The method against the system
How can a philosophy be both finished and false, and yet contain the most revolutionary idea of its age? Engels splits Hegel in two and keeps only the half that works against him.
Hegel's system, Engels argues, was closed, complete and therefore false — a claim to final truth that no growing knowledge could honour. But his method was the revolutionary part: the view of reality as a process in which nothing is permanent or sacred, everything arising and passing away. The system and the method are at war, and the method undermines the closed edifice that houses it. Engels' move is to discard the conservative system and rescue the dialectic, turning Hegel's own instrument against Hegel. It is the first step on the road that led him and Marx out of German idealism entirely.
- dialectics
- idealism
- hegelianism
- metaphysics
- abstraction
- intellectual history
- epistemology
- historical materialism
Enter a dialogue
- Prussia's king took Hegel's 'all that is real is reasonable' as a blessing on his rule. Why did you read it as saying every established order must fall?
- Hegel taught that everything develops, yet held that nature never changes in time, while geology and embryology showed it does. What made his system betray his method?
- Someone dreams of one final system that settles every question. Why is that, you argue, a task for all humanity over time, not one mind?
- Hegel treated the real world as the unfolding of an eternal Idea. You stood that on its feet, making ideas pictures of things. What does that change?
- You keep Hegel's idea that nothing is final and throw out his finished system. Is that an honest reading or just taking the parts you like?