Hegel's 'Stupid' Question to Schopenhauer

SCHOPENHAUER'S WORKS:

Schopenhauer’s work is notoriously for constantly and repeatedly dunking on Hegel.

He said Hegel’s philosophy stupefied an entire generation, maintained that posterity would look down on Hegel as a “monument to German stupidity”, providing later generations with endless laughter. His “school of dulness”, “center of ignorance” was the greatest example of the corruption of academic philosophy.

Where does this hatred come from? Generally, it’s agreed that Schopenhauer hates Hegel for personal reasons, but also for philosophical reasons.

The two men had a bit of an altercation when Schopenhauer had to pass an exam in order to teach at the University of Berlin. Hegel asked him a question on “animal functions” but used the term wrongly. Schopenhauer corrected him, and the professor of medicine and biology concurred. This little incident proved to Schopenhauer that Hegel was a charlatan, unable to use a philosophical term in the correct manner.

Another possible source of hatred was Schopenhauer’s envy: we know he deeply desired fame but was largely ignored up until the very end of his life. Contrast this with Hegel, who was a philosophical superstar and world-famous almost immediately.

[WeltgeistYT]

Please like & subscribe if you want to support the channel. Back on Wednesday with long-form content!

[georgepantzikis]

This doesn't really get to the fundamental point Hegel was making. Schopenhauer simply ignored Hegel's point because he misused a medical term. Hegel's point was that Schopenhauer used the term "reason" to describe the driver of both human and animal actions. Hegel is pointing out that the "reason" of an animal isn't actually a reason but simply the result of material contingency, whereas humans, because we have self-consciousness, can actually relate our thinking back to ourselves, and thus analyse our system of drives. For Schopenhauer animal and human consciousness is basically identical in quality and differs only in degree of strength. While for Hegel there is a qualitative difference birthed by the fact that humans are self-conscious.

[JeffRebornNow]

I have never read Hegel but I've read a lot of Schopenhauer. The latter writes so beautifully. Even reading him in an English translation one can tell that he's an aesthetic miracle among philosophers. When I tried to read "The Phenomenology of Spirit" I got a headache and quit.

[zardoz]

This does not make any sense. At least not in English. Maybe the correct meaning was lost in translation, or incorrectly translated.

[eternalextrapolations]

I think there is a mistranslation going on here with whatever the real German word being used by the philosophers was, or what the video creator understands it to be, and the English word "animal" in the term "animal functions". It seems like the same word is being used for two different simultaneous meanings, where "animalistic" or "animal urge" might be more meaningful in one.

[Emileave]

Worst part about a lot of scholars is acting like we are not animals for having better motor functions. Nope, we just innovate better. We are still animals

[vaibhav]

Hegelians seething. Schopenhauer ftw 🐐

[Eli-nsuw]

Hegel would have been selling online courses about the law of attraction and manifestation if he was alive today

[markoslavicek]

If only conscious movements are 'animal functions', then what are unconscious movements? Plant functions?

[denniskozevnikoff]

I’m very confused.. how do you know about this supposed encounter? I read almost all of Schopenhauer and I don’t remember this at all..

[ziggityfriggity]

Call me crazy but that portrait of young Schopenhauer is just not matching up with the actual photos we have of him.. are we sure that’s a legitimate portrait of Schopenhauer??

[machinicassemblage]

this is idealist rationalism (the space of giving and asking for reasons about everything ie everything happens for a reason and the human mind can deduce these reasons )vs materialist nihilism ( everything happens for no reason, it’s just irrational and chaotic libidinal flows that underpin a material reality that doesn’t need humans to function)

[tommynes]

There are 7 essential functions of animals:
Feeding: Herbivore = eats plants. ...
Respiration: Take in O2 and give off CO2. ...
Circulation: Very small animals rely on diffusion. ...
Excretion: Primary waste product is ammonia. ...
Response: Receptor cells = sound, light, external stimuli. ...
Movement: ...
Reproduction:

[spiderjerusalem]

could you do one about Hegel meets Gauss? Thanks

[gerardmichaelburnsjr.]

I definitely don't agree with everything schopenhauer said, but his essays contain great insights, especially into unethical debating tricks.

[umaiswani]

Hahaha and this story was told my schopenhauer.
He really used to hate hegal

[swordofsteel]

I don't really understand the question

[alddybalddy]

functions of the nutritive soul are in fact functions of the sensitive soul, since the latter includes the former as a part. Hegel was right.

[agecoochek-boqr]

It is a brillant question, which Schop gets wrong. The horse is preconsciously captured by something. It is why the horse is truth.

[StephenS-]

Broken leg?











The