system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Has Hegel's philosophy been surpassed?

Is devoting time towards studying Hegel's Science of Logic, Phenomenology of Spirit and Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences worth all the effort? Has Hegel's conception of the world been surpassed? Does it still hold true to some degree?

Does his philosophy have any serious flaws? Is there an aspect(s) of his philosophy that has been criticized into oblivion and can no longer be taken seriously? I hear/read oftentimes that philosophy is not "obsessed" with system-building anymore. Does that mean Hegel's system is way too flawed?

And if Hegel *is* ultimately flawed beyond repair, how can that even be, considering he was well acquainted with all those philosophers whom he criticized in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, while trying to show us how they all kind of converged and led to his System and his understanding of the world? 

I find Hegel's conception of nature (which he inherited from Schelling if I am not mistaken) to make a lot of sense. It helps me deal with the mechanistic conception where endless motion of mindless particles that are jumping around aimlessly, somewhere during that mindlessness creates a mindful consciousness which is meant to just evaporate together with the rest of the Universe. Excuse me, what? On the other hand we have mysticism inspired by quantum physics and its breakthroughs, which is just as non-sensical with its constant jumping to conclusions and magical explanations.

In my mind, Hegel is too big to fail, I have put a lot of hope in him in my pursuit of understanding the Universe. What are the main objections to his System coming from philosophers since Hegel's death in 1831 to this day in 2022?

Sorry for my English, and thank you very much.
gpt
>What are the main objections to his System coming from philosophers since Hegel's death in 1831 to this day in 2022?

I mean... even in Hegel's lifetime there were plenty of philosophers who opposed his philosophy. Schopenhauer is a good example. Hegel is a tricky one because so many of his critics simply disregard his philosophy as charlatanism or nonsense. So, you'll need to find texts that engage with Hegel on his own terms. Adorno's *Hegel: Three Studies*, Catherine Malabou's *The Future of Hegel*, and Marx's *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* are all excellent. 

If you accept Hegel's philosophy on his own terms, this means that you have to recognise that his work is now outdated. His philosophy was a product of his time and so must be modified to account for the current age. His own philosophy says as much. This is what Hegel's biggest supporters are doing. Zizek is about as Hegelian as they come and he is adapting Hegel's work to be relevant to contemporary life, and in accordance with the latest philosophical movements and scientific discoveries. That said he does this by asking what in Hegel is still relevant **and** by asking what the present age means for Hegel. To quote Adorno:

A historical occasion like the 125th anniversary of Hegel's death could have elicited what we call an "appreciation." But that concept has become untenable, if indeed it ever had any value. It makes the impudent claim that because one has the dubious good fortune to live later, and because one has a professional interest in the person one is to talk about, one can sovereignly assign the dead person his place, thereby in some sense elevating oneself above him. This arrogance echoes in the loathsome question of what in Kant, and now Hegel as well, has any meaning for the present-and even the so-called Hegel renaissance began half a century ago with a book by Benedetto Croce that undertook to distinguish between what was living and what was dead in Hegel. The converse question is not even raised: what the present means in the face of Hegel; whether perhaps the reason one imagines one has attained since Hegel's absolute reason has not in fact long since regressed behind the latter and accommodated to what merely exists, when Hegelian reason tried to set the burden of existence in motion through the reason that obtains even in what exists. All appreciations are subject to the judgment passed in Hegel's preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit on those who are above something only because they are not in it. Appreciations fail from the start to capture the seriousness and cogency of Hegel's philosophy by practicing on him what he called, with appropriate disdain, a philosophy of perspectives. If one does not want to miss Hegel with one's very first words, one must confront, however inadequately, the claim his philosophy makes to truth, rather than merely discussing his philosophy from above, and thereby from below.