system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is Hegel's phenomenology considered so distinct from proper 'modern phenomenology'?

I understand that there is stronger correlation between the use of the term "phenomenology" as it is by Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, etc. compared with Hegel's usage. What strikes me as odd is the almost total lack of mention of Hegel's use of the term in the large articles on wiki or SEP. There almost seems to be an effort made to ignore any possible correlation between Hegel's use of phenomenology in his system and Husserl's use of it in his own.   


Would love to have this explained to me or be pointed at any papers or talks that explain it. Thanks!
gpt
>There almost seems to be an effort made to ignore any possible correlation between Hegel's use of phenomenology in his system and Husserl's use of it in his own.

It's because Husserl's use of the term is radically different than—if not completely separate from—Hegel's use prior. Take the IEP definition of Hegel's phenomenological method:

>In a sense Hegel’s phenomenology is a study of phenomena (although this is not a realm he would contrast with that of noumena) and Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit is likewise to be regarded as a type of propaedeutic to philosophy rather than an exercise in or work of philosophy. It is meant to function as an induction or education of the reader to the standpoint of purely conceptual thought from which philosophy can be done. [Furthermore]... in the later sections the earlier series of shapes of consciousness becomes replaced with what seem more like configurations of human social life, and the work comes to look more like an account of interlinked forms of social existence and thought within which participants in such forms of social life conceive of themselves and the world.

Now contrast that with the IEP article on phenomenology as a philosophical movement:

>The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view.

Hegel's method is primarily concerned with the development of concepts with phenomenal consciousness. Although this process begins with phenomena as considered by the practice of phenomenology, it eventually develops to something much grander—namely, the socio-metaphysical conception of Absolute Knowing. Conversely, phenomenology in the Husserlian tradition relegates itself to phenomena as perceived by consciousness. Although both deal with phenomena (that is, what is phenomenal to us), their uses of the term as well as their methods are incredibly distinct from one another.

edit: it's also worth noting that both authors inherit the concept of phenomena from kant, who basically just means it as what is able to be perceived in the object by human consciousness. while hegel takes phenomena to be the whole of what may be understood in conceptual thought, husserl (and subsequent phenomenology) relegates it to our self-conscious experience.