Hegel: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer

Hegel: A Very Short Introduction Reviews

• 
  Ahmad Sharabiani

  Hegel: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions #49), Peter Singer
  
  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a German philosopher and an important figure of German idealism.
  
  No philosopher in the nineteenth or twentieth century has had such an impact on the world as Hegel, it is more difficult to understand his writings than any other philosopher.
  
  Over the past century and a half, all of world thinkers, have been directly or indirectly influenced by Hegel's thought.
  
  تاریخ نخستین خوانش: یکی از روزهای سال2001میلادی
  
  عنوان: هگل: نویسنده: پیتر سینگر؛ مترجم عزت الله فولادوند؛ تهران، طرح نو، سال1379؛ در176ص؛ چاپ دوم سال1387؛ شابک9645625874؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، ماهی، سال1386؛ شابک9789649971865؛ موضوع سرگذشتنامه گئورگ ویلهلم فریدریش هگل آلمانی از سال1770میلادی تا سال1831م از نویسندگان استرالیا - نگارش این کتاب سده20م
  
  فهرست مطالب: «روزگار و زندگی هگل»؛ «هدف و غایت تاریخ»؛ «آزادی و جامعه»؛ «سفر دور و دراز و پرماجرای ذهن»؛ «منطق و دیالکتیک»؛ «پی آمدها»؛
  
  در این کتاب، برخی آرا و اندیشه‌های «گئورگ ویلهلم فریدریش هگل»، فیلسوف «آلمانی»، به ایجاز بیان شده است؛ خوانشگران در این کتاب، ضمن مروری کوتاه، بر زندگی و آثار ایشان، این مباحث را می‌خوانند: «هدف و غایت تاریخ»، «آزادی و جامعه»، «سفر دور و دراز و پر ماجرای ذهن»، «منطق و دیالکتیک»، و «پیامدهای اندیشه‌های فلسفی هگل»؛ به ‌زعم نگارنده، فهم نوشتار‌های «هگل» شاید دشوارتر از هر فیلسوف دیگر غربی باشد، هر چند «هگل»، نتوانست سنت «هنری ادموند ولف»، و «ایمانوئل کانت» را، یکسره براندازد، ولی دگرگونی‌های مهمی، در زبان فلسفی پدید آوردند؛ «هگل» تاریخ را جدی می‌گرفتند، و برخلاف «ایمانوئل کانت» که تصور می‌کرد، می‌تواند صرفا به اتکاء مبانی فلسفی، بگوید که طبیعت انسان چیست، و همیشه چگونه باید باشد، «هگل» سخن «شیلر» را باور داشتند، که می‌گفت «کل بنیادهای وضع بشر ممکن است از یک عصر تاریخی به عصر دیگر تغییر کند»؛ ایشان باور دارند، همگی رویدادهای بگذشته ها، معطوف به هدف آزادی بوده است؛ «هگل» می‌گویند «تاریخ جهان هیچ چیز نیست، مگر پیشرفت آگاهی از آزادی»؛ ایشان می‌گویند: «مقصود و هدف «فلسفه ی تاریخ»، آشنایی با نقش هدایتگر فلسفه در تاریخ است»؛ نگارنده کتاب «پیتر سینگر» در بخش پایانی کتاب، یعنی در «پیامدها»، پیروان «هگل» را، به دو گروه دسته بندی کرده است: «هگلیان سنتی، یا راست‌گرا» که هیچ متفکر بزرگی بیرون نداد، و «هگلیان جوان»، تند و رادیکال؛ همانند «فریدریش اشتراوس»، «فویر باخ»، «ماریان اوانز» و «کارل مارکس»، که نوشتارهای مهمی در زمینه «ذهن»، «دین»، «هستی» و «آزادی» نگاشتند
  
  هگل: (از سال1770میلادی تا سال1831 میلادی) زاده ی شهر «اشتوتگارت» در «آلمان»؛ هیچ فیلسوفی، در سده ی نوزدهم میلادی، یا حتی در سده ی بیستم میلادی، تاثیری همچون «هگل»، بر این جهان نگذاشته، دریافتن نوشتارهای ایشان، دشوارتر از هر فیلسوف دیگر است؛ در یک و نیم سده ی بگذشته، همه ی اندیشمندان گیتی، در جهت نفی، یا اثبات نظریات ایشان، مستقیم یا غیرمستقیم، تحت تاثیر اندیشه ی «هگل» بوده اند
  
  تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 09/11/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 27/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
• 
  فؤاد

  "من" برای خودآگاهی نیازمند یک "جز-من" است تا در تقابل با آن، خود را بشناسد. یک "منِ" بی حد و مرز هرگز نمی تواند به خودآگاهی برسد، بلکه محتاج محدودیت است، محتاج چیزی است که او را متعین کند تا بتواند تصویری از هویت و جایگاه خود داشته باشد.
  اما "من" علاوه بر میل به خودآگاهی، میل خواهندگی هم دارد. یعنی همواره می خواهد "جز-من"ها را تملک و متعلق به خود کند و در نتیجه، از "جز-من" بودن دگرگونشان کرده، به "من" تبدیل کند.
  
  این جا بین این دو میل، تعارضی رخ می دهد:
  برای ارضای میلِ خودآگاهىِ "من"، باید "جز-من"ـی مستقل و بیرون از ذات او وجود داشته باشد.
  و برای ارضای میلِ خواهندگىِ "من"، باید "جز-من" تبدیل به "من" شود و جزئی درون ذات او شود.
  در نتیجه ی این تعارض، "من" همیشه نسبت به اعیان خارجی ناراضی است. میل به کسب بیشتر و بیشتر دارد، اما با تملک هر چیز، آن را دگرگون می کند و از "جز-من" بودن در می آورد و تبدیل به جزئی از "من" می کند. در نتیجه دیگر نمی تواند هویت خود را با آن بشناسد و حرص ارضا ناپذیر به تملک "جز-من" پیوسته گسترش می یابد.
  
