No system simply refuted
Is the history of philosophy a graveyard of failed opinions, or one argument still going on? If every great system grasped a stage of the truth, none of them was simply wrong.
Hegel opens against the view that the systems form a gallery of opinions, even follies, proving only that nobody was ever right. Philosophy contains no opinions, he answers; the systems are stages of one line of thought working itself out, each grasping a principle that had to be reached. None is simply refuted, only as the last word, and the latest contains all before it, which is why no one can be a Platonist or a Stoic now. Historians who miss this hear every note and no harmony.
- history of philosophy
- philosophical method
- truth
- dialectics
- spirit
- concept
- thought
- reason
- speculative philosophy
Enter a dialogue
- Learned historians of philosophy, you say, are like animals that heard every note of a piece of music but never its harmony. What escaped them?
- If the latest philosophy contains everything before it, why should anyone still read Plato rather than just the newest system?
- Someone rejects every philosophy because each is only one philosophy, like a patient refusing cherries and plums because neither is 'fruit'. What does that person miss?
- Like the 'old mole' in Hamlet, you say, the human spirit burrows underground until it breaks the crust above. What, then, is a philosopher's task?
- Calling every past system a necessary stage flatters the present as the goal. Why was your own age not just one more stage?