The Shadow of Great Britain

Chapter 1135: Chapter 112: Shared Belief

Germans are lacking in imagination, using systems to bind thoughts, and Hegel is a typical representative of this systematic thinking.

——Friedrich Nietzsche “Twilight of the Idols”

In the large auditorium, the frozen atmosphere lasted for more than ten seconds.

Before everyone realized that something seemed amiss, Professor Herbart was the first to break this strange silence.

“Sir, are you feeling unwell? I see your forehead is covered with sweat?”

Arthur feigned ease as he took a handkerchief from his pocket to wipe the sweat from his forehead: “It’s nothing, I was just thinking about what kind of problem could trouble Gauss, perhaps it’s a world problem?”

“That I’m not sure.” Herbart, seemingly suddenly recalling something, opened his mouth a bit awkwardly: “Gauss usually doesn’t like discussing natural philosophy with me.”

Upon hearing that Herbart could make Gauss unwilling to engage with him, Arthur immediately adopted a relentless stance and humbly inquired: “Why? Is Gauss an arrogant person?”

“No, no, no, that’s not what I meant.”

Herbart explained: “I think it might be because I praised Hegel’s philosophy in front of him before; since then, Gauss has not discussed natural philosophy with me, he has some prejudice against Hegel, and it’s quite deep.”

The professor beside, upon hearing this topic, couldn’t help but speculate.

“I think it’s probably due to the issue of calculating the Ceres trajectory? It’s been thirty years, and Gauss still hasn’t forgotten it?”

Arthur curiously asked upon hearing this: “I know Mr. Gauss determined the trajectory of Ceres through mathematical calculations, but what does this have to do with Hegel?”

Upon hearing Arthur’s question, even though Professor Herbart quite liked Hegel’s philosophical views, he couldn’t help but criticize.

“That’s all thanks to Hegel’s big mouth. At that time, astronomers all across Europe were debating whether Ceres was a planet or a comet. Meanwhile, mathematicians picked up their pens, attempting to calculate Ceres’s trajectory based on three days of astronomical observation data.

While all of Europe was embroiled in debate, Hegel boldly declared that according to his dialectical logic theory, there should be no more, no fewer than seven planets in the sky. Hence, Ceres must be a comet and not a planet.

However, not long after Hegel made his statement, Gauss calculated Ceres’s trajectory through mathematics, confirming it as a planet. And astronomers, based on Gauss’s calculated time and region, observed Ceres on December 31st of that year, proving Gauss’s calculation was entirely correct.”

Saying this, Herbart couldn’t help but hold his forehead: “Because of this incident, Gauss has always held a prejudice against people like Hegel, and his prejudice grew deeper with Hegel’s subsequent series of statements. For instance, Hegel rejected the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis, openly put forth a ‘philosophy-chemistry’ theory, and opposed the Lamarck School’s theory of use and disuse.

Of course, what infuriated Gauss the most was Hegel’s vociferous criticism of Newton’s gravitational system, and his firm claim that the Earth’s geological state was constant. These two areas were directions where Gauss devoted significant effort to research. More than once, he subtly expressed to me his view that ‘Hegel is a clown,’ and advised me to read less of Hegel’s works to avoid being led astray.”

Other professors upon hearing Professor Herbart’s words, expressed their agreement.

“Gauss said similar things to me before.”

“Recently when chatting with him, Gauss worryingly mentioned to me: among contemporary philosophers like Schelling, Hegel, Ness von Essenbeck, and their followers, I see the same thing, namely incompetence in natural philosophy and mathematics. Doesn’t the definitions set by such a group of people make you feel horrified?”

Some criticized Hegel, while others supported him.

Some professors, hearing their colleagues criticize Hegel’s theories, couldn’t sit still, standing up to look towards the back rows.

“Although I respect Gauss, I don’t think what he said is entirely accurate. In recent years, the development of natural philosophy is gradually moving away from traditional modes linked by literature and historical research, carving out its own path. This incomplete development is absolutely harmful to the research of natural philosophy.”

“Correct, many of today’s natural philosophers have a very narrow vision and knowledge base, contrasting sharply with those great natural philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries.”

These words instantly inflamed the anger of the natural philosophy professors, who stood up and pointed at the front row philosophy, law, and literature professors, furiously shouting.

“I think it’s not that natural philosophy has narrowed, but most philosophers have gone crazy!”

“I’ve never heard of any 17th or 18th century philosopher who didn’t understand mathematics, yet now someone like Hegel can be called a philosophical master, which proves German philosophy’s regression in the 19th century!”

“Hegel’s remarks increasingly prove how correct it is to eliminate all philosophical influences in our natural philosophy research work! Hegel alone proves that philosophy is not only useless but also a harmful fantasy!”