  راه جمع بین این دو میل متعارض، راه پایان دادن به این نارضایتی ابدی، "عشق" است. طی عشق، "من" نه با یک عین خارجی، بلکه با "من"ـی دیگر تقابل دارد.
  این "منِ" دیگر، همواره از من مستقل است. مستقل می اندیشد، مستقل می خواهد، حتّی اگر در تملک من باشد و من او را جزئی درون ذات خودم به حساب بیاورم. در نتیجه، در آن واحد "من" و "جز-من" است. به خاطر خصوصیت استقلالش و "جز-من" بودنش، میل من به خودآگاهی را ارضا می کند. و به خاطر خصوصیت عدم استقلالش و "من" بودنش، میل من به خواهندگی را ارضا می کند.
• 
  سيد محمد

  لايمشي الفيلسوف وحيدا، هو خلية لغوية تتشابك مع تطور الفكر البشري، هيجل يلمس تاريخ الوعي، والعقل الكوني الذي يشارك فيه البشر وهم ينطلقون من تحقيق وجودهم الفردي المحدود إلى صياغة الوجود الكلي للإنسانية، وظاهرة العقل التي نرى فيها جوهرنا المدرك من خلال تجلياته في مواضيع إدراكه، والمجتمع العضوي الذي تتشابك فيه المصالح ولايمكن لأحد أن يضحي بوجود الآخر لأنه يكتمل به ويتعالق معه، ويستحضر ثنائية السيد والعبد في احتياج كل منهما للآخر، وانطباع هوية العامل فيما يصنع بصرف النظر عن اضطراره للعمل أو حصوله على الكفاف من ناتج عمله، ويستعيد الرواقية الإغريقية لتتخلص الذات من إحساسها بالظلم الاجتماعي وتحيا في حالة من التنازع بين الرضا ببناء نفسها بعيدا عن كل سيطرة استبدادية من ناحية ومعاناتها لتحفيز إمكانات هويتها الروحية واستثمارها داخل منجز أفعالها المادية التي تخدم الحياة من ناحية أخرى
  نوع من المثالية الفكرية التي تحاول أن تتجاوز الثنائيات الضدية بالجمع بينهما في تكوين جدلي يمكن أن يحقق التآلف بين الذهني والتجريبي، والمعنوي والمادي، والشكل والمحتوى، والحرية الفردية والاتساق المجتمعي، ولكن الإنسان لا يستطيع في كل الأحوال أن يكون مثاليا في تصوراته التي يبني عليها استراتيجيات خطابه ومنظومة سلوكياته التي يمكن أن تكون أداة للوصول إلى مقصدياته، لذلك ستسير فلسفة هيجل بعده في ثلاثة محاور: الماركسية بطابعها المادي الذي ينحو إلى التأثير المجتمعي الكلي، والوجودية التي ستقف إلى جانب الفردية على طول الخط، والظاهراتية التي ستحاول أن تفيد من النزعة العقلانية المدركة لتطور الوعي في إدراك العالم وفهمه
• 
  Riku Sayuj

  
  In Reverse Gear
  
  Peter Singer in this VSI has decided to limit his discussion primarily to one aspect of Hegel’s philosophy: His conception of progress and about his idea of its endpoint. To this end Singer starts with
  The Philosophy of History and discusses it in some detail. He then introduces us to The Philosophy of Right to show us how Hegel uses his historical conception of mankind’s consciousness-evolution to arrive at the ‘Right’ or ‘Recht’ or in more prosaic terms ‘Laws’.
  
  All this while we are only told about Man’s consciousness progressing towards an idea of Freedom. Conceptually it is all very easy (relatively!) to grasp because none of Hegel’s core complications are brought into the visual field of the reader yet! Singer has held all that back so that the reader can have the comfort of grasping at something at least before plunging into those torrents.
  
  In the last part of the book Singer gradually unveils some of those complications. First he lets us know that until now we have discussed only the manifestation of progress, but not the causation of it, not the theory behind it. This is, of course, the key component. Finally we have entered The Phenomenology of Mind, and here we are introduced to the dialectic process, and the consciousness encountering the Other, thus developing self-consciousness and gradually pulling itself by its own shoestrings towards Phenomenology itself.
  
  This bootstrapping process too leads towards the Idea of Freedom which we had already been shown was where history was headed anyway. Thus we have arrived back at The Philosophy of History, after going in reverse gear for so long (starting from later works and moving towards the earliest and then backing up again), but this time with an understanding of why the process works the way it was illustrated there. Also, the concept of Spirit is kept camouflaged all this while (Singer prefers ‘Mind’) and is introduced only at the last possible stage. So any reluctance towards the concepts due to an implied religious coloring is also avoided in this way.
  
  Overall, I believe this was a very interesting way to present things. It allows the reader to grasp the concepts in a much more intuitive way — since first he is shown how things are, and then he is asked to tag along as Hegel deconstructs why things work out the way they do. (Kant prolegomena analytic synthetic include?) Singer has done a good job in making hegel accessible in his choice of books and in his order of their presentation. It also shows the reader the best approach to take towards Hegel as a whole too.
• 
  امیر لطیفی

  درباره‌ی کتاب
  چنان ساده نوشته شده که تقریباً هر خواننده‌ای بدون پیش‌زمینه می‌تواند آن را در دست بگیرید و با رضایت قابل قبولی به پایان برساند. از طرفی همین سادگی کتاب را به فروکاست‌گرایی مشکوک می‌کند.
  
  متن روان است و ترجمه نیز.
  
  درباره‌ی هگل
  اولین چیزی‌ است که در این حجم، اختصاصی در مورد هگل می‌خوانم. در نتیجه نظرم می‌تواند پخته نباشد و موقت.
  
  معرفت‌شناسی هگل بر کانت سوار است، ولی تصور می‌کنم، چندان راه به جایی نبرده و چیزی به آن نیفزوده است. از ظرف زمان و مکان و مقولات کانت در تبیین تجربه و فهم چشم پوشیده ولی جایگزین قابل قبول‌تری ارائه نکرده است. ایده‌آلیسم استعلایی کانت به مراتب پخته‌تر، متواضعانه‌تر و خودبسنده‌تر از ایده‌آلیسم مطلق هگل است. تواضع کانت نه یک ژست اخلاقی زائد که روشی است آگاهانه نسبت به ضعف‌های بشری. ایده‌آلیسم مطلق هگل فاقد چنین تواضعِ منطقی و آگاهی است.
  
  آزادی مثبت، جامعه‌ی اندواموار و بهشت
  این دو بند مربوط یاداشت کوتاهی‌ست که برای یادآوری شخصی ضمن خوانش نگاشتم:
  جامعه‌ی اندواموارِ هگل جایی است که در آن خواسته‌های ناظر بر آزادی مثبت با آثار عقل عملی محض و امر مطلق کانت منطبق‌اند. از طرفی اخلاقِ چنین جامعه‌ای دو ایرادی که هگل به عقل عملی وارد می‌کند می‌��هد. ایراد اول مبنی بر بی‌محتوا بودن قانون‌های کلی عقل عملی محض که با تزریق محتوا توسط دولت چنین جامعه‌ای برطرف می‌شود. در چنین جامعه‌ای، دولت به هر کس می‌گوید چه وظیفه‌ای دارد. افزون بر این، در جامعه‌‌ی مذکور تمایلات فرد و جامعه در تعارض نیست. از این طریق ایراد دوم مبنی بر تعارض حل‌نشده‌ی تمایلات فردی و طبیعی در تقابل با وظیفه‌ی کانتی حل می‌شود.
  
