Hegel and German Idealism[edit]

If anyone actually goes to work on this page and later wants someone to look over additions pertaining to Hegel or German Idealism, please just tag me. I can probably fix any conspicuous errors and provide supporting citations from scholarly sources with little trouble.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Absolute (philosophy" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Absolute (philosophy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Absolute (philosophy until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the time[edit]

Except between 04.15 and 05.37 am? Other formulation please! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... what? Veverve (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German article as source? General incompleteness[edit]

There's some good material on the German entry on this topic that could easily be incorporated. (Material from this article could also be usefully incorporated into that article, for that matter.) It is, however, all philosophical, not religious or theological.

If this entry sits here for too long without anyone adding anything more about the theological usage of the term, I would propose, at minimum editing, the lead accordingly—if not also again considering deletion. I leave this entirely up to others however.

(My only interest here is to ensure the article does not misrepresent Hegel, but I do not believe that his concept deserves its own entry, which right now is almost what it is.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this entry sits here for too long without anyone adding anything more about the theological usage of the term, I would propose, at minimum editing, the lead accordingly—if not also again considering deletion: why? The topic is notable. Veverve (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only because, in its current state, it is mostly redundant with the entry on Hegel. That is harmless, but it does not benefit the community.
I am sure it is true that theologians and others also use the term and do so in different ways (for instance, to refer to an entity, which Hegel's term does not), but none of this is discussed.
So, please—someone add that!
As I said, though, I am happy for the article to sit here harmlessly. I only point out that if it deserves to exist as its own thing, it barely, if at all, makes that case in its current form.
If anyone takes issue with the article's treatment of the term "absolute" as it is used by Hegel or in the German Idealist tradition, please do tag me here so we can discuss. That, however, is the extent of my interest in the article. My comment above is only to point out that there is very little else here to discuss. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

@PatrickJWelsh: Hi, there. I'm aware that all German nouns are capitalized. However, the noun is clearly widely capitalized in English as well, in a variety of sources. Regardless of whether this should be the case or not, do you have any evidence it is generally frowned upon? In my experience, in fact, it is a convention "generally followed" for this term in English. I appreciate you providing the view of one of Hegel's recent translators at least, but does that override the general norm? I've also seen it capitalized in reference to other German and even British idealists; for example, see A. C. Grayling's The History of Philosophy or Thelma Z. Lavine's From Socrates to Sartre. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two presses publishing new translations of Hegel (by several different translators, working autonomously) are Cambridge and OUP. None of these volumes puts caps on "absolute." This is also the practice in what remains the best translation of the Encyclopedia Logic, which is published by Hackett.
A quick spot check indicates that it is not capitalized in articles published in either of the two English-language journals dedicated to Hegel, The Owl of Minerva and The Hegel Bulletin.
I could find another translator or scholar commenting on this, but I think most people in the field today just operate according to the rules of English grammar without much by way of further discussion. It's kind of weird, imo, to have to include even one source to support this.
To be clear, I am sure that there are non-Hegelian and neo-Hegelian contexts that require caps. (Quite probably it is the influence of the British Idealists that led early translators to impose caps on "the absolute" and its many near-synonyms in Hegel's philosophy.)
If this doesn't satisfy you, could you say what would? I know the scholarship quite well and am sure I can meet any reasonable standard.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thought on this. I'm pretty sure the reason people care about capitalization is because the use of caps biases towards (or against) an interpretation that is more-or-less conventionally theologically Christian. Hegel identified as a Lutheran, but his concept of the divine is non-standard, more Greek than Christian. In particular, it is not a supreme being or entity of any kind; that is, it is not a proper noun any more than, for instance, "truth."
Wikipedia should be neutral on this dispute (to the extent it is even disputed) by observing the normal conventions of English in translations from other languages. So I'm pretty sure his use of "absolute" should be rendered in lower case—even if I am wrong about the empirical question of a scholarly majority and/or the textual/philosophical question of how best to interpret Hegel.
Also, I'm moving the Inwood citation down to be an endnote. If the article ever expands and inconsistencies of capitalization become a large enough issue to merit its own section, please someone just tag me and I'll see if I can find something better to contribute on this front. (The 2018 Inwood citation is admittedly imperfect in that I don't think Hegel ever uses "absolute" in a non-technical sense. But to refer to the practices of university presses and journals as I do above would be considered an impermissible synthesis of original research. It's just a hard claim to source—to say nothing about establishing burden of proof.)
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think you've done a satisfying job explaining everything above. I legitimately had just only ever seen it capitalized and assumed this was more about its technical metaphysical use than any infiltration from German-language literary conventions. The sources you point to, though, are convincing. I am a person who can be swayed by genuine thoughtful discussion! I also think your new Inwood-referring note referring explicitly to the capitalization question is a smart move for others like me, who are initially baffled. Would you mind me moving it to though to the first sentence? Wolfdog (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to have addressed your concerns! By all means, do freely move or otherwise edit my contributions to improve the article according to your judgment.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose moving it to the first sentence, as the article is not about Hegel or Hegel's use of the word. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you plan on adding footnotes on every capitalisation of every philosopher of the word "absolute"? Why must the reader be aware of Hegel's capitalisation and disagreements among his translators, in the lede of a broad article? Veverve (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Well, for one thing, 3/4 of this article is about Hegel. 2) I've already explained to Patrick above how it's commonly capitalized even outside of Hegelian contexts. Perhaps your implication here is correct that I should reflect that in the note; I'll make that change. Here are links to some credible sources, which use a capitalized "A", in relation to thinking other than Hegel's: Indian philosophy, Schelling, British idealism, etc. 3) No, of course I'm not going to be adding footnotes on every capitalisation of every philosopher. What on earth are you talking about? 4) In answer to why make readers aware of capitalization conventions (in a footnote, I'll remind you, which is hardly cluttering), we do this on other pages too, to acquaint readers with such conventions. Wikipedia is a place of learning; not sure how to explain it much deeper than that. See the lead sections of pages like Theory of Forms or Demotic (Egyptian) or Gal (unit). Wolfdog (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving non-Hegel/idealistic content to Ultimate reality page[edit]

It seems like this article should only be its Hegel and idealist content, and that its Indian philosophy or other religious content should be moved to ultimate reality. I would be happy to expand that article into a more comprehensive one. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like this article should only be its Hegel and idealist content: why do you thinks so? As far as I am concerned, this concept is broader than the concept developped by Hegel. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not some expert on this topic, but it seems like more of a Western philosophy term than a religious one, and the word is extremely connected to Hegel. If the Indian religious content should stay, I think it should be fleshed out more. Right now, I am trying to build up the ultimate reality article (which to me, at least, is about the same idea as the absolute, but in a religious or cosmic sense instead of an continental philosophical one). I like the German version of the article, which goes through the various philosophers who wrote about the concept. I think this article should look like Plotinus-Spinoza-Hegel-Kant, and the ultimate reality article should look like Hinduism-Taoism-Christianity because of the associations of their titles. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Veverve (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories