英语论文网

t is not as marked as the further divide in the Kantian/Hegelian branching which is depicted in Figure 5. The major point of division is between Hegelian derivatives and those whose major inspiration is Nietzsche. Hegel, as we have already seen, had a fundamental belief in a material world in which understanding of and change in its design was possible and appropriate. Those following Hegelian thought can be divided between the “right” and “left” Hegelians. The “right” Hegelians believed in the view that the Prussian State was near to being the absolute in societal configurations expressing as it did all that Hegel believed the material world somehow should express. The “left” Hegelians, on the other hand, led primarily by Marx, maintained that the ideal state was still to be discovered or rather created. Both believed in an ideal, both held out hope of a better society which would supply complete understanding of what really constituted “reality” yet they differed on its actuality at the time of their writing. The “right” Hegelians, once realizing that Prussia was not all that it was deemed to be, shifted into a more clearly religious mode believing in the coming of heaven on earth. The “left” Hegelians, on the other hand, continued their critical endeavours in the hope that a better state could be created. The traditional Marxist interpretation of this is in some classless society whereas German critical theory, particularly following Habermas’ lead, see this in terms of a society able to communicate rationally and openly with one another. While Marxism and German critical theory share a common heritage in the hope for a better future, Nietzsche gives no grounds for such beliefs. While his roots go back to Hegel much of the lineage of hope is largely dissipated. Nietzsche is associated particularly with facing realistically the “death of God”. He sees the very concept of hope, which he traces to a residual Christian belief and its implicit underlying values, groundless, pointless and basically wrong. As a result there is a certain despair in this philosophy which is given a double emphasis with his view of history concerning the “endless recurrence of time”. To Nietzsche history repeats itself – it is different but it is basically the same. No era is better than another and, as a result, the concept of progress is meaningless. The post-modernist tradition, expressed through French criticaltheory encapsulated in work by notable thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard, follows Nietzschean thought with its abandonment of concepts such as hope, a better state or similar values and concerns. While the above cannot claim to be anything other than a general and incomplete picture of centuries of thought it hopefully provides a thumbnail sketch to note the common family roots behind seemingly diverse contemporary approaches. It also helps to provide a clearer rationale for why the different approaches are positioned as they are in Figure 2 in terms of different perspectives on theory, methodology and change. Thus the Comtean derivatives are all located in the “high” theory and methodology domains with a “low” change emphasis. This is not surprising given their collective assumptions of a material world which exists distinct from the observer, which has definable patterns which can be discovered through formal and defined investigatory methods. The “low” change emphasis is because of the value-laden nature of this critique which is not p