What do you think?
Rate this book
Hegel Et l'Etat: Cinq Conferences (Problemes & Controverses)
What kind of political philosopher was Hegel? In what ways was he right and wrong, and how much does it matter? To what extent can he be held responsible for the factions that came after him? Was he the founder of modern revolutionary theory, the great conservative champion of the Prussian militarist state, or a philosopher with equal appeal to left and right?
The controversy surrounding such questions is fed both by the facts of Hegel's life and by the immense range of views expressed in his writings and lectures. In Hegel and the State Eric Weil reviews these disputes, their philosophic underpinnings, and their historical consequences, providing an introduction to the breadth of Hegel's thoughts about politics as well as a reliable guide through its twists, turns, and detours. First published in 1950, Hegel and the State has become one of the few classics of Hegel studies. It is now available for the first time in English translation in an edition that includes Weil's closely related essay, "Marx and the Philosophy of Right," an examination of Marx's most direct confrontation with Hegel's philosophy.
The controversy surrounding such questions is fed both by the facts of Hegel's life and by the immense range of views expressed in his writings and lectures. In Hegel and the State Eric Weil reviews these disputes, their philosophic underpinnings, and their historical consequences, providing an introduction to the breadth of Hegel's thoughts about politics as well as a reliable guide through its twists, turns, and detours. First published in 1950, Hegel and the State has become one of the few classics of Hegel studies. It is now available for the first time in English translation in an edition that includes Weil's closely related essay, "Marx and the Philosophy of Right," an examination of Marx's most direct confrontation with Hegel's philosophy.
118 pages, Perfect Paperback
First published June 29, 1998
1 person is currently reading
63 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 24, 2020
Eric Weill offers us an apology for Hegel, as neither reactionary monster nor incoherent mystic of popular misconception. But this framing, of taming the man for modern liberal sensibilities, leads him into superficial digressions (eg Hegel’s critique of the general will becomes a criticism of ethno-nationalism, rather than a more fundamental treatment of the relationship between a people and their politics).
I see two significant aspects of Weil on Hegel on the State: 1. That abstract ideals like freedom, morality, etc, only have Fully meaningful content insofar as they are socially instatiated (hence its meaningless to talk of freedom against the state... what is “freedom”, anyway - the will and the means for reason to achieve an end?), and 2. To become “objective” ( for which I read, Habermasianly, intersubjective) reason must be instatiated in a state, or more accurately the previsible oncoming state in its self (rather than actually existing states), as only through a universal institution that accounts for all desired and realizable individual ends can each rational will know its (Pareto?) optimum golden rule universalizable instantiation.
I think I see what he’s getting at, but to me this talk of Objectivity and Rationality is a little suspect, and the state is just one relatively effective tool for managing the perennial coalitional Darwinian struggle for status. But maybe if I understood Hegel a little better that would make me a Hegelian
I see two significant aspects of Weil on Hegel on the State: 1. That abstract ideals like freedom, morality, etc, only have Fully meaningful content insofar as they are socially instatiated (hence its meaningless to talk of freedom against the state... what is “freedom”, anyway - the will and the means for reason to achieve an end?), and 2. To become “objective” ( for which I read, Habermasianly, intersubjective) reason must be instatiated in a state, or more accurately the previsible oncoming state in its self (rather than actually existing states), as only through a universal institution that accounts for all desired and realizable individual ends can each rational will know its (Pareto?) optimum golden rule universalizable instantiation.
I think I see what he’s getting at, but to me this talk of Objectivity and Rationality is a little suspect, and the state is just one relatively effective tool for managing the perennial coalitional Darwinian struggle for status. But maybe if I understood Hegel a little better that would make me a Hegelian
Displaying 1 of 1 review