Karl Popper hated all forms of totalitarian systems. That is great. But his blaming Hegel seems misplaced. The reason he blamed Hegel is fairly clear that he was depending on the Scribner’s Hegel Selections [and Gans’s additions]. But furthermore in fact the communists made a very big deal out of Hegel even though they specifically repudiated him. But still they found in his writing someone that they felt they needed to fight and repudiate.
Still what is sad about this is that Hegel does seem to have a lot of good ideas.
If you hate socialism-which is a proper approach as we learned from Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and more recently Venezuela, still it makes little sense to blame Hegel. Why not blame Socialism itself?
In an case, philosophy and politics seem to be separate. Hegel and Plato both seem to have been trying to get too much out of their ideas. It seems that when philosophers step into politics they misstep and overstep. I think in terms of politics the founding fathers of the USA saw a lot further than any philosophers.
There is a moral aspect to politics. To advocate socialism has an aspect to it that is not moral. That is even if you do not do it yourself, but if you recommend to others to deprive people of their property, that is like אבק גזילה [the dust of theft.] If you vote for such a thing that also has a aspect to it of stealing other people's property. Even though you do not do it yourself, but to use you vote to empower the government to steal also is אבק גזילה the dust of theft. [We find this concept in the Talmud. Some things are not slander but אבק לשון הרע the dust of slander, and some things are not forbidden relations but אבק עריות the dust of forbidden relations.]
Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries School] and Michael Huemer do not think much of Hegel. And I am not one to stand between giants. But to me it looks like Hegel, the Kant Friesian School and also Michael Huemer have good points. Just for one example:Michael Huemer noted that Hume's limitation of what we can know a priori is not true. Hume just assumes that all that can be known without observation is what can be derived from definitions. Hume states this over and over again without any proof or argument. And there is no reason to belive it is true. But still that does not invalidate kant of Hegel. since there is still a different kind of thinking that goes into a priori knowledge than what you can know from induction.
I might add that for some reason or other the only people that seem to pay attension to the Kant Fries School are in Poland [and maybe some in Germany]. I get the impression that for most people that are interested in Kant go with the Neo Kant School of Marburg and Herman Cohen. However, to me it seems to Friesian school is better.
Still what is sad about this is that Hegel does seem to have a lot of good ideas.
If you hate socialism-which is a proper approach as we learned from Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and more recently Venezuela, still it makes little sense to blame Hegel. Why not blame Socialism itself?
In an case, philosophy and politics seem to be separate. Hegel and Plato both seem to have been trying to get too much out of their ideas. It seems that when philosophers step into politics they misstep and overstep. I think in terms of politics the founding fathers of the USA saw a lot further than any philosophers.
There is a moral aspect to politics. To advocate socialism has an aspect to it that is not moral. That is even if you do not do it yourself, but if you recommend to others to deprive people of their property, that is like אבק גזילה [the dust of theft.] If you vote for such a thing that also has a aspect to it of stealing other people's property. Even though you do not do it yourself, but to use you vote to empower the government to steal also is אבק גזילה the dust of theft. [We find this concept in the Talmud. Some things are not slander but אבק לשון הרע the dust of slander, and some things are not forbidden relations but אבק עריות the dust of forbidden relations.]
Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries School] and Michael Huemer do not think much of Hegel. And I am not one to stand between giants. But to me it looks like Hegel, the Kant Friesian School and also Michael Huemer have good points. Just for one example:Michael Huemer noted that Hume's limitation of what we can know a priori is not true. Hume just assumes that all that can be known without observation is what can be derived from definitions. Hume states this over and over again without any proof or argument. And there is no reason to belive it is true. But still that does not invalidate kant of Hegel. since there is still a different kind of thinking that goes into a priori knowledge than what you can know from induction.
I might add that for some reason or other the only people that seem to pay attension to the Kant Fries School are in Poland [and maybe some in Germany]. I get the impression that for most people that are interested in Kant go with the Neo Kant School of Marburg and Herman Cohen. However, to me it seems to Friesian school is better.