  به نظر می‌آید جامعه‌ی انداموار تنها جامعه‌ای است که آزادی در آن بدون تضاد و تعارض محقق می‌شود. پیتر سینگر معتقد است حتی اگر ایده‌ی این جامعه هم به آزادی‌ نرسد، همچنان ایرادی به طرح هگل وارد نیست و دیگران می‌تواند این راه را ادامه دهند. شاید نتوان امکان تصور چنین جامعه‌ای را به صورت ذهنی، یا به قول امروزی‌ها روی کاغذ رد کرد، ولی با شناخت انسان، و آگاهی از اینکه تلاش وی برای ساختن عملی کردن چنین رویایی، می‌تواند به قیمت ساختن جهنم تمام شود، پروراندن چنین ایده‌ای را نه تنها غیرموجه، شاید بتوان گفت غیراخلاقی می‌نماید.
  
  پی‌نوشت: چیز دیگری می‌خوانم که به هگل اشاراتی داشت و من آن‌ها را نمی‌فهمیدم. بیش از پیش مجاب شدم که این کتاب هگل را فروکاسته.
• 
  Bekhradaa

  ۴۴۱
  
  هگل نمی‌خواست فلسفه‌ای اختصاصاً آلمانی و برای آلمانی‌ها تاسیس کند، اما معتقد بود هر ملت برای پیمودن مدارج ترقی و تعالی باید فرهنگ و ادبی به زبان خود داشته باشد
• 
  Norah

  من الصعب جداً فهم فلسفة هيجل ولكن بمساعدت بيتر سينجر لن تضيع في قراءة الكتاب
  بسط بيتر سينجر فلسفة هيجل في كل فصل من الكتاب
  ما اشد اعجابي حقاً في فلسفة هيجل عندما تحدث عن الحرية وعن الإله ففي نظر هيجل كل شي في العالم وفي الكون كله جزء من الإله وكذلك عندما تحدث عن الحرية حيث لايصبح الإنسان حراً عندما يفعل مايحلو له فالحرية هي في العقل وليس في الأفعال الحرية هي المعرفة الحرية هي ان تجد ذاتك وان تعرف هويتك ..
  يقول هيجل :
  "إن جوهر هذا الوعي هو أن تصبح حرًّ؛ سواء أكنت معتلياً العرش أم مقرَّناً في الأصفاد"
  فقد يكون المرء مثقفاً بينما هو قابع في زنزانة طاغية، وقد يكون آخر يعيش بحرية تامة على جزيرة استوائية وهو جاهل على نحو تام بكل العلوم والسياسة والفلسفة. فيظل المقرَّن في الأصفاد حرًّ؛ لأنه لا يُلقى للأصفاد بالاً؛ فهو يحرر نفسه من جسده ويلوذ بعقله..
  
  جميل جداً أن تقرأ عن أشخاص غيرو أحداث هذا العالم وأحدثُ حركات ثورية فبفضل الهيجيلين ظهرت الحركة الشيوعية ..
• 
  محمد شکری

  جایگاه هگل در فلسفه
  هگل از آن دست فیلسوفان عجیبی است که اظهار نظر شتاب‌زده درباره او، به آبروریزی منجر می‌شود. نمونه‌های بزرگ این آبروریزی کارل پوپر و لویی آلتوسرند که اواخر عمر حرفه‌ای خود اعتراف کردند بسیاری از نقدهایشان به هگل (و مشخصا به فلسفه سیاسی او) کم جانبه و کم دقت بوده است؛ و البته نمونه های کوچک‌تر که الی ماشاءالله
  یکی از عجایب این غول فلسفه، برآمدن شاخه های فلسفی از دل آن بوده‌است. جدای از رابطه ایجابی پدیدارشناسی و هرمنوتیک فلسفی با هگل، دو شاخه عمده فلسفه قاره‌ای، مارکسیسم و اگزیستانسیالیسم، به نحوی سلبی از دل او برآمده‌اند. اگر بخواهیم دو دشمن بزرگ برای هگل نام ببریم بی‌شک اولین نامزدها کارل مارکس و سورن کیرکگاردند. دو چهره‌ای که هیچ کجا از نقد هگل غفلت نکرده‌اند. ولی جالب اینجاست که کمتر شکی برای شارحین مارکس و کیرکگارد وجود دارد که این دو عمیقا تحت تاثیر اندیشه هگلی بوده‌اند. جالب‌تر از آن، تخاصم خود این دو رویکرد با هم است. شاید درک این تخاصم در بطن مارکس و کیرکگارد سخت باشد، اما اگر به بزرگترین وارثان هر دو توجه کنیم ماجرا روشن می‌شود. یکی از برجسته‌ترین وارثان مارکس مکتب فرانکفورت و به ویژه بنیان‌گذاران نسل اول آن یعنی هورکهایمر و آدورنو اند و یکی از بهترین شارحان و وام‌گیران کیرکگارد هایدگر است. برای کسانی که اندکی با زندگی نامه آدورنو و یا هایدگر آَشنایند، دشمنی این دو با هم به اندازه توجه مجدد هر دو به فلسفه هگل (برخلاف مارکس و کیرکگارد) آشکار است. این حقیقتا از نیروی شگفت آور فلسفه عملی هگل است که چنین گراف پیچیده‌ای از مخالفان و موافقان دارد. تمام این مسائل را با صرف نظر از استقبال روزافزون اخیر فلسفه تحلیلی به فلسفه هگل محاسبه کنید
  
  جایگاه هگل نزد مترجم
  عزت الله فولادوند عزیز، که حق بسیار زیادی بر گردن دوستداران فلسفه سیاسی در ایران دارد، آن چه را که به عنوان قوت و معجزه فلسفه هگل گفتم (که البته نه کشف من، بلکه ورد زبان پیروان طراز اول هگل مثل مارکوزه و شارحان درجه اول او مثل بایزر است) را به نقطه ضعف و طلسم شوم او تعبیر می‌کند. او البته برای این کار استدلال‌های فوق العاده‌ای نیاز ندارد: وقتی تا مارکس و کیرکگارد بیایید، یک قدم مانده تا دو قوای شوم در قرن بیستم را به گردن هگل بیندازید. وارث بزرگ کیرکگارد، هایدگر، با عضویت در حزب نازی و ابراز ارادت به هیتلر، و وارث بزرگ مارکس، لنین، با رهبری حزب کمونیسم و واگذاری آن به استالین، از دو سو به سربرآوردن منفورترین و نامشروع ترین فرزندان هگل منجر شدند. فولادوند که البته مترجم «جامعه باز و دشمنان آن» نیز هست در این داوری خود عمیقا تحت تاثیر پوپر است و نه تنها در مقدمه، بلکه در پانویس ترجمه هم دامن از کف داده و به صحرای محشرِ کوبیدن هایدگری های داخلی(!) می‌زند که سطح کار او را واقعا پایین آورده‌است؛ بخصوص که این کار را زمانی می‌کند که سینگر، مولف کتاب، پوپر و نقدهای او به هگل را به طرز واضحی نقد می‌کند. ظاهرا فولادوند کتابی را ترجمه کرده‌است که با آن و نویسنده آن همدل نیست. خود این ماجرا که نسل فولادوند، بر خلاف مترجمین امروز، نظرات خود را آشکارا در پانویس ترجمه (اگر نه در متن!) می‌آوردند جای تأمل و گفت‌وگوی فراوان دارد. ولی از حق نگذریم ترجمه او مانند همیشه خوشخوان و عالی است
  
  درباره سینگر و کتابش
  کتاب سینگر مختصر و واقعا مفید است. من این کتاب را برای دومین بار و به منظور پیش مطالعه یک طرح می‌خواندم. به همین دلیل تنها سه بخش میانی کتاب را مطالعه کردم. اما کاملا به یاد دارم از تمام بخش‌های آن، به عنوان دانشجوی کارشناسی فلسفه لذت برده بودم. سینگر خود یک مارکسیست کلاسیک است که هگل و مارکس را تقریبا در یک راستا می‌بیند. اگر مصاحبه های ��رایان مگی را دیده یا خوانده باشید، در آنجا نیز سینگر در دفاع از هگل و مارکس به عنوان یک اندیشه کلی سخن می‌گوید. در این مجموعه («بنیانگذاران فرهنگ امروز» از طرح نو) نیز سینگر هم کتابی درباره هگل دارد و هم مارکس. کتاب مارکس او هم بسیار خوب بود که البته همین روزها آن را هم دوباره باید بخوانم. برخلاف مترجم، مولف این دو کتاب همدلانه سعی در اقرار به نقاط ضعف و پروراندن نقاط قوت هگل و مارکس دارد که تا حد خوبی در این کار موفق است
  
  بخش های کتاب به ترتیب عبارتند از: ر
  روزگار و زندگی هگل
  هدف و غایت تاریخ/ بیشتر بر اساس درس‌های فلسفه تاریخ
  آزادی و جامعه/ بیشتر بر اساس فلسفه حق
  سفر دور و دراز و پرماجرای ذهن/ بیشتر بر اساس پدیدارشناسی روح
  منطق و دیالکتیک/ بیشتر بر اساس علم منطق
• 
  Roy Lotz

  This is only the second book I’ve read in the Very Short Introduction series. But I must say, I’m extremely impressed. The first was Michael Inwood's book on Heidegger, which tackled the mammoth task of summarizing Being and Time, and did so admirably. Peter Singer does just as good a job with three of Hegel’s books: The Philosophy of History, The Philosophy of Right, and The Phenomenology of Spirit.
  
  Singer is a charming guide on this whirlwind tour through the mind of one of history's most difficult, frustrating, obscure, and opaque philosophers. He manages to condense Hegel’s sphinx-like ideas into crystal-clear prose, provides some illuminating examples, and gives thumbnail sketches of the pertinent biographical and historical information.
  
  Writing for this series must be a kind of creative challenge. If the author is up to it, they are pushed to the most extreme economy of language. The end-result is a kind of intellectual journalism, both punchy and informative. Singer’s and Inwood’s books are both exemplary in this high and mysterious art.
  
• 
  Steven

  I'm writing an essay on Hegel; as it's been a while since I read him, I figured I'd turn to this Oxford Very Short Introduction to refresh my memory concerning Hegel's general thought. Additionally, the fact that Peter Singer – an interesting philosopher in his own right – wrote this piece on Hegel, made it all the more inviting.
  
  Of course, one cannot even begin to do justice to Hegel's thought within the span of 120 pages. As Singer points out on the preface, the scope of his introduction is limited; some works are not or only very minimally discussed (the ones glanced over are the Lectures on Aesthetics, the Lectures on the History of Philosophy, the Lectures on Philosophy of Religion, and The Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in particular).
  
  Singer begins with the most concrete and least abstract part of Hegel's thought; that history possesses meaning and significance, and that the history of the world is the progress of consciousness of freedom. He focuses here on Hegel's Philosophy of History. Singer follows up Hegel's views on history with his political philosophy as found in his Philosophy of Right, after which he proceeds to discuss the themes of consciousness and freedom as elaborated in the Phenomenology of Spirit. The final main section focuses on Hegelian logic and dialectics. The introduction opens with a good account of Hegel's life and the spirit of his times, including the philosophers that influenced him (particularly Kant, Fichte, and Schiller). It ends with a nice summation of the aftermath of Hegel's thought, with special attention paid to Marx.
  
  As he indicates in the preface, Singer's selection is influenced by three factors:
  
  1) What is central to Hegel's thought.
  2) What is intelligible to general readers within the volume's length.
  3) What remains interesting and important today.
  
  As such, the introduction definitely succeeds. It covers a great deal without being superficial (within the limits of short introductions, of course), and it offers plenty of entry-points into Hegel's work both through the ideas covered in the text and via Singer's suggestions for further reading.
• 
  KNIGHT

  1) الكاتب وصف نفسه بأنه مرشد لفلسفة هيجل و كان صادقا
  2) عرض أفكار هيجل بشكل متفرق و ترتيب خاص به كمؤلف , إلا أنه ربط كل هذه الأفكار باحترافية شديدة
  3) أشار إلى مواطن الغموض في فلسفة هيجل دون الخوض فيها
  4) كما أشار الكاتب نفسه أنه تغاضى عن أفكار كثيرة لهيجل , لكنه اعتمد أكثر أفكاره أصالة , و أكثرها تأثيرا على من بعده
  بعد قراءة هذا الكتاب ستفهم الكثير الكثير من الأشياء
• 
  Omar Kassem

  ببساطة هيجل واحد من أعظم الفلاسفة في القرنين التاسع عشر والعشرين ، هذا إن لم يكن أعظمهم على الإطلاق ، ولا يُستثنى من ذلك حتى كارل ماركس نفسه .
  
