GMO maize test, Bourgouin-Jallieu, Isère, France, 30 June 2007, via


The purpose of this essay is to show the failures with which philosophical idealism was conceived and applied, whose greatest exponent of the nineteenth century was Hegel, as well as the impact and criticism he had of Marx, which led to the latter, in addition to Criticism of philosophical idealism and the mechanistic materialism of Feuerbach, what we know today as historical materialism.

I focus on this subject precisely because of the need as a social scientist to follow the methods that could enrich my research and follow these methods to find a truth, not pure as Hegel’s reason, but a truth that allows clarifying the conceptions and possible solutions To the problems that present themselves in the present society.

First, I reviewed some of Hegel’s writings, particularly the approach he makes in his work, Phenomenology of the Spirit. There I found the marked need to solve the problems presented by science from the full wisdom and consciousness that Hegel seeks, The known negatively, from a dialectic, propitious to find the truth. Marx sets forth a very simple summary of the pure reason that would have the following logic in Hegel, to affirm to deny and deny the denied previously to find there the truth.

In the problem that I pose I find the search for a reason, which will be the use and opposition to the use of Genetically Modified Food, I also try to follow the approach and its solution from the Hegelian method, resulting in some errors to solve Said problem.

Is the nineteenth-century philosophy of Hegelian thought functional for the social sciences today and how can this approach the truth?

For Hegel, it will be the full consciousness and the logic that could solve this problem from the contradiction of the assumptions, a categorization that derives in a logic, which is nothing other than science.
Probably to understand the Hegelian thought, we would have to move to the time when Hegel theorized this, although it would seem impossible, then, to move a twenty-first-century phenomenon into the Hegelian era or bring Hegel into the twenty-first century and see how then he could solve it Pure reason.

In recent times the debate that has been taking place regarding GMOs or Genetically Modified Organisms, particularly the relationship that exists between Science, Health, Economy, Politics and the Being or Subject itself that would regulate or should regulate This phenomenon. Starting from the premise that Hegel poses from the understanding or understanding to arrive at a pure truth, I will follow the following logic: We have a truth, that we would have to categorize, in turn, a denial that would be the contradiction to that truth that would give us New categories of the phenomenon and finally a new contradiction to that negation by then, from this method find the pure reason of this phenomenon.

It is considered as true that genetically modified organisms are improvements in their genes, that these organisms being gifted with unique characteristics can bring a positive development as resistance to diseases and other risks as would be the climate changes.

To begin with abstraction, I will then start from negation, that there is a regulatory force in nature that makes possible the life and death of an organism, that this organism is subject to biological laws to regulate the ecosystem and that its Improvement since it must subsist in a biological system governed by general laws that allow it to balance with the same species and with other species.

I will now raise the denial of such denial or opposition to Genetically Modified Organisms that leads me to the contradiction or the dialectic that exists between science and the scientists who support and promote these Organisms and the groups of activists and Organizations that are against the phenomenon , That is to say the negation of Organizations like Greenpeace that they pose that the modified organisms pose supposed risks in the human health and in the surroundings.

A few weeks ago there was a strong criticism of at least 109 Nobel Prize winners from different branches as well as specialized scientific journals and hundreds of thousands more scientists against the positions that have been acquired by different sectors and NGOs, particularly Greenpeace, regarding the conviction and its activism that Has slowed the development of a Genetically Modified Organism, the so-called Golden Rice.

This rice grain has had a development in the field of genetics enabling it to carry among its characteristics a high amount of Vitamin A covering the deficiencies of this vitamin in the poorest child populations in the world and can also improve living conditions Of these populations, since without vitamin A, they die at an early age.

In order to solve this contradiction of the contradiction, since both the science and the activism in the search for human well-being are shown in both cases, although the banners on which each position is clothed are very different, who, if not Hegel may be able to help solve this problem.

First of all, one of the main categories is health, the abstraction of that category leads to a human need, and this need overlaps even the very nature that surrounds it.

From the point of view that I will call “positive” that would be Science and the use of Technology, have ensured the improvement and human development, ie cover that human need, health, the same technology has had to contradict even The biological conditions determined and the clear example is the same genetic manipulation of their environment with the best case that would be the agriculture itself or the domestication of animals and plants that have been altered to cover their basic needs from the earliest traces of human civilizations Older.

That is to say, this “positive” group has had to alter the biological order that the “negative” group, the activists and ecologists who oppose the use of genetically modified organisms, condemn to transgress the ecosystem and also present a health risk, Because the latter, the “negative” group, considers within their arguments something anti-natural.

