Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
First, Schopenhauer and Hegel have different starting points. For Hegel, the essence of the world is expressed by the Absolute Idea, and one of the main theses is the thesis of the identity of being and thinking. For Schopenhauer, thinking creates only the world of representation, and the true reality of the world (will) is non-rational.
Secondly, Schopenhauer scolds the followers of Hegel for either not understanding Kant or not agreeing with Kant, considering the concepts of space and time deducible from experience. In his work On the Will in Nature, he writes::
“Others, however, who are part of our German “philosophical craft” go in their quest to free themselves from Kant, who is so contrary to their goals: they do not directly argue with his philosophy, but try to destroy the foundations on which it is built, but at the same time they are so abandoned by all the gods and every faculty of judgment that they attack a priori truths that are as old as Such is the courage of these gentlemen. Unfortunately, I only know of three […] of them; I fear that there are others involved in this and with incredible audacity to believe that void comes a posteriori, as a consequence, as a simple ratio of items in it, claiming that space and time is experiential in origin and belong to the body only through our perception of coexistence of bodies next to each other there is a space and thanks to our perception changes one after another there is a time (sancta simplicitas!) (Holy simplicity! as if the words “next to each other” and” after each other ” can have a meaning without preceding and giving them meaning contemplations of space and time…”
In summary, Schopenhauer criticizes Hegel and his followers for giving thinking an ontological meaning, reducing reality to a world that is constructed by thinking. Thus, according to Schopenhauer, they turned philosophy into uncritical dogmatism. To illustrate, let's take another extended quote, this time from the work “The World as Will and Representation”:
“…in philosophical reflections, surprisingly, only what everyone has thought out and researched for themselves is later used for the future by others, and not what was intended for others from the very beginning. In the first case, our reflections are distinguished above all by absolute honesty: we do not try to deceive ourselves and do not give ourselves empty nuts; this is why all sophistry and all empty talk disappear, and each period written immediately rewards the effort spent on reading it. This is why my writings so clearly bear the stamp of honesty and sincerity on their brows, that in this alone they differ sharply from the works of the three famous sophists of the post – Kantian period: I am constantly found on the point of reflection, that is, reasonable discussion and honest presentation, and I am never found on the path of inspiration, which is called intellectual contemplation, or absolute thinking (its real name is Working in this spirit, and constantly observing how the false and the bad are universally recognized, how Fichte and Schelling's nonsense and Hegel's charlatanism are highly respected, I have long since abandoned the approval of my contemporaries. It is impossible that modern society, which for twenty years proclaimed the greatest of philosophers a certain Hegel, that intellectual caliban, and proclaimed it so loudly that it echoed all over Europe-it is impossible that it seduces with its approval the one who observed it. It no longer has wreaths of honor to distribute, its praise is corrupt, and its censure is worthless.”
See above, it's all set out there (play school without me). However, I would not call this criticism exhaustive, because Hegel's definitions, which have become a popular philosophical genre, do not stand up to any criticism, not so much because of emptiness, as Hegel Himself put it about his philosophy (see “Who thinks Abstractly”), but because of their extraordinary breadth and lack of concreteness, i.e. they do not meet the requirement for any definition.