  يحاول بيتر سينجر في هذا الكتاب أن يطلعنا بشكل بسيط على هذا الفيلسوف من خلال تقييده لموضوع الكتاب ونطاقه قليلاً ، فهو لا يقدم أفكارًا شاملة لجميع تصورات هيجل ، لأنه كما يفترض فإنّه يخاطب جمهوراً لا يملك أية معرفة أو تصورًا مسبقا
  
  يقدم لنا اكثر افكار هيجل ماديةً وأقلها تجريدًا وهي بالطبع فلسفته حول التاريخ ، ثم ينتقل إلى آرائه حول الحرية والتنظيم العقلاني للمجتمع ، وفي النهاية يقدم نظر�� سريعة على كتاب علم المنطق ، فهو إذاً لم يناقش سوى قطرة في بحر أفكار هيجل ولقد برر اختياره لهذه الاعمال التي اختار مناقشتها بثلاثة اسباب :
  ما يعده رئيسيًا في افكار هيجل ، وما يمكن للقارئ غير المتخصص أن يفهمه في حدود هذا الكتاب ، وما لا يزال مشوقًا ومهمًا للناس في العصر الحاضر
  
  الكتاب جميل جداً ومبسط ، ويمكن اعتباره مدخلًا مناسبًا قبل الغوص في فلسفة هيجل بشكل أكثر عمقًا..
• 
  Lea

  I'm so grateful to Singer, I've never understood more Hegel in my life (not that I really tried). Of course, I can't fully comment on the parts where he interprets Hegel, but what he said did make sense. I'd really like a longer book by Singer explaining Hegel - and other philosophers I can't be bothered to read and deconstruct myself - he makes it enjoyable!
• 
  T

  Does what it says on the tin!
  However, reading this should encourage you to actually read the primary texts and not push them aside. The only problem with this text is that it focuses on Hegel's historiography and notion of Geist, leaving out Hegel's ideas on aesthetics.
• 
  W.D. Clarke

  5* of its kind: thoroughly lucid, illuminating, even entertaining: you couldn't ask for more, except more, and then it wouldn't be AVSI, would it? Its procedure is to take you through H's thought on history (and Freedom), mind (and Mind's revelation of itself to itself), and then logic (the dialectic) so that you can see that each element fits into a majestic Whole, like all the limited aspects of Mind itself (incl. us, folks). Religion and (alas, for my purposes) aesthetics are largely sidelined here, but this is as it should be, for Hegel saw philosophy as subsuming religion and art:

  ...to put it exactly as Hegel does, art and religion are different ways in which the absolute idea comprehends itself . (That it is self-comprehension that is involved follows from the fact that human beings are part of the absolute idea.) Philosophy, too, is a way of comprehending the absolute idea, but it is a higher form than art or religion because it grasps it conceptually, and consequently understands not only its own form of comprehension, but the aesthetic and religious forms as well. It is of the essence of the absolute idea to manifest itself in distinct, limited forms, and then to return to itself.(118)

  
  And so I return you to yourself as I to myself, though we are all indubitably part of the Absolute Mind, and shall march forwards and each do our part in all the revealing, comprejending and returning, OK?
• 
  hope mohammed

  لقد استطاع بيتر سينجر ان يدخلني الى عالم افكار هذا الفيسلسوف المثالي وان كان بنبذة مختصرة وقد ارتكز في كتاب المقدمة على شرح مختصر لفلسة التاريخ لهيجل والتي تعني ان تطور اي مجتمع يعتمد على تقدم الوعي بالحرية و استند الى تفصيل ذلك بالتطرق الى الاستناد بامثلة من تاريخ العالم واستدعاء الحضارات و تحليلها تحليلا يعتمد على مدى حرية طبقاتها وامكانية القوانين التيي تتيح هذه الحرية ...
  
  تكلم بشكل مختصر عن مفهوم الفينومونولوجيا ومحاولة تحديد المعنى او المضمون الكلي لشرح هيجل له ..
  
  الكثير من الاختصار في الحديث عن مؤلفاته او بالاحرى محاضراته وتاثيره على الشباب بعده خاصة علاقة ماركس المسنقبلية وتحويل فلسفة التاريخ الى تطبيق عملي .
  
  كتاب جيد يعطيك الخلاصة لكن لاينفع لان تبتدا به لفهم هيجل
• 
  Mahmoud Elnaeem

  يبدو لي أن الفلسفة الهِيجلية يشوبها الكثير من التعقيد .. حتىٰ هذه المقدمة القصيرة التي قصد مؤلفها فك الطلاسم التي ضربها هيجل بنفسه - سيان إذا كان بوعي منه أو لا - علىٰ أفكاره لم تُقدِّم لي ما كنت أنشده رغم إعادة قراءة بعض فصوله لأكثر من مرة
  
  ربما يكون الكتاب المُعنون ( أقدِّم لكَ هيجيل ) مُبسّط أكثر
  
  قرأتُ هيجيل كأساس لدراسة كارل ماركس .. لكن أظن أن ذو اللحية الكثة صعَّب طريق الوصول إليه 😁
  
  "ومهما يكن .. "سأقطع هذا الطريق الطويل إلى آخري.. وإلى آخره
  
  
  
  
• 
  Omar Moustafa

  الكتاب هو عرض لأعمال هيجل وفلسفته والصراحة الكتاب قدر يفسر وبصورة جميلة ومبسطة رغم تعقيد الموضوع
  
  "السعي وراء الحرية هو اساس تغير التاريخ "
  
  هيغيل بدا تحليله للتاريخ بمقارنته بحضارة فارس والحضارة الأسيوية وكان شايف ان الحضارة الاسيوية كانت فيها اكتر ديكتاتورية وحكم مطلق اكتر من ال��ارسية رغم ان الفارسة كانت فيها حكم ثيروقراطي مطلق بردو بس اقل من الاسيوية فكانت الحرية في الوقت داه شبه منعدمة يعني الحرية المطلقة كان وقتها للحاكم بس ، والشعب خاضع للحتمية والتحكم الايتيقي ، ومبيعرفش الخير والشر من نفسه ، ثم جاه اليونانين بمفهومهم للمدنية وديمقراطية ولكن المدنية مكنتش كاملة فكانت متأثرة بقيود العادات المجتمعية ووجود العبيد في الهرم الإجتماعي فبدأ يظهر فلاسفة نقاد زي سقراط ثم إنقلب المجتمع عليه في أخر الأمر فبعد سقوط الحضارة اليونانية وظهور الحضارة الرومانية تحول الأمر ورجع مرة تانية للصرامة في الحكم ولكن مع وجود بعض الحرية الإيتيقية للشعب فكان الشعب يدرك معني الحرية وبيناضل عشانها ثم ظهر المسيحية الي من منظور هيغيل وحدت مفهوم الحرية وساوت الشعب من عبد الي ملك كلهم شبه بعض ، بعدين بدأ يظهر النظام الكنسي ورجع التحكم والعنف وانعدام الحرية الذاتية ترجع مرة تانية فحصل الثورة الفرنسية ثم بدأ يظهر الحرية المطلقة للعقل الي ادي للإرهاب الي حصل بعد الثورة ثم بدأ يحدث تناغم بين العقل المطلق وطبيعة الإنسان البشرية
  
  وبعدين اتكلم عن فينومينولوجيا الوجود عند هيجل وقارنها بلعقل المحض لكانط وانطولوجيا الوجود ليه وذكر أراء هيجل المنافية لكانط في مفهوم العقل المطلق ، وفلسفة الأخلاق ومفهوم الشيء في ذاته عند كانط
  
  بعدين بيتكلم عن الديالكتيك الهيغلي في الصراع الطبقي وعلاقته بالفينومينولوجيا في مرحلة الذاتية وكيفية ظهور الملك والعبد من الوعي الذاتي
  
  في الأخر اتكلم علي تأثير هيجل في الفلسفة المادية الماركسية
• 
  Wafae Reddam

  رغم ما تتسم به أفكار هيجل من صعوبة ولكن الكاتب استطاع تبسيطها بطريقة جيدة .
• 
  Siddharth

  That Hegel does pose a challenge is undeniable. Commentaries on Hegel are studded with references to the ‘Himalayan severity’ of his prose, to his ‘repulsive terminology’, and to the ‘extreme obscurity’ of his thought.
  
