Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reading List

Expand Messages
  • alcyon11
    Bill, Have you given any thought to Trinidad s reading list? I intersect with some on his list. What would you add? Jo
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      Have you given any thought to Trinidad's reading list? I intersect
      with some on his list. What would you add?

      Jo
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      HB3G, Thanks for that thoughtful post. I am afraid that I am way on the other side of almost every thing you say, including politics, I guess, but such is my
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 11 5:57 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        HB3G,

        Thanks for that thoughtful post. I am afraid that I am way on the other side
        of almost every thing you say, including politics, I guess, but such is my
        fate. As far as Hegel and god goes, the matter is so very dense and complex, I
        will not bore our other list-mates with the discussion (the group really isn't
        about this), but a few comments can be made.

        Hegel was an atheist, if a loose kind of deist of sorts. If you look at his
        incidental pieces, especially the early theological things, this is quite
        obvious. So was Spinoza, whose "Ethics" was a back drop for both Hegel and
        Schelling (Gods as totality). Kant was an enormous, the most enormous, influence on
        Hegel, contrary to your earlier post. Hegel dialectical process was presaged in
        Kant's Third Critique. But he utterly rejected the premises of the Second, and
        related ethical works, which bring God into the picture by means of a
        backdoor of morals. Fichte, Schiller, Goethe, were all atheistic, and used the God
        term, when they did, as a stand-in for nature or as a Romantic invocation of
        destiny, etc. Of Hegel's influences, only Schelling turned out to be a believer,
        and a crank at that.

        As you know, the term translated as "Spirit" is Geist, which means
        coextensively both spirit and mind. Findlay, who is responsible for the best English
        version of the Phenomenology, was a priest, so bear that in mind when reading.
        (The older Baillie translation should be avoided at all costs.)

        Finally, the "stages" of the dialectic should not be read as, as it were,
        etched in stone. Hegel revised them continually. There is nothing of crude or
        mechanistic determinism in Hegel. That would contradict the whole point of, for
        example, the Logic, which is based on radical ("good") infinity and freedom. He
        places religion in the "process", only because it was there in society before
        him. The inclusion is in no way systematically prescriptive. In the
        Phenomenology, this is quite clear (if anything is clear in the Phenomenology!)

        Still, read on and again. I have been reading Hegel for many decades, and
        each time it is like a new thing! The manner in which these topics come forth in
        Hegel make for thoughtful reconsiderations of things that are properly
        philosophical, rather than dogmatic, and that is always a good thing.

        As far as Hegel and existentialism goes, there is a lot to say there. Just
        look at Sartre's works, for example. But this is a subject for a later
        discussion.

        That aside, the question of a leap seems to me to be quite unlikely in our
        time with all of the science and sociological information we have before us. To
        what would you leap? The Paschal Lamb? The Virgin Birth, burning bush, walls
        of Jericho, garden of Eden? All myths. The only 'leap' that seems possible can
        indeed be gleaned in Hegel, but it isn't into the caring hands of God, but
        rather into a blind cosmos that makes sense for itself. It takes a lot of courage
        and humility for that leap, not wishful thinking.

        Thanks again,
        Wil

        In a message dated 4/11/07 7:06:11 AM, hb3g@... writes:


