Why was teleology basically taken for granted in Hegel's philosophy?
I've only read books *about* Hegel, but it seems central to his system that the world is tending towards some goal, some end point, and that this end point makes sense of all the intermediary stages leading up to it. Was it merely an assumption on his part that the universe has an intrinsic endpoint that it develops towards? And was this assumption not questioned because, at that stage of natural science, it seemed incontestable that nature contains some beings (organisms) that can't be understood except from a teleological point of view? Is this assumption - and thus the Hegelian architecture built upon it - obsolete in the light of contemporary, especially evolutionary, science?
>>441675
I don't know much about Hegel's ideas, but if he was suggesting >the universe has an intrinsic endpoint that it develops towards
Then I'd agree that the modern understanding of evolution refutes this point
>>441719
The question wasn't whether it is true, but why Hegel conceives of the world this way in his philosophy.
The reason people only read books *about* Hegel instead of directly by him is that he writes so obscure that it's hard to grasp him if you read him in German and beyond your reach if you read him translated, to the degree where several Hegelian professors can have very different opinions on what he actual meant.
Still, from *my* understanding, it isn't about material objects but cultural progress reaching a point where ideas have been proposed, opposed, and created new ideas to the point where every possible idea have been discussed and history finally "understands itself".
To compare it to evolutionary theory; species may rise and fall but by the end, they too will have dwelled on the different concept until all of them are extinguished and all that's left is the Hegelian end-game.
>>441728
I'd guess that it was due to general acceptance of this form of teleology in society at the time, and that it just seemed unintuitive (or simply perceived as false), and the assumption was thought to be close to unanimously agreed upon at the time (and for the second time I don't know a lot specifics about Hegel)
>>441744
and that it just seemed unintuitive (or simply perceived as false) to oppose this view*
>>441728
>but why Hegel conceives of the world this way in his philosophy.
Because his time was the first to have at least a general grasp of history of all civilization. How could he resist to find the laws of endgame there?
>>442509
But I don't see how it follows from this that those laws are teleological; it seems equally plausible that history (and the whole natural history of the universe too, since Hegel's system includes that too) could operate fundamentally by efficient causality instead.
Unless, as maybe you intended to say, Hegel's teleological principles were the conclusion he drew from studying the course of world history - principles that were later expanded to include the course of natural history too. But I always got the impression that he presupposed his teleological principles, using them to guide his inquiry rather than them being the result of it.
>>443332
every philosopher presupposes concepts to advance their main thought
>>443536
The question is WHY did Hegel presuppose such concepts?
>>441742
Plenty of people actually do read Hegel. Stop perpetuating this bad meme. Kojeve was the worst thing to happen to philosophy last century.
>>441719
>Then I'd agree that the modern understanding of evolution refutes this point
Hegelians don't really like evolution. Anyway, evolution can't explain why sharks haven't changed or even why we have eyes.
>>443540
because his philosophy has an endgame in mind, for hegel their is supposed to be an end to history in which the clash of ideology no longer exists. hegel's philosophy demands an end point to further the larger system of this thought (entry level hegelian)
>>444760
Hegel didn't write about the end of ideologies, he wrote about the self-resolution of contradictions through social progress.
>>444606
Interesting - any examples of specific thinkers?
Aristotle was basically God until existentialism happened, than he was retired.
>>441675
>I've only read books *about* Hegel, but it seems central to his system that the world is tending towards some goal, some end point, and that this end point makes sense of all the intermediary stages leading up to it
the prussian state. Literally. Which incidentally it's also the main reason for hegel's success
Enlightenment philosophy presupposes teleology basically across the board. 20th century postmodernism is precisely a reaction to that
>>444606
> evolution can't explain why sharks haven't changed
According to evolutionary theory, some populations, like horseshoe crabs and Coelecanths, have adapted so well to their respective environments that they experience barely any natural selection to drive the evolution of new traits. It's not that these ppulations have never changed - only that they basically stopped changing long ago, while most other species have been changing more drastically. If we found fossilized horseshoe crabs and Coelecanths and sharks preserved alongside the fossils of the earliest single-celled organisms, then THAT'S something evolution wouldn't be able to explain.
>>447764
Interesting that Spinoza was an exception to that Enlightenment tendency, and yet was such an influence on Hegel.