  
  …another (commentator), Richard Norman, deals swiftly with this section, saying: ’since I find large parts of it inaccessible, I shall say little about it.
  
  Peter Singer lays out his principal aim in the preface – reader comprehension. To that end, he skips vast swathes of Hegel’s works, takes a circuitous route from some of his later, more accessible books (
  Lectures on the Philosophy of World History and
  Elements of the Philosophy of Right) to "the rocky pinnacles of the Phenomenology" (
  Phenomenology of Spirit) and
  Science of Logic, and then takes the reader back the same route to provide a more unified view of Hegel’s body of thought.
  
  And he succeeds, magnificently. The introduction is extremely accessible, Singer anticipates perfectly where the reader might falter, and usually manages provide a good analogy to pave the way.
  
  The model VSI.
• 
  Felix

  Of the books that I've read in the Very Short Introduction series up till now, I think this one is probably the best. Peter Singer does a great job in breaking up the work of Hegel and making it digestible. That is no easy feat. Beginning with The Philosophy of History, and moving through The Philosophy of Right and then Phenomenology of Spirit, Singer succinctly summarises the propositions of each book, all the while showing in which ways they are connected.
  
  Hegel is much more sort of hippie than his dusty image makes him look. Of course, I don't mean that his biography is filled with marijuana and free love - it isn't at all - but his theories surrounding the nature of reality are not dusty or boring things. For Hegel, reality is something constructed. The collaboration of minds does not simply build a society, it builds a world. It is a profound response to Kant and a startling bold solution to the problems arising from the unreliability of sense-phenomena.
  
  Anyway, this book did everything that I asked of it. As an overview of Hegel's career, I doubt that it can be bested within the word count. I recommend it.
• 
  Thomas

  Clear, concise, and approachable, which is everything Hegel himself is not. Singer cozies up to this notoriously difficult author by starting with his philosophy of history, and this is really smart. Once you see how Hegel views the progress and culmination of history you can see how he employs this method in the march toward "absolute idealism." Hegel is very formalistic; ultimate understanding is a kind of rational structure which humanity gradually builds in an almost predetermined sort of way. The process is the same -- the dialectic -- whether the end-point is ultimate human freedom or perfect knowledge. The genius of Hegel is this process, and Singer outlines it really well. He's not shy to point out the flaws in the system either, which is good, because some of Hegel's conclusions are at best controversial, at worst, kind of nutty.
• 
  Simon Stegall

  I'm not a fan of Singer's thought, but that doesn't mean he's not a smart guy. This is a succinct and clear guide to Hegel's thought that almost fooled me into thinking I could read Hegel myself. Singer does a great job of showing the multiple interpretations of Hegel's ideas, while sticking to the common thread that ties them together.
  
  According to Singer, Hegel's main idea was that the universe (and more specifically, humanity) is constantly progressing through different stages of understanding--not scientific understanding, per se, but a philosophical understanding. The highest form of understanding is when the "mind" (the mind of the universe, aka the combined mind of humanity) comes to understand itself. Religion, art, and most of all, philosophy, are all human movements in which the "mind" engenders itself in order to comprehend itself. But this self-comprehension can only be achieved, Hegel argues, through logic, reasoning, and dialectics. Thus, his famous work, Phenomenology of the Mind.
  
  Hegel was reacting against Kant and his ideas about the possibility of apprehending reality, and one can see how the Existentialists reacted similarly against Hegel's thought. Kierkegaard used his idea of dialectics, but rejected the notion that ultimate comprehension can come through reason alone. I think I side more with Kierkegaard, but that doesn't change the fact that Hegel obviously had a brilliant and dizzying intellect which all subsequent philosophers (especially Kierkegaard) were heavily influenced by.
  
  I went ahead and bought The Phenomenology of Mind for (it occurs to me now) not really any good reason. Maybe I'll have the guts to pick it up one day.
• 
  Kyle van Oosterum

  Hegel is by far one of the worst writers in philosophy. This is a common opinion, amongst all philosophers. He simply can't explain ideas in an intelligible way. Peter Singer does it beautifully and illustratively. He excites the reader with the contextual relevance of Hegelian philosophy and introduces him to Hegel's brilliant philosophy of history which inspired Karl Marx, to change the world as he did. Thus, we might say the most influential philosophers in modern history are Karl Marx and the highly complex Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
• 
  Pooya Kiani

  کتاب کتابِ خوبی بود. ترجمه هم همینطور. بیشتر از جامع و ناظر بودن به موضوع، شیوه‌ی خوبی در برخورد با هگل داشت، که از سخت‌ترین فلاسفه برای خوندنه. به نظرم برای شروع بد نیست، اما مادامی که در مورد هگل چندین کتاب دیگه نخونده‌م صاحبنظر نیستم.
• 
  Carla Hazel

  Author is well versed in Hegel and translates his most seminal ideas coherently and clearly for approach by a beginner.
  Now the foundations are set I can read more complex texts!
• 
  Apio

  I picked this book up to get an overview of Hegel's thought to broaden and deepen my understanding of Stirner and to help in my translation of Stirner's Critics. When I noticed that the author was Peter Singer, best known for his book Animal Liberation and promoter of an expanded version of utilitarian ethics, I had my fears that he would twist his reading of Hegel to fit his ideas. There is no question that he brings his ideas in, and sometimes annoyingly, but I didn't notice anywhere that he seemed to actually twist Hegel's ideas to fit his perspective. Rather, he gave a decent and concise summary of Hegel's thoughts that served my need. I do, however, feel that his choice, both in the general outline of this book, and on a smaller level in certain specific portions, to present Hegel's reasoning from back to front (on the broad level, this is reflected in Singer's choice to present Hegel's social and political perspectives before presenting the metaphysical and logical perspectives upon which these were based) may cause more confusion in understanding Hegel's methodology than whatever light this reversal may throw on his ideas... And since his methodology is as important to his philosophy as the ideas themselves (perhaps more important in terms of Hegel's historical significance), I think that this is a genuine weakness in Singer's book. On the other hand, the book certainly met my needs, leaving now doubt in my mind that while Marx may have stood Hegel on his head (or feet, as Marx himself preferred to put), Stirner pulled the floor out from under Hegel, demolishing his framework (though still using some of the pieces he found helpful in that demolition).
• 
  Vikas Lather

  History of Western philosophy can be described by writings of three extraordinary philosophers- Socrates, Descartes and Hegel- All other philosophers had mostly spent their life proving them wrong.
  