        >
        > Well, I have to admit that I am more of a right-winger than a left
        > one. But, don't get me wrong. About the believer thing, for me, the
        > belief is more the cart, than it is the horse. I am comfortable with
        > my belief being my conclusion, and a hypothetical, even a
        > speculative, conclusion, at that, not a presupposition. I am open to
        > the possibility that, in my spirituality, my transcendentalism, I
        > might ultimately be misguided, or even gulity of wishful thinking.
        >
        > I really did not know what to expect from Hegel when I started
        > reading him some months back. He has inspired and challenged me in a
        > lot of different areas, and he has caused me to step back and to
        > reassess my own thoughts on matters like Sprit, divinity, and God.
        >
        > The thing about the stages of the Hegelian dialectic, as far as I
        > understand it, is that each stage is essential, and cannot be
        > dispensed with. Yes, philosophy is the pinnacle, as far as the
        > consciousness of the Absolute is concerned, for Hegel. But the
        > movement, beginning in art, and going through religion, to get to the
        > philosophical, is a necessary dialectic, and each stage is an
        > essential moment of the whole process. The thing is that we cannot
        > skip any one of these stages on our way to the philosophical
        > comprehension of the Absolute. If we try to leap to the highest
        > synthesis, philosophy, without going through the preceeding stages of
        > art, and religion, our comprehension will end up being one-sided, and
        > therefore, distorted. At least, this is what Hegel says about it.
        >
        > I do not see how Hegel's system can be read as anything other than a
        > philosophy of Spirit, with the theological assertions that such a
        > reading would necessarily involve. I am baffled, therefore, by the so-
        > called left wing interpretations of Hegel that, as far as I
        > understand them, pretty much try to secularize him.
        >
        > However, I can understand how such a left wing interpretation can
        > really be its own position, more or less independently of Hegel. One
        > could always say, I guess, that Hegel was somewhat right, but that he
        > went too far, and he leaped, and he shouldn't have. One could say
        > that going beyond secularism, and humanism, flat out, don't make no
        > sense. Now, that might not be a valid interpretation of what Hegel
        > said. But, it might be true, whether it is Hegelian or not. I really
        > don't thnk so. I take the opposite point of view. I say, stopping at
        > secularism and humanism, without doing the leap, that is what don't
        > make no sense. Why? Because we are natural born leapers (no, not
        > leppers!). That's why.
        >
        > I think it is grotesque to hold up Hegel as a philosopher who would
        > be a defense for what we know as fundamentalism. Hegel, it seems to
        > me, is too rich to be so neatly pigeonholed. To my mind, Hegel is
        > definitely a mystical thinker. He is not an orthodox Christian
        > theologian. However, Hegel's system has, it seems to me, important
        > theological implications that cannot be easily discounted.
        >
        > No doubt, I am going to have to revisit Hegel at some later date,
        > better sooner, than later. I feel like I have, so far, probably
        > missed more than I got. The "Science of Logic" was so massive, so
        > complicated, so densely packed, that I am sure I missed whole
        > chapters there. Nevertheless, I think I am getting enough from my
        > first reading of Hegel's major works to make my further reading,
        > ahead, more interesting, and also more fruitful. I look forward, over
        > the next six to twelve months, to reading Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard,
        > Nietzsche, and James. Later on, when I finally get there, whenever
        > that will be, Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre. It will be interesting
        > to look back at Hegel, shoulder to shoulder with some of these
        > philosophers, and then, later on, when I can revisit Hegel, I think a
        > lot more will be clear to me by then.
        >
        > One of the things I would be interested in talking about, and getting
        > some more insight into, here, is Hegel's relation to existentialism.
        > What aspects of Hegel's thought inspired, either positively or
        > negatively, the development of existentialism?
        >
        > Well, here I am, a forty nine year old technician, a kind of pseudo-
        > computer geek, really, who works the night shift for a phone company.
        > In my spare time, I read philosophy and history. I ask myself, when I
        > look at how crazy this world, my world, has gotten, is, how did we
        > get into this mess? I know how I got into it. I happened to be born
        > into it, in 1958.
        >
        > The answer about the whole mess, is kind of like detective work. It
        > involves some history. It also involves some history of ideas too.
        >
        > My reading, my little detective thing, my curiosity about the mess
        > and how it happened, has brought a few general topics into some focus
        > for me: science, technology (and the militarism that technology makes
        > possible), the Enlightenment, Romanticism, transcendentalism (mainly
        > Kant, and Hegel, and that whole gang of idealists), and
        > existentialism.
        >
        > The way I see it, these are just the broad strokes of the brush as
        > far as the history of ideas goes, the main things that have
        > contributed to a changed world and a pretty uncertain future, for me,
        > and for a whole bunch of us.
        >
        > So, I guess, this is the real reason why I am here, on this list, and
        > on some others, and this is the real reason why I have been reading
        > all of those books, not just philosophy ones, but more general ones
        > that paint those broad strokes of the brush for me. I am just trying
        > to figure out this crazy, mixed up, topsy turvy, technologized, life
        > in the fast lane, weird world, that I happened to be born into almost
        > fifty years ago before the Alzheimer's gets me.
        >
        > I need to know: Should I leap? or should I just stay put?
        >
        > Hb3g
        >
        >
        >




        **************************************
        See what's free at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • jaime.denada
        Wil, I greatly appreciate the blind cosmos making sense to itself remark. 1. we trust what we see 2. we trust others to name 3. we trust their intent 4. we
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 11 7:07 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Wil,

          I greatly appreciate the blind cosmos making sense to itself remark.

          1. we trust what we see
          2. we trust others to name
          3. we trust their intent
          4. we trust the words
          5. we trust the meaning
          6. we trust reason
          7. we trust some ideas
          8. we trust certainty
          9. we trust uncertainty
          10. we trust trust

          We can't suspend belief or disbelief. It's we who are suspended and
          can't come down. But that's not bad. Philosophy is not the foundation
          under our feet. We leap from unfixed positions. I'm humble enough to
          admit that much at least. I trust you'll understand.

          Jaime

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

          That aside, the question of a leap seems to me to be quite unlikely
          in our time with all of the science and sociological information we
          have before us. To what would you leap? The Paschal Lamb? The Virgin
          Birth, burning bush, walls of Jericho, garden of Eden? All myths. The
          only 'leap' that seems possible can indeed be gleaned in Hegel, but
          it isn't into the caring hands of God, but rather into a blind cosmos
          that makes sense for itself. It takes a lot of courage and humility
          for that leap, not wishful thinking.

          Thanks again,
          Wil
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Jaime, Yeah, you have to get up in the morning, after all. You have to take the first step (to the can). Once done, you have already cast in your lot with the
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 11 7:54 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Jaime,

            Yeah, you have to get up in the morning, after all. You have to take the first step (to the can). Once done, you have already cast in your lot with the world.

            WS

            -----Original Message-----
            From: jaime.denada@...
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 9:07 AM
            Subject: [existlist] 10 lords a leaping

            Wil,

            I greatly appreciate the blind cosmos making sense to itself remark.

            1. we trust what we see
            2. we trust others to name
            3. we trust their intent
            4. we trust the words
            5. we trust the meaning
            6. we trust reason
            7. we trust some ideas
            8. we trust certainty
            9. we trust uncertainty
            10. we trust trust

            We can't suspend belief or disbelief. It's we who are suspended and
            can't come down. But that's not bad. Philosophy is not the foundation
            under our feet. We leap from unfixed positions. I'm humble enough to
            admit that much at least. I trust you'll understand.

            Jaime

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

            That aside, the question of a leap seems to me to be quite unlikely
            in our time with all of the science and sociological information we
            have before us. To what would you leap? The Paschal Lamb? The Virgin
            Birth, burning bush, walls of Jericho, garden of Eden? All myths. The
            only 'leap' that seems possible can indeed be gleaned in Hegel, but
            it isn't into the caring hands of God, but rather into a blind cosmos
            that makes sense for itself. It takes a lot of courage and humility
            for that leap, not wishful thinking.

            Thanks again,
            Wil


            ________________________________________________________________________
            AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.