In the case of contradiction, the “negative” group argues that the alleged use and consumption of transgenic or genetically modified foods is harmful to health and the environment that make life possible. Here we repeat the same category, health and the same abstraction as welfare, although following Hegel, we could say that the “negative” group does not contemplate in this denial that it is the same alteration to its ecosystem that has allowed the conditions Necessary for the life of the human being, but assumes that the same healthy environment is what allows the human being to develop in that environment, perhaps here the reasonable sound flag of the ecologist.

A new category would also be added to the “negative” group, which would be Politics and Economic, as another reason Greenpeace opposes the use of genetically modified foods is the monopoly in its production and distribution, particularly the transnational Monsanto, which for decades has made positive and negative advances in the use of pesticides in the food industry, but emphasizing the Economic category, has encouraged the monopoly of both its pesticides and agriculture itself by introducing its own markets crops. Many of these crops have led to the breakdown of the sector in dozens of countries as local farmers and small farmers can not compete with Monsanto’s high costs and production.

As for the Policy category that is introduced in the energetic approach of Greenpeace, it emphasizes the regulation of both the production of Monsanto and the very development of genetically modified foods, even though this approach also involves other foods not produced by Monsanto.

Even in the argument presented by this “negative”, there is a contradiction with the first category, health, because it is Greenpeace who opposes the risk that presents in health, but in turn, also opposes the improvement of its Health in a vulnerable sector such as the population lacking Vitamin A.

So far I have tried to cling to Hegel’s dialectical method of finding the truth by putting some categories, contradictions, and abstractions in order to arrive at the truth. Now it will be the turn of abstraction to arrive at that truth as well.

The first abstraction of the problem that I get is from the flag in which the Greenpeace activist-ecologist organization is involved because it poses a political and economic approach. Money as an abstraction responds to the needs of the human being, it is only this that propitiates the full development of the human being in a world that is currently governed by him.

This too, the origin of poverty by the unbalanced distribution of wealth, leads the human being to seek other alternatives that allow him to fully develop, and it is at this point that I find the first problems to find the truth behind this problem. The dialectical method that Hegel proposes, starts from a concrete problem that becomes concrete, but as Marx would say, in this process abstraction is volatilized without reaching the concrete.

“Wealth is wealth,” “money is money,” would raise a series of abstractions and contradictions, but following Hegel would come or I would limit that the negation of the negation of denial would end up losing the essence or thing of the problem because I would focus exclusively on thinking that focuses on itself.

How, then, could Hegel solve the problem of using or prohibiting the use of genetically modified organisms?

Following Marx, starting from an initial abstraction to reach a concrete, would give as abstraction the benefit. Said benefit is reflected despite the contradictions as it would be even against the same ecosystem, Health that leads to concrete, ie a necessary good.

Part of the essence that is sometimes seen in this analysis, shows despite everything that the human being throughout history has modified their environment for this good of their own. The political or economic assumptions and the risk they could bring in health are just that, assumptions.


Although the Hegelian method revolutionized and even gave rise to historical materialism, it was limited and reduced to a series of approaches that would lead to the eternal search for a truth, since in that search they would be lost by a possible limitation that would be to contradict to Itself without being concrete or contemplating what surrounds it.

For the Social Sciences, I think the progress Hegel made in Philosophy is very significant, it is not incorrect, I think, but rather unfinished. It is this same that has given rise to a more developed method and that we can currently apply in many disciplines of Science.

In the end, it seems to me that Hegel sought nothing but the truth, even if this was for ideological interests, allowed much of the theory both philosophical and anthropological to develop. It has also allowed us to categorize and abstract problems to arrive at solutions.

In social problems that generate discussions such as the use of genetically modified foods, it is likely that these discussions can be carried out in depth to find a truth without falling into dogmatism and yes in a serious and real analysis that the present world presents As a possible problem or success.

Even science itself, based on reason, can rethink these discussions because this same one that in its own methods does not become dogmatic for the simple fact that does not carry a truth but is in search of it and rethinks itself in this way Same constantly.


Ansede, M., 2016, “109 nobeles acusan a Greenpeace de -crimen contra la humanidad- por los transgénicos”, El País, Artículo en Línea consultado el 1 de Julio en

Hegel, F., 2010, “Fenomenología del Espíritu” Abada, Madrid,


Marx, C., 1847, “Miseria de la Filosofía”, edición digital consultada el 10 de Julio de 2016 en

Pardo, J., Antonio, 2008, “FENOMENOLOGÍA”, Estudios, №86, pp. 60–89.

Peris, G., 2016, “Carta abierta a Macaco”, Blog digital consultado el 4 de Julio en