  After Hegel's death, his followers were split into two camp- conservative (which produced no serious thinker) and the other camp of young men with radical leaning known as Young Hegelians who believe in radical vision of resolving the conflicts through synthesis. My hero Karl Marx was from this camp- who in 1844 praised Hegel's Phenomenology of mind for teaching us the labor market conflict; which later became foundation of communism. So in some sense, Hegelian philosophy (communism) gave rise to revolutionary activities around the world for hundreds of years even after his death.
  
  All recent philosophers use 'spirit' as English translation of Geist (German word), which gives Hegel’s philosophy an unfair religious or superstitious flavor. I feel, peter illustrates perfectly, 'mind' is more appropriate translation of Geist.
  
  It would be premature for me to describe myself as Young Hegelian because I believe in strict rationalism and skepticism (which sometimes runs contrary to his philosophy)but it would be safe to say that Hegel is someone whose writings will be consumed copiously by me in coming years.
  
  
• 
  Aditya Narayan

  This is a strikingly effective and entertaining introduction to otherwise obscure and difficult literature of Hegel. From the very initial paragraphs not only was I extremely intrigued into this book but also to the thoughts of Hegel. This book would serve as a starting point for anybody who wants to delve deeper into Hegel's philosophy at some point. Also, he has provided a recommendation for necessary further readings on Hegel including Hegel's own books in a chronological manner which will help the reader develop a better understanding of his ideas. This is a book to which I'll go time and again to get some refresher about Hegel while I try to access Hegel's own obscure world.
• 
  Andrei Vasilachi

  First of all, wow, what a great introduction. Peter Singer did a very good job of summarizing Hegel, who is probably rightly considered as one of the most difficult philosophers in history. Second of all, Hegel’s influence, not only on philosophy, but on history, culture, literature, and politics can’t be understated. All of late 18th to mid 19th century could be described as a Hegelian era, in which his thoughts influenced intellectual and political circles across Europe, for better or worse (some argue that he inspired Marx which then inspired communism…and the rest is history). The time in which Hegel wrote is fascinating too – he finished writing his famous work “Phenomenology of Spirit” (1807) right after the French Revolution and at the height of the First Industrial Revolution. Also, he wrote in what was considered “the golden age of German literature”, being twenty years younger than Goethe and ten years younger than Schiller.
  
  One of the key ideas of Hegel is that he saw history having a purpose, he thought that the human condition “could change from one historical era to another”. That is contrary to Kant, who “thought he could say on purely philosophical grounds what human nature is and always must be. History having a meaning basically suggests that “reflection on our past enables us to discern the direction history is taking, and the destination it will ultimately reach.
  
  “The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.” (p. 15)
  
  In other words, human history is the development of the human mind. He uses the German word “Geist”, which in English translates to something between mind and spirit (sometimes it’s either of them, sometimes it’s both).
  
  Another key idea of Hegel is seeing the development of history through the lens of “thesis – antithesis– synthesis”, which is also called his “dialectical method”, which is a fancy word for a cycle of stability-conflict-resolution.
  
  For example, “Greece was a society based on customary morality, a harmonious society in which citizens identified themselves with the community and had no thought of acting in opposition to it. This customary community forms the starting point of the dialectical movement, known in the jargon as the thesis.” (p. 100)
  
  Then comes the second stage:
  
  “The next stage is for this thesis to show itself to be inadequate or inconsistent. In the case of the community of ancient Greece, this inadequacy is revealed through the questioning of Socrates. The Greeks could not do without independent thought, but the independent thinker is the deadly foe of customary morality. The community based on custom thus collapses in the face of the principle of independent thought. It is now the turn of this principle to develop, which it does under Christianity. The Reformation brings acceptance of the supreme right of individual conscience. The harmony of the Greek community has been lost, but freedom is triumphant. This is the second stage of the dialectical movement. It is the opposite or negation of the first stage, and hence is known as the antithesis.” (pp. 100-102)
  
  Then comes the “last” stage:
  
  “The second stage then also shows itself to be inadequate. Freedom, taken by itself, turns out to be too abstract and barren to serve as the basis for a society. Put into practice, the principle of absolute freedom turns into the Terror of the French Revolution. We can then see that both customary harmony and abstract freedom of the individual are one-sided. They must be brought together, unified in a manner that preserves them, and avoids their different forms of one-sidedness. This results in a third and more adequate stage, the synthesis. In the Philosophy of History, the synthesis in the overall dialectical movement is the German society of Hegel’s time, which he saw as harmonious because it is an organic community, yet preserving individual freedom because it is rationally organized.” (p. 102)
  
  It's interesting that Hegel thought that the Prussian states of his time (which where heavily threatened by the French Revolution) were considered by him to be a synthesis. It does take out some of his credibility, and shows him as a somewhat conformist to his own state. Also, this three-stage process is cyclical, and doesn’t end on a synthesis. Ironically, the synthesis usually becomes the new thesis, and so on. In other words, although there’s progress in history, there’s still room for improvement. And even if the progression of history is not entirely smooth, it doesn’t go backwards either. The gains made in a previous epoch are not lost entirely.
  
  “Often the synthesis, though adequately reconciling the previous thesis and antithesis, will turn out to be onesided in some other respect. It will then serve as the thesis for a new dialectical movement, and so the process will continue.” (p. 102)
  
  Hegel’s criticism for Ancient Greece is the fact that it wasn’t functional without slavery and their tendency to consult an oracle for guidance was not something that “genuinely free people” would allow to be guided by. Instead, they would make their own decisions, using reason. And this is a central point in Hegel’s philosophy:
  
  Reason, in Hegel’s view, is universal, “If we know that all men are mortal and that Socrates was a man, then a law of reasoning tells us that Socrates was mortal. The law of reasoning that tells us this is a universal law – it holds not just for Greeks or for philosophers or even for Earthlings, but for all rational beings.” (p. 40) That’s why Hegel considered reason as the only guiding light through which to build better societies, because only through reason we could justify having a standard that would be agreed by all. The alternative – being guided by our wants and desires, or in other words, the liberal notion of freedom, the “abstract freedom” (the ability to do as we please) will only bring chaos and conflict. This abstract freedom is popular in liberal societies nowadays, which gives blessing to whatever circumstances happen to influence what people prefer. According to this view, to ask what influences our ‘desires’ that we act upon is to write one’s own values into the conception of freedom. In other words, to judge what and why people like something is to negate their real freedom of choice.
  
