Reading Hegel as Hegel
We should read Hegel not through Marx, Kojev or Fukuyama, but through Hegel himself. I assure you ll find something unexpected. The same for Nietzsche and Heidegger - Bataille, Deleuze, Satrte and Camus are relatively good but Nietzsche and Heidegger are quite different.
I mean: some left thinkers helped a lot to let some great but not at all left thinkers to be widely known. Ok thanks. But they obviously read them from their special perspective that didn’t coincide with authors themselves who were rather right. I mean Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger.
Hegel was monarchist not communist. Heidegger was we know whom. Nietzsche despised social-democracy and progressism. Carl Schmitt passes without special observation. Left has done good job to attract attention to these geniuses. But under conditions to accept their interpretation.
So let go to the sources.
Alexander Dugin's statement calls for a return to the original works of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, arguing that leftist interpreters like Marx, Kojève, or Deleuze have distorted their ideas to fit progressive agendas. While his critique raises valid points about the political contexts of these philosophers, it also suffers from oversimplification, ideological bias, and a problematic view of interpretation. Below is a detailed critique:
---
### **1. Historical Accuracy and Context**
- **Hegel as Monarchist**: Dugin correctly notes Hegel’s support for the Prussian monarchy and his distance from communism. However, Marx’s engagement with Hegel was not a mere "misreading" but a dialectical critique that transformed Hegel’s idealism into historical materialism. To dismiss Marx’s interpretation as irrelevant ignores the productive tension between the two thinkers and the evolution of philosophical thought.
- **Nietzsche’s Anti-Progressivism**: While Nietzsche indeed criticized socialism and democracy, his work transcends simple left-right binaries. His critiques of modernity, morality, and power have been appropriated by diverse ideologies, including anarchism (e.g., Emma Goldman) and postmodernism (e.g., Foucault). Reducing Nietzsche to a "right-wing" thinker neglects the complexity and ambiguity of his philosophy.
- **Heidegger’s Politics**: Heidegger’s Nazi affiliation is indisputable, but his philosophy’s influence extends far beyond his personal politics. Existentialists like Sartre and leftists like Marcuse engaged with Heideggerian phenomenology without endorsing fascism. Dugin’s implication that Heidegger’s work is inherently tainted by his politics risks conflating biography with philosophical value.
---
### **2. The Problem of Interpretation**
- **Authorial Intent vs. Interpretive Pluralism**: Dugin assumes that returning to the "sources" reveals a singular, true meaning aligned with the authors’ original politics. This ignores hermeneutic theory, which argues that texts are inevitably mediated by readers’ contexts and questions. Even a "direct" reading of Hegel or Nietzsche is shaped by contemporary concerns—including Dugin’s own far-right Eurasianist ideology.
- **Leftist Interpretations as Productive Misreadings**: Figures like Kojève (who read Hegel through a Marxist lens) or Deleuze (who reinterpreted Nietzsche as a radical pluralist) openly transformed these thinkers’ ideas. Such reinterpretations are not distortions but creative engagements that keep philosophical traditions alive. Dugin’s dismissal of them as "not coincid[ing] with the authors themselves" presumes a static, essentialist view of philosophy.
---
### **3. Political Motivations and Simplifications**
- **Reclaiming "Right-Wing" Thinkers**: Dugin’s critique appears strategically aimed at delegitimizing leftist intellectual hegemony and reclaiming these philosophers for conservative or reactionary projects. This is evident in his offhand mention of Carl Schmitt, a Nazi jurist whose work has been critically rehabilitated by both left and right thinkers.
- **Reductionist Categorizations**: Labeling Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger as "right-wing" oversimplifies their work. Hegel’s dialectics inspired revolutionary movements, Nietzsche’s anti-essentialism destabilizes fixed ideologies, and Heidegger’s critique of technology resonates with environmentalists. Their philosophies resist neat political categorization.
---
### **4. The Paradox of "Going to the Sources"**
- **The Myth of Unmediated Access**: Dugin’s call to "go to the sources" implies a pure, apolitical encounter with texts. Yet his own reading is deeply ideological, reflecting his anti-liberal, traditionalist worldview. No interpretation is neutral; even reactionary readings are mediated by contemporary frameworks.
- **Selective Emphasis**: By focusing on the authors’ personal politics (e.g., Hegel’s monarchism), Dugin downplays the broader implications of their ideas. For instance, Hegel’s concept of *Aufhebung* (sublation) inherently invites reinterpretation, making it impossible to freeze his philosophy in its historical moment.
---
### **5. Conclusion: A Strategic, Flawed Argument**
Dugin’s statement is a politically motivated intervention masquerading as a neutral plea for textual fidelity. While he rightly highlights the original political contexts of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, his insistence on reducing their work to those contexts ignores the dynamic, polysemic nature of philosophy. The value of thinkers like Nietzsche or Heidegger lies precisely in their capacity to generate diverse interpretations across the ideological spectrum. Dugin’s critique ultimately serves less as a scholarly correction than as a rhetorical move to advance his own ideological project—one that seeks to rehabilitate "right-wing" thought in opposition to progressive frameworks.
**In short**: Dugin’s argument is a provocative but reductive attempt to police philosophical interpretation. It raises valid questions about historical context but fails to acknowledge the inherently dialogic and evolving nature of intellectual traditions.
Desde Argentina. Quiero dejarle un abrazo y agradecimiento enorme por su trabajo.