other side of the 'coin of love'. Whatever it was, one thing is clear and that is Kierkegaard was an avid reader of Hegel, and was greatly influenced (whether out of love or hate) by Hegel.
Kierkegaard could not be 'the baby of existentialism', let alone the 'father of existentialism' hadn't it been for Hegel and Hegelian philosophy, especially his 'Phenomenology of Mind' (which is usually known as Hegel's greatest work, and sometimes is referred to as the 'Hegelian psychology'); it is notoriously hard to understand. Anyhow, the 'seeds of existentialism', as we know it today, were discreetely cultivated in the philosophy of Hegel by Hegel. Put another way, Existentialism is 'embedded' in Hegelian philosophic system, which is the 'Department Store of Philosophy' containing religious, aesthetic, moral, legal, social, political, economic, existential and metaphysical philosophies. Hegel was not just a philosopher but also a philosophic creator ---- unique in this respect. Hegel's philosophical work, 'Hegelianism' as a philosophic system, has had a widespread influence on the Western civilization --- politically, culturally, intellectually, metaphysically and so on. His creative philosophic system influenced greatly the development of Marxism, Analytic Philosophy, Existentialism, and Positivism.
Hegel wrote many books and numerous articles. Four of his well-known and important books are:
1) The Science of Logic
2) The Philosophy of Right
3) The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
4) The Phenomenology of Mind
Between 'The Science of Logic' and 'The Phenomenology of Mind' there has always been a 'rivalry'; some say Hegel's most important work is the former, and there are those who say it is the latter.
Hegelianism also had its influence, at least to some extent, on the shaping of the early thinking of Nietzsche , the great German philosopher. It is not so difficult to detect in the writings of Nietzsche some of the Hegelian political, religious and existentialist thinking.
Two of the five persons who had their literary, philosophic and intellectual influences on Jean Paul Sartre were Hegel and Karl Marx. Hegel's philosophy had a great influence on Sartre and his philosophic writings. Many have said that Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness', which, is his greatest work, is a 'lengthy footnote' to Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind (Spirit)'. I don't know about being a lengthy footnote, but one thing that I know is that Sartre skilfully drew upon Hegel's philosophy, particularly the 'Phenomenology of Mind' for writing his 'Being and Nothingness'. Of course there are many other ideas in his book that are, more or less, original and the product of his (Sartre's) brilliant mind. His 'Being and Nothingness' is a good read and many parts of it are very interesting. Sartre, a true existentialist, was a great thinker and an able philosophic writer, if not a philosopher in the conventional sense.
One of the great men of the 20th century, a pacifist, Christian and visionary, when discussing philosophy with friends, used to say: 'My favourite philosopher is Hegel'; he was a champion of human rights. He was Doctor Martin Luther King. Hegel's philosophy had an influence on his perception of the world, and Hegelian dialectical thinking greatly influenced his thinking. Incidentally, Doctor Martin Luther King was not the only 'man of God' who was so interested in Hegel's philosophy; there have always been spiritual and religious people including some theologians who have shown a great interest in Hegelianism in general and in Hegelian dialectical thinking in particular.
It is not that only great people with great minds become attracted to Hegel's philosophy and influenced by Hegelian thinking and Hegel's dialectics. This can also happen or apply to ordinary people like me; I am an unashamed Hegelian. A Hegelian is a person who has some general knowledge of Hegelian philosophic system, and a reasonable understanding of Hegel's dialectical idealism and in particular has adhered to Hegel's dialectics (that is, he or she has accepted the dialectical process as a rational method of the 'workings of the things' in this world and even as an onging process in this universe.
Hegel's philosoohy is very much related to (is concerned with) human mind; that is why there is such a 'thing' as Hegelian Thinking, which is a special 'mode of thinking'. Therefore we can see why many Hegelian scholars and students refer to Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit as 'Hegelian Psychology'. As a Psychologist and a Hegelian pupil, and especially a student of Hegel's dialectics, I see Hegelianism (the whole philosophic system of Hegel) mainly, but not only, as the 'Philosophy of Mind'. I also see it as 'Psycho-spiritual Phiosophy'; the spiritual aspect of it is of mystical nature. In Hegel's philosophy I see three modes of thinking in hierarchical order: Holistic, Dialectical and Mystical. What makes them different from one another is chiefly Perception ('the ability to recognize, the ability to detect, and the capacity for becoming aware'). We may think of them as three 'types' of mind. I am going to describe them very briefly, as I perceive them; this is my subjective view of certain aspects of Hegelian psychology.
A 'Holistic Mind', which is at the stage of 'wholeness' (special kind of 'maturity'), sees Reality only in the 'Whole'. It is noteworthy to mention that the person with a 'holistic mind' may not be conscious of his or her 'state of wholism' or even may not have heard of the term (w)holistic, yet this does not discard the fact, or diminish the significance, of his or her being a person with wholistic mind. Such Mind, as I just said, sees the 'Reality' of a thing in the Wholeness of that thing. Here holistic mind stops and does not go further, but the dialectical mind does; it goes much further.
A truly dialectical mind, which is at the stage of the 'Development of the Self', sees the world and perceives the working of the world, as an exposition of resolving the conflicts or antagonisms, through a series of (conceptual) unfoldings with the aim of attaining to the 'wholeness', uncovering the 'reality', for according to Hegel, reality is only in the 'Whole'. A dialectical mind is a 'radical mind', and potentially is revolutionary. A dialectical mind is necessarily 'holistic'; it subsumes holistic mind.
