What sort of analysis is F Jameson's discussion of Hegel? Is it right, wrong, unusual? Especially as it appears here; I'm about to read, and didn't want to cultivate any bad habits, in doing so.

And especially this:

The categories of Being are those of common sense or a daily life among objects, in which the law of non-contradiction holds sway; this is the world of Verstand or Understanding (in the philosophical jargon of the day), and it will be more thoroughly dealt with in what follows, inasmuch as it is a thought of extension and objectivity, a reified thought which must reify itself in order to grasp its reified objects... Unlike the Faerie Queene, however, if there is a villain, there are no heroes: none of the knights, not the Dialectic, not Reason (Vernunft), not Truth, nor Speculative Thinking, nor even the Notion itself, go forth to do battle with this baleful force (although it might perhaps be argued that Philosophy is itself such a heroic contender, which, besides meaning Hegel, also means all those other positive things).

  • 1
    What is the "grand scheme of discussion of Hegel"? At a minimum, what you're quoting is most definitely not an orthodox interpretation of Hegel.
    – virmaior
    Commented Jan 13, 2017 at 6:15
  • @virmaior i just mean how it sounds mate, which you've answered, to an extent
    – user6917
    Commented Jan 13, 2017 at 6:35
  • 3
    sounds like postmodernism that rejects the success of Hegel's project.
    – virmaior
    Commented Jan 13, 2017 at 6:55
  • 1
    I don't even understand the question...
    – virmaior
    Commented Jan 13, 2017 at 7:16
  • 1
    @MATHEMETICIAN dude tbh you consistently post obscure or unclear stuff regardless of whether anyone is a noob or not Commented Jan 13, 2017 at 14:02

1 Answer 1


You need not worry about cultivating bad habits of Hegel interpretation by reading this as long as you read Hegel alongside and don't accept any interpretation that you cannot square with the source.

The opening clause is idiosyncratic. Hegel says

Being is the indeterminate immediate; it is free from determinateness in relation to essence and also from any which it can possess within itself. (Science of Logic S. 130)

And it is hard to see that common sense or a daily life among objects would lead us to this claim.

When Jameson says this "will be more thoroughly dealt with in what follows, inasmuch as it is a thought of extension and objectivity..." I guess we can believe that, provisionally. You must read on and see if Jameson does deal with it that way.

The second half of your quote is simple truth. Hegel's Logic is indeed not like the Faerie Queene. And the history of philosophy shows so many people have argued for so many things that it is surely possible to argue that for Hegel Philosophy is itself a heroic contender.

If I have missed the point of your question, and what you really want to know is what sort of thinker is Fredric Jameson, then I suggest starting with the Wikipedia article on him.

You must log in to answer this question.