Also he was wrong about whatever the hell he was talking about in The Science of Logic.
"Also have I told you how 18th century German is objectively the best language? Again, philosophically speaking, of course."
Hegel's philosophy of history states that history is a kind of dialectal progression towards "the consciousness of freedom". What this meant is that each generation struggles to become more and more free, until eventually the reach the perfectly rational society of freedom. Then, rather amazingly, he concluded that this process had more or less concluded and that they were living in such a society in 18th century Prussia, under a Constitutional Monarchy, which was the final form of society. Some people claim this was to avoid the censures, but as he got older he got quite conservative in many areas, so it's hard to say.
Hegel did recognize that a large part of society, namely the uneducated poor who had no real hope of advancement, which he called "the rabble", were excluded from political and social influence, and more or less condemned to live and die as poor laborers (Prussia was just transitioning from Feudalism to Capitalism at this time). However, he seemed to not really be too bothered by this. In addition, rather amazingly, he seemed to not think this progression of the "consciousness of freedom" would ever apply to women, and he seemed to think that Democracy was less free than a Monarchy (although in his conception the Monarch would have very little real power). He also expounded many theories for why such a consciousness of freedom had failed to arrive in places such as Asia and African, and let's just say, well...that not all of his ideas aged so well.
Hegel did recognize that a large part of society, namely the uneducated poor who had no real hope of advancement, which he called "the rabble", were excluded from political and social influence, and more or less condemned to live and die as poor laborers (Prussia was just transitioning from Feudalism to Capitalism at this time). However, he seemed to not really be too bothered by this. In addition, rather amazingly, he seemed to not think this progression of the "consciousness of freedom" would ever apply to women, and he seemed to think that Democracy was less free than a Monarchy (although in his conception the Monarch would have very little real power). He also expounded many theories for why such a consciousness of freedom had failed to arrive in places such as Asia and African, and let's just say, well...that not all of his ideas aged so well.
Hegel's philosophy of history states that history is a kind of dialectal progression towards "the consciousness of freedom". What this meant is that each generation struggles to become more and more free, until eventually the reach the perfectly rational society of freedom. Then, rather amazingly, he concluded that this process had more or less concluded and that they were living in such a society in 18th century Prussia, under a Constitutional Monarchy, which was the final form of society. Some people claim this was to avoid the censures, but as he got older he got quite conservative in many areas, so it's hard to say.
Hegel did recognize that a large part of society, namely the uneducated poor who had no real hope of advancement, which he called "the rabble", were excluded from political and social influence, and more or less condemned to live and die as poor laborers (Prussia was just transitioning from Feudalism to Capitalism at this time). However, he seemed to not really be too bothered by this. In addition he somehow seemed to not think this progression of the "consciousness of freedom" would ever apply to women, and he seemed to think that Democracy was less free than a Monarchy (although in his conception the Monarch would have very little real power). He also expounded many theories for why such a consciousness of freedom had failed to arrive in places such as Asia and African, and let's just say, well...that not all of his ideas aged so well.
Hegel did recognize that a large part of society, namely the uneducated poor who had no real hope of advancement, which he called "the rabble", were excluded from political and social influence, and more or less condemned to live and die as poor laborers (Prussia was just transitioning from Feudalism to Capitalism at this time). However, he seemed to not really be too bothered by this. In addition he somehow seemed to not think this progression of the "consciousness of freedom" would ever apply to women, and he seemed to think that Democracy was less free than a Monarchy (although in his conception the Monarch would have very little real power). He also expounded many theories for why such a consciousness of freedom had failed to arrive in places such as Asia and African, and let's just say, well...that not all of his ideas aged so well.
Angela Davis is a philosopher and activist who wrote "Are Prisons Absolete?", one of the best known works in the prison absolisionist movement. Prison abolitionists, unlike liberal reformers who merely want to create more civilized prisons, want to do away with the concept that a large portion of the population needs to be locked away at all. Of course, this process involves a lot more than just releasing every prisoner immediately, and seeks to abolish the systems which make the prison necessary in the first place, such as poverty, inequality, homelessness, and lack of education.
All of the liberal positions were taken direction from Joe Biden's justice reform platform.
All of the liberal positions were taken direction from Joe Biden's justice reform platform.
Angela Davis is a philosopher and activist who wrote "Are Prisons Obsolete?", one of the best known works in the prison abolitionist movement. Prison abolitionists, unlike liberal reformers who merely want to create more civilized prisons, want to do away with the concept that a large portion of the population needs to be locked away at all. Of course, this process involves a lot more than just releasing every prisoner immediately, and seeks to abolish the systems which make the prison necessary in the first place, such as poverty, inequality, homelessness, and lack of education.
All of the liberal positions were taken direction from Joe Biden's justice reform platform.
All of the liberal positions were taken direction from Joe Biden's justice reform platform.
Would people from other cultures imagine a society more similar to their system? Yes, but I come from the correct system, so I'm the one who is correct.
Rawls famous Original Position thought experiment asks us to imagine a bargaining game to come up with the rules of society behind a "veil of ignorance", that is to say, without knowing anything about ourselves. The idea being this will allow us to come up with just rules to govern society that don't favor anyone. Rather remarkably, Rawls thought the result of this would be an extremely similar society to the one he was in, with a few adjustments to make things more fair. Robert Paul Wolff, the other philosopher in the comic, whose lectures on Rawls you can find here on YouTube, thought this was more or less because tenured philosophy professors, who live quite comfortable privileged lives, tend to be conservative about changes to society. He thought Rawls was more or less using the thought experiment, ironically given its nature, to defend the status quo from which he personally benefited. He thought many other people throughout history have risked their lives for justice, and if you asked them, they might imagine much more radical changes from an original position, such as an anarchist society. Also, presumably if you asked people from an anarchist or communist society to enter the thought experiment, they would not want to reinvent market capitalism.
It should be noted, however, that later in life Rawls did defend some form of market socialism, where the economy more or less resembles what we have now but companies are structured as cooperatives where they are owned by their workers. He was even open to more democratic control of production. However, even this is a far stretch from Wolff's view of ultimately abolishing hierarchy, property, money, and the market itself.
It should be noted, however, that later in life Rawls did defend some form of market socialism, where the economy more or less resembles what we have now but companies are structured as cooperatives where they are owned by their workers. He was even open to more democratic control of production. However, even this is a far stretch from Wolff's view of ultimately abolishing hierarchy, property, money, and the market itself.