Dear Birte:

Hegel has a rational argument regarding the
immortality of the soul, but in my judgment it
only makes sense when Hegel's Ontological
Solution is fully understood. Please follow
the thread on Hegel's Ontological Solution,
and at the very end of that thread I'll provide
a summary of Hegel's logical positions on
Christian doctrine (and on the doctrines of
all world religions, including Buddhism,
Judaism, Hinduism and Islam) as deduced
from his Proofs of God's Existence and the
corresponding definition of God that can
be obtained from his Ontological Argument
as offered in his late lectures on religion.

All best,
--Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Birte Schelling" <lassie_de@...>
To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 4:44 PM
Subject: [hegel] Immortality of the soul


> Dear List,
>
> As there is already a debate about philosophy of religion, I might as well
> supply this discussion with another question:
> Since Hegel agreed with most principles of Christianity and tries to
support
> Christian religion by philosophical arguments whenever he can, it puzzles
me
> that he, as far as I know, never gives an explicit argument for the
> immortality of the soul, which is a central part of Christian doctrine.
> A reason for that might be that the concept of the immortality of the
soul,
> as it is understood by Christians (i.e. the infinite persistence of
> individual souls in a world beyond this one) seems to be a classical case
of
> the deficient kind of infinity which Hegel criticizes in the section on
> finitude and infinity in the LOGIC. According to this interpretation, he
> didn't subscribe to this part of Christian doctrine.
> But, on the other hand, he gives, again as far as I know, no argument
> against the immortality of the soul either. Following my interpretation,
> this might be a result of him disagreeing with that part of Christian
> doctrine but not wanting to come into conflict with the authorities of his
> time. I mean, he knew what happened to Fichte. This is of course just some
> hypothesis I have come up with because I could not think of a better
> explanation.
> So does anyone know about a passage where he comments on that problem? And
> if there really isn't such a passage, could someone comment on the
> interpretation offered above?
>
> Best regards,
> Birte Schelling
>
>
>
>
> Homepage: http://hegel.net
> Group Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel
> other Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/res/ml.htm
> Listowners Homepage: http://kai.froeb.net
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Hegel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Group policy:
> slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
> only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.
>
> Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude
both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as
scientific standards apply.
>
> The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net,
that is the copyright belongs to the author but the mails are issued under
the GNU FDL (see ttp://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>