"A philosophy like Hegel's is a self-revelation of the psychic background and, philosophically, a presumption. Psychologically it amounts to an invasion by the Unconscious. The peculiar, high-flown language Hegel uses bears out this view -- it is reminiscent of the megalomaniac language of schizophrenics, who use terrific, spellbinding words to reduce the transcendent to subjective form, to give banalities the charm of novelty, or pass off commonplaces as searching wisdom. So bombastic a terminology is a symptom of weakness, ineptitude, and lack of substance."Carl G. Jung, On the Nature of the Psyche. He basically said Hegel was nuts.
For years I would read excerpts about Hegel, quotes from Hegel and discussions on Hegel and would stare off into the unknown universe frightened in my ability to comprehend anything.
Yes, I admit. I didn't get it.
Did this mean I was dimwitted?
Probably. But the guy was so, so heavy; on the cusp of the lunatic fringe. He sounded like he came straight out of a Pink Floyd song. His writings, to use another music analogy, was where MC5 met Floyd's The Wall.
I'm glad to see I wasn't alone. It seems as though real great minds (Jung, Popper, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche etc.) have struggled with Hegel.
Ah ah, I feel close to you in this. I am not Hegelian, but Hegel was one of the myths of our generation. Probably because our generation was nuts too (and in love with myths). Yes, it was tremendously tough reading, and my efforts on his texts weren't successful neither. I got lost and felt inadequate. But if one loved Gobetti, Croce and Gramsci as much as I did had no choice but reading some Hegel (or at least try).
ReplyDeleteI comprehend, on average, 50-54%* of what great philosophers write. In others, I get just enough to grasp the general tenet. That figure drops off to negative integers with Hegel. You have to consider mushrooms to enhance the Hegel experience I am sure.
ReplyDelete*Arbitrary figures.
Mexican mushrooms, for example? Ah ha ha, that could be an idea. I might consider it in my next life. :-)
ReplyDeleteOne has to admit though that the Germans were constructors of absolutely breathtakingly complex philosophical (and musical) structures.
ReplyDeleteWas it an advantage for humankind? (I'm referring to philosophy, of course). Big question.
I think so, with the exception of Marxism, which mostly was a dangerous political religion.
As far as Marxism, allow me to save Antonio Gramsci. My mentor (the guy I call Magister) taught me to read Gramsci and appreciate his great pages. Gramsci is a pure creative genius and his thought, going well beyond Marxism, has been very influential and much appreciated by the world left, centre and right. Just as an example, today's British prime minister Gordon Brown said he was a pupil of Gramsci.
No idea if this is complimenting Gramsci or not... ;-)
PS
ReplyDeleteThe link with your post is also that Gramsci, as a good pupil of Benedetto Croce, had studied Hegel a lot.
Gramsci and Croce are two thinkers I'd like to get to know better.
ReplyDeleteWell, here's a good opportunity to brush up your Italian. Reading them in the original is the best thing in my view, since they are not only outstanding philosophers, they are exceptional writers as well. And their style is so crystal-clear and harmonious they are very easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteLord, would I love to brush up on it! I can barely read La Gazzetta dello Sporto without a dictionary. Ha.
ReplyDeleteImagine Gramsci! But I will one day.
I think Gazzetta dello sport is harder reading.
ReplyDeleteWith Gramsci you can start with 'Lettere dal carcere'. Of course ‘Quaderni dal Carcere’ are his masterpiece, but it is a huge work made of just notes, and it takes time to understand their linking. You can try an Anthology. Or start with Lettere.
With Croce, you can start with his outstanding literary criticism: works like 'La poesia di Dante' where he gives you shivers on spine by faithfully recreating Dante's powerful poetry, or 'Ariosto, Shakespeare e Corneille' where he basically does the same thing. Awesome.
To me (and I think to the world, as you can see from the Wikipedia article on him) Gramsci is though more worthwhile reading. Croce is just pleasure, pure aristocratic and refined bliss. His thought is probably a bit outdated. Which doesn't mean much. Philosophical fashions are crap. I am still reading the ancient classics, ah ah ah.
:-)
PS
ReplyDeleteI mean, what counts is how you creatively interact with other people's thought following your own path, no matter when this thought was conceived.
Se tu segui tua stella
Fallir non puoi a glorioso porto
(Dante)