  Hegel disagrees, and sides with radical economists, who think that this “negative” conception of freedom is absurd and makes an economic system artificial: it artificially creates new preferences so that some may profit by satisfying them (e.g. marketing, advertising).
  
  “[Hegel] never loses sight of the fact that our wants and desires are shaped by the society in which we live, and that this society in turn is a stage in a historical process. Hence the abstract freedom, the freedom to do as we please, is effectively the freedom to be pushed to and from by the social and historical forces of our times.” (p. 38)
  
  You can see his influence on Marx in this quote, although it’s important to note that Marx was much more of a materialist and took Hegel’s view to the extreme – Marx (along with Engels) was part of a group called “Young (or Left) Hegelians” which where a more radical view of Hegel’s philosophy that disagreed with some of Hegel’s conclusions, mainly his acceptance of Christianity, the Prussian state, and the general conditions of his time. They viewed his lack of radicalism as a failure, unlike Orthodox (or Right) Hegelians, who mostly agreed with Hegel’s late philosophy, but whose popularity eventually faded. The more radical Young Hegelians were at the forefront of political debates in the next few decades after Hegel’s death in 1831.
  
  The way in which some of Hegel’s followers turned against him is truly ironic. And if he were to live for another century he’d probably be surprised (or even horrified) to see the culmination of his influence in the form of communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Karl Marx, for example, agreed with Hegel’s account of alienation and the importance of labour, but he then developed his own view of labour under the capitalist system as the key form of alienation:
  
  “To bring about the liberation of humanity, alienated labour must be abolished. To abolish alienated labour, Marx said, it is necessary to abolish private property and the wage system that goes with it: in other words, to institute communism.” (p. 112)
  
  Another important part of understanding Hegel is his similarities and his differences with Kant.
  
  Kant’s achievement of that time was so impressive that many thought that there a few details left to be filled in before he “solved” philosophy once and for all. Kant’s ethic – his moral philosophy – could be summed up as “doing one’s duty for duty’s sake.” (his categorical imperative), because “pure, practical reasoning, independently of particular desires, could only embody the universal element in reasoning.” In other words, the only kind of action that is not the result of our innate or socially conditioned desires is action that is done according to reason. Hence, I must duty my duty because it is my duty, and in this view freedom is (paradoxically?) doing one’s duty. It seems counter-intuitive because in modern terms we associate duty with obedience to conventional rules, like the army, state, or family. Kant’s notion of duty is more broad. To him, freedom consists in following one’s conscience.
  
  Now, up to this point, Hegel agrees with Kant (that we are not free when we act upon our desires). But then he starts criticizing his ethical theory, by raising a few objections. First, Kant is never specific about what we should do:
  
  “This is not because Kant himself lacked interest in such practical questions, but because his entire theory insists that morality must be based on pure practical reasoning, free from any particular motives. As a result, the theory can yield only the bare, universal form of the moral law; it cannot tell us what our specific duties are. This universal form is, Hegel says, simply a principle of consistency or non-contradiction. If we have no point to start from, it cannot get us anywhere.” (p. 42)
  
  His second objection to Kant is that “the Kantian position divides man against himself, locks reason into an eternal conflict with desire, and denies the natural side of man any right to satisfaction. Our natural desires are merely something to be suppressed, and Kant gives to reason the arduous, if not impossible, task of suppressing them.” (p. 44)
  
  In other words, Kant doesn’t tell us why we should be moral:
  
  “We are told that we should do our duty for its own sake, and that to ask for any other reason is to depart from the pure and free motivation morality demands; but this is no answer at all, just a refusal to allow the question to be raised.” (p. 44)
  
  In Hegel’s view, one of French Revolution’s main failings was that they understood reason in a purely abstract and universal sense, and it was “the political embodiment of the mistake Kant made in his purely abstract and universal conception of duty, which would not tolerate the natural side of human beings.” The French government’s radicalism, which culminated in “The Reign of Terror”, when the state saw individuals as enemies and put them to death, was disastrous; but it also allowed us to learn that “to build a state on a truly rational basis we must not raze everything to the ground and attempt to start again completely from scratch. We must search for what is rational in the existing world and allow that rational element to have its fullest expression. In this manner we can build on the reason and virtue that already exists in a community.” (p. 49)
  
  Hegel further expands on an idea of a “rational (or organic) community”, which is similar to “unplanned” ancient communities (as opposed to modern suburban copy cats and planned buildings) that grew up with custom as their basis, “made wiser by the past and ready to find rationality in a world that is the result of practical adaption rather than deliberate planning.” (p. 50)
  
  And then, unlike the contemporary view, Hegel thought a rational community to be a constitutional monarchy. This to me seems a bit naïve, and more of a wishful thinking than the actual unfolding of a constitutional monarchy, but that’s just me.
  
  This kind of state, and this kind of community was, in essence, Hegel’s solution to the overly-abstract definition of law given earlier by Kant, “because the universal law is embodied in the concrete institutions of the state, it ceases to be abstract and empty. It prescribes to me the specific duties of my station and role in the community.” (p. 53)
  
  We are free only when our choice is based on reason, or in other words, to base a state on individual likes and preferences (which are created and manipulated by external forces like marketing) is akin to “handing over the destiny of a community to chance.”
  
  Again, I can see the logic in this idea, but I can also see the danger in it. Who is to decide what is rational? Reason? Yes. But can’t our perceptions of what is rational be manipulated as well? Can’t a ruler justify his doctrine and suppress other voices because his solution is the only “rational” one? Can’t rationality be misused? It surely can, and I think this is a big problem that I don’t see an immediate solution for. Hegel’s rational community still seems like a utopia to me – one that Marx took too far, in my opinion.
  
  A very simplified summary of Hegel’s thought would be this: “Absolute knowledge is reached when mind realizes that what it seeks to know is itself”, or in other words, there is no “beyond” for the mind to know, because mind constitutes reality. Reality is the creation of the mind – this is a view that is in opposition with Kant who thought that there is a “thing-in-itself” out there in the world that can never be grasped by the limited human reason.
  
  Personally, I sense danger in his idea of “perfecting” the world. It seems like it inevitably leads to Utopian, totalitarian ideas; and I’m not saying it’s Hegel’s responsibility that his ideas may lead to that (like I wouldn’t say that Nietzsche is at fault that his ideas were misused by his sister to gain popularity among Nazis), but it also doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have anticipated that his “rational community” can lead to totalitarianism.
  
  In any case, Hegel is undeniably one of the most influential modern philosophers, so he should be studied by many, even (or especially) if you don't agree with him.
  
  P.S. My original review of this book is much longer, but it didn't fit here on GR so I had to shorten it (ironic, but kind of appropriate considering that Hegel was barely intelligible himself).