A mystical mind', which is at the stage (or, in the state) of the Growth of The Soul/Self into the Spiritual Realm, necessarily includes dialectical mind; but then it goes beyond the realm of dialectical mind. A mystical mind sees the complete transformation, 'the revolution', of the mind only in being 'one' (in union) with 'Ultimate Reality'. Though gentle, meek, and even in great majority of instances truly humble, a mystical mind is also revolutionary. Sadly the words 'revolution' and 'revolutionary' are considered by most people to be somehow 'threatening', thus, a revolutionary person is regarded as somewhat subversive. Let me, therefore, astonish these people: The 'desire for revolution', which is the 'desire for complete transformation', stems from a Higher Dimension ('Spiritual Dimension') in a person, and not from the basic instinct of aggresion in human being. Yes, yes, this is true. My studies in such areas taught me that the higher is the spiritual development (especially of mystical nature) in a person the more intense becomes in him or her the desire to see complete transformation where such transformation is needed.
Hegelians (most of them anyway) like to believe that Hegelianism is original and Hegel's philosophy is not derived from any other philosophies. This, more or less, means Hegel was not influenced philosophically by any philosopher. At the same time some Hegelian scholars say that Hegel was (very much) infuenced by his predecessor, Emanuel Kant. Perhaps as a young man, Hegel intellectually was to some degree influenced by Kant, whose fierce critic, incidentally, was Hegel himself. (When Kant died in 1804 Hegel was thirty four years old.) To my understanding, neither a special philosophy had a great infuence, nor a particular philosopher had a noticeable impact on Hegel. It was, however, mysticism in general, and a half a dozen or so mystics in particular, who had a lot of influence and even considerable impact on him. Most Hegelians and many scholars on Hegel's philosophy, sadly, don't know, or don't bother to know about this highly important 'aspect' of the philosopher, Hegel. This 'lazy (or perhaps somewhat arrogant) attitude' of some Hegelians has made their lives doubly difficult as far as the understanding of Hegel's philosophy is concerned. I say this because after all it was these mystical influences, hermetic effects and gnostic impact that gave rise to his idealist dialectics central to which is the concept of "Wholeness and Reality" (that 'Whole', and only the whole, is 'Reality'); this is an 'ascending progression' leading to or ultimately 'culminating in' (the attainment to) what Hegel calls Absolute Spirit.
Hegel's interest in mysticism (mystical spirituality) , which is said to be the highest form of spirituality, began when he was very young ------ perhaps about fourteen years of age. When he was in his mid-twenties, he was well into mystical spirituality (many say hermetic spirituality and there are some who use the term, 'gnostic spirituality'). The three have only in general some similarities; they are different 'Spiritual Ways' of Life and have different approaches to the attainment to Ultimate Reality. Hegel had read and studied diligently plenty of literature on mysticism. Two mystics that impressed him intellectually most and influenced him spiritually more than others were Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boemhe. Some have said (including his contemporary philosopher, Schelling) that Hegel's philosophic work is largely based on Boemhe's mystical views and esoteric knowledge. Yet and yet, even to this day, many followers of Hegel dispute his spirituality, and even still the argument among some Hegelian scholars goes on whether Hegel was a Christian or an atheist. Isn't it amazing?
Of course it is amazing. Here is a man whose 'core of philosophy' is mystical and also the center of his philosophic system is Absolute Spirit, yet he appears to most of his readers to be 'not-so-spiritual' man; even to some he sounds more of an 'atheist'. His mystical spirituality is clothed with his philosophic creatrivity, which in turn is covered with his intellectual complexity. Hegel, with the exception of Karl Marx (but then Marx himself was profoundly influenced by him), has been, particularly in the West, the most influential philosopher ----- politically, socially, and intellectually and in a number of fields and disciplines of science. His philosophic system, as has been said earlier, is the "Department Store of Philosophy'. This huge magnificent 'store' caters a wide range of merchandise, and that is why it is patronized by people from different walks of life and with different tastes. For example, politicians, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, metaphysicians, philosophers, humanists, nihilists, socialists, conservatives, radical left wings, anarchists, facists, democrats, marxist materialists and existentialists are regular costumers of Hegel's Philosophic Department Store. And all of them, when inside the Store, behave in a civilized manner and respect one another. It is, I believe, the philosophic awesomeness and intellectual formidability of the great man himself, Hegel, that makes them behave in such manner.
To Hegel, the philosopher's duty is to unfold the reality and to uncover the truth. And throughout his philosophic system Hegel endeavours to do this, and he does it with great success; yes, there is 'plenty of truth' in Hegelian philosophy. The late Iris Murdoch, that brilliant novelist, who was also a philosopher, had a deep insight into Hegel and Hegelianism. She was, in my opinion, a Platonist in mind and a Hegelian at heart. I have enjoyed tremendously reading some of her philosophic writings --- and of course I also learned from them. I remember in one of her books she says, (and I paraphrase it as correctly as I can; it is effectively the quotation) 'In the philosophy of Hegel there is more truth than in that of any other philosopher.' Absolutely true. And it is this 'truth' (Hegelian truth, which is of mystical nature) combined with the transformative (or implicitly 'revolutionary') aspect of his dialectics that, in my view, attracts the kind of minds including some of the greatest ones that are dialectically seeking the truth.