Why did Hegel make mechanical materialism metaphysics?

Personal opinion If you have different opinions, don't blame: Hegel has a unique advantage in philosophy, and the ability, ability and philosophical knowledge to reach the state of inquiry, and I agree with the idea of materialism as metaphysical thinking, because I already believe that everything in the world is a way to return to the world, time and space can be converted into energy, and everything is formed by energy, that is, space can be transformed into a bench, which is also the famous bench bombing earth theory, if a bench-sized space is converted into energy, its mass is enough to destroy the earth！Then Hegel's talk of a mechanical material plan into philosophy, yes and no!

It seems to me that philosophy encompasses all knowledge, because I think that the concept of philosophy is the most concise word expressed in the most concise word, which is philosophy. No matter what kind of knowledge it is, it is a kind of existence of wisdom, and as long as it belongs to wisdom, then it can be expressed in philosophy!I think Hegel must have thought so too!

So metaphysics is like words, and words contain, wisdom, wisdom is all that our minds are filled with, knowledge and experience and coping strategies!Since Hegel reduced materialism to metaphysics, I think he must have been able to explain the meaning in philosophy!

Mechanical materialism. It acknowledges the primacy of matter, which is materialistic. But to think that everything is isolated, static, and unchanging, is mechanical or metaphysical.

Time and space are not storehouses of things, but forms of existence of things in motion. Time and space are inseparable from things, not between storing and being stored, not between big and small. To separate them is to treat them as things that exist in isolation from each other, so it is a kind of mechanical materialist view of time and space.

The main exponent was Feuerbach in Germany.

Metaphysical materialist epistemology, that is, mechanical materialism, has no more to do with idealism, because not all idealism is metaphysical, and Hegel is the master of the dialectic of idealism.

First of all, your formulation of this question is not very correct, so Kant is also idealistic, why Kant criticized metaphysics.

According to Lukacs, Heidegger also belongs to idealism, but Heidegger is critical of the whole philosophy after Greece. To get back to the point, each philosopher's own philosophical opinion is always based on a more perfect basis than his predecessors, or from a different perspective than his predecessors, so Hegel must criticize his predecessors, especially Kant, to prove the completeness of his system, which is the first point. Secondly, it is okay that Hegel was a metaphysician, but his philosophy is not all metaphysical babbling, his philosophy also contains dialectics:

Dialectics is the only way to abolish the static and other nature of metaphysics. Hegel's use of dialectical agency to critique the previous methods of metaphysics was very effective, and from this he developed the concept of historicity (Schelling also had it), Engels.

It is said that he was "the first person to try to discover logic in history". Hegel's use of the flow of history to dialectical logic naturally goes one step further than the static metaphysics of his predecessors, integrating the culmination of metaphysics, but he is ultimately surpassed by the closed nature of his system, the lack of practical elements, and some far-fetched ideas in order to explain reality. Marx.

In his early years, he was Hegelian, and his Das Kapital also said, "I want to openly admit that I am a student of Hegel." In fact, many philosophical books, such as Russell's opening criticism, criticize Hegel's philosophy as nonsense, but is this really the case? Many modern philosophical schools have borrowed from Hegel in many places, such as aesthetics, philosophy of law, and so on.

I've always been a big fan of Aristotle.

Evaluation of his teacher Plato.

The phrase "the ignorant man is not even qualified to comment on him" is the same for Hegel. My personal feeling is that the Kantian system can be understood almost by reading many introductory books, but Hegel is not good, you can only read the original work to read Hegel, and in most cases, the harvest of Hegel's sentence is different when you read it for the first time and the second time, for example, Marx understood the "Phenomenology of Spirit".

is far more than many people.

Whether Hegel is idealistic or materialistic is not up to anyone, everyone has a different understanding, although many of them are attached to other people's opinions, after all, they are just biased comments.

People who grew up under the influence of Marx's so-called doctrines often think that Hegel is idealistic, and those who have been instilled by that set of doctrines since childhood rarely have the views of true understanding and real understanding. It seems to me that all "social sciences", including Marx's "scientific socialism", have an element of idealism, and Hegel is certainly no exception. Subjective feelings are much stronger in Marx than in Hegel, and it is actually more inconclusive who is more "idealistic" than whom.

In the "dialectics of history" that he founded, Hegel had a more objective and rational analysis than any other philosopher, and in this respect he was more materialistic than anyone else. It is unwise not to sum up a person in one sentence and one word, and to label him as history.

Today we are going to talk about the ideas of two great philosophers in history, one is Kant and the other is Hegel. Both philosophers were German, Kant was the founder of German classical rationalism, and Hegel was the philosophical master of idealism. What is Idealism?

What is Classical Rationalism?

Hegel was an idealist who analyzed things without being practical.

Starting point.

Maintain the mind, Feuerbach should be materialistic.

Hegel's emphasis on the Absolute Spirit is an expression of objective idealism. As for his "rational core", that is, dialectics itself is correct, but it is indeed based on idealism, which reverses the position of objective and subjective.

That guy is a pure idealist.

The second form of materialist philosophy is the metaphysical materialism of modern times, that is, mechanical materialism. The basic characteristics of metaphysical materialism are: acknowledging the materiality of the world, but interpreting the world from an isolated, static, and one-sided point of view, failing to see the universal connection and change and development between things and phenomena in the world, or only acknowledging the mechanical connection and mechanical movement, and thus exhibiting mechanical, metaphysical characteristics.

Here's a very simple example. Can you prove that God exists? No. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? Nor can it. This is metaphysics.

Mechanical materialism is both metaphysical materialism, and to a certain extent, it can be said that it is the same type as metaphysics.

The explanation of metaphysics is very simple, to see the world in isolation and stillness (all three points need to be understood). )

Metaphysical materialism is to look at metaphysics in isolation and stillness.

Mechanical materialism, which understands or reduces the movement of all things in the world to mechanical motion.