In response to the Tue02Mar04 post by Bob Fanelli:

> Paul said,
>
> "Before one can discuss texts, Beat, one must first demonstrate
> that she can read the texts in question. That is not so easy
> with Hegel as with other writers. That is why, for example,
> some threads do not deal with Hegel's texts directly, but try
> to form opinions about Hegel based on secondary texts (e.g.
> Beiser)."
>
> I don't agree. Secondary texts, if accurate, can be profound.
> Secondary texts have Hegelian quotes in them, at times.
> The fact that it is a secondary text does not mean that it
> automatically has no validity, especially when it deals with
> Hegel's writings.

Who are you debating, Bob? Nobody here said that secondary
texts are all invalid. Yet I maintain that if one neglects
Hegel's texts in favor of secondary texts, that is ridiculous
when the point is to clarify what Hegel himself said.

> Sometimes I get the feeling that Hegel wrote like Joyce
> did in Ulysses, planning his next paragraph in a way that
> deliberately confused his peers. Well, anyway, Schopenhauer
> thought this way about Hegel. As you probably know, Schopenhauer
> called Hegel a charlatan, which, of course, I personally don't
> believe to be the case. But, Hegel is a writer that demands
> interpretation and not just an accurate citation of a passage.
> I am sure that Mike and Paul will come back on this, but it
> deserves discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Fanelli

It deserves discussion, Bob, but get the priorities straight.
Let's *first* agree on what Hegel said, and *then* argue about
whether his statements have truth value. That is the correct
priority.

It does not help when a one-sided materialist like Beiser claims
to tell us what Hegel said, neglecting so many of Hegel's texts.
We should be very cautious of the secondary literature about
Hegel. Some authors try to say Hegel was an atheist; others
say he was a Hermeticist; others say he was a materialist; others
say he was a right-wing fanatic; and so on ad nauseum.

It is plainly folly to try to argue about the truth value of
Hegel's texts when those with whom you debate do not even agree
on the meaning of the texts in question. After all, is that not
critical to Hermeneutics in the first place?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo