At 12:24 AM 5/31/2003 +0200, froeb-list@... wrote:

>Hi Omar,
>
> > By your criterion, only a Hegelian
> > would be capable of real knowledge of Hegel.
>
>I don't think that this was what Paul wanted to express,
>anyhow, I can join you that knowing a position is
>not the same as sharing that position.

Actually, Trejo did claim something just this stupid, and I'm glad someone
called him on it.

As a general principle in life, I think the most advantageous position from
which to understand anything is to be on the inside and the outside at the
same time. Oddly, I don't think I considered this in relation to
philosophies, at least not so stated .... maybe I'm just forgetting. What
does it mean to be inside a philosophy?--would be the next question. Being
outside I think is fairly obvious, but what is being inside? If one can
only function as a parrot, is one truly inside though one may lay claims to
such a status by virtue of discipleship? Perhaps being inside a philosophy
means making it one's own, and in that case, who or what is inside of whom
or what? It's a profound question, perhaps not one that brings easy answers.

In some areas, being "outside" may be an advantage. For example, among
aficionados of William Blake, there have been two polar tendencies, the
politically oriented and the mystically/religiously oriented. Objectively
it's an artificial division, as the philosophical aspects of Blake (which
include his heterodox religious views) are inseparable from the political,
but, historically, different types of people gravitate to him. In my
experience the religiously oriented are mostly idiots, really incapable of
asking the profound questions of the material, while they may have other
advantages in terms of a certain background, though on the other hand it's
a background that anyone can get who wants it, except for the experience of
having a certain belief system, not a trivial matter but not the last word
either. However, a person who doesn't automatically adhere to a
religious/mystical view of the world may nonetheless be perceptive enough
to look into the deeper meanings involved without having to project one's
own uncritical assumptions. There's a related question of the types of
activity involved: the process of analysis or criticism is in some sense a
"scientific" enterprise, even if a depth of insight is involved that can't
be taught in university. There's no point of discussion at all if evidence
or rational standards don't apply. Hence appeals to irrationalist ideas
are usually sterile.

As far as Hegel's philosophy is concerned, given its rational pretensions,
the idea that only a religious person could begin to understand Hegel is
just horseshit. It may well be true that someone truly invested in
theology is the most likely to put in the work necessarily to acquire the
proper background. That's the only thing Trejo knows, to be sure; in other
matters he is completely ignorant, a pedestrian philistine and second rate
proselytizer in every respect. Kai, you should review your policy on
enlisting moderators, as it may grant certain individuals an inflated sense
of authority.