Although I am exhausted from debating this issue for nearly
two years on this Yahoo Hegel List, and for nearly ten years on
other Hegel Lists, I am pleased that the issues have become
clearer for a new crop of students.

I am under no illusions that I will convince Beat or Maurizio
that Hegel clearly was -- as he said -- a theological thinker.
But I hope these debates will show to that there are deep
divisions within contemporary Hegel scholarship.

There are great and famous writers on their side and on my side.
The issue is not anywhere close to being resolved. But I want
students to know that, even in the Hegel Society of America,
they will find a heated debate by fine scholars on both sides
of this divide.

I should probably note that the translators themselves, such
as P.C. Hodgson, A.V. Miller, T. Geraets, Jon Stewart and
others, tend more toward a Theological Hegel.

It is the Political Science professors, under the influence
of 150 years of secular writers, who continue to wish to argue
for a non-theological and even a non-metaphysical Hegel.

The strident tone taken by Maurizio, namely, "therefore you
are not a Hegelian," is not uncommon in this field. I don't
wish to accuse Maurizio, however, because in fact he has many
scholars over the past 150 years to support him.

My main point is that the Metaphysical and Theological Hegel
also has a lot of support by some great writers. I sometimes
feel I should quote Hegel, month after month, because his
obviously theological quotations continue to be suppressed,
after 170 years!

So, enough! I have made my point long enough, and it is clear
that Maurizio and Beat have no intention of reading Hegel's
Theological texts in the spirit in which Hegel wrote them.

This is too bad. It suggests that Hegel studies cannot find
a unified front -- after 170 years -- and therefore another
generation (at least) will be needed before Hegel studies can
stand up to the level of a Science of Philosophy, with scholars
that agree on the key points, ready to confront philosophers
from other schools with a sufficiently non-contradictory
literature to make forward progress.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.


--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "Maurizio Canfora"
<mauriziocanfora@y...> wrote:

> Paul Trejo:
>
> >>>
> Now, Maurizio, few people are as dull as those who would claim
> that the current level of the State *today* matches Hegel's
> ideal for the full development of Spirit in its COMPLETENESS.
> That is obviously a project for future development. That is,
> as Hegel explicitly says, the Divine Purpose.
> <<<
>
> Not at all. This is just falling back into bad infinity. This is

not what

> Hegel says.
>
> This "completeness" you are mentioning has already been achieved,

in each

> and every stage of the development of the Spirit. In other words,

each and

> every stage of the development in the consciousness of freedom

represents

> the whole of the Spirit at a determinate time. Only this "whole"

constitutes

> the truth. Otherwise, this completeness you are talking about

becomes

> another "external" reference point, yet to be reached, yet to

exist, an

> abstractly posited criteria according to which you gauge reality

without

> understanding the dialectical action of the negative already taking

and

> continuously place within it.
>
> You seem to abhor Enlightenment philosophers, but you are actually

quite

> close to their moralistic stance (which is only one aspect of their

thought,

> by the way). They oppose Religion, but they actually recreate one,

and an

> abstract one, in their dualism.
>
> In my opinion, your vision of Hegelianism is fraught with religious
> prejudices, you try to project back on Hegel some sort of

eschatological

> meaning his Philosophy clearly does not have. There's no Heaven

waiting for

> us at the end of this life. Hegel is not Haller. And his dictum on

the

> rationality of the actual was criticised sharply by contemporary

reactionary

> (Catholic and not) philosophers who saw in it exactly what you fear

the

> most: a "divinisation" (to use your words) of the real, quite close

to (what

> you call) "materialism", and I would call the full recognition of

the

> autonomy of humanity as the sole actor capable to address and drive

his own

> actions.
>
> *** ***
>
> I do not believe this will convince you.
> You say that you are not cherry-picking Hegel's texts. But Hegel

cannot be

> quoted by tiny bits. It is dangerous to do so. All along his works,

Hegel

> endorses and criticizes from within the different stages in the

development

> of the Spirit. THis means - of course - acknowledging their part of

Truth.

> In the Lessons on the Philosophy of Religion, for instance, Hegel

talks

> about magic (Zauberei). Does this make of him a magus? In his

Logic, he

> deals with Kant's philosophy. Does this make him a Kantian?
>
> Yes and no.
> Hegel finds the rational within this attitudes and sublates them.

He can say

> he is Kantian insofar his Kantianism has been preserved in his new

form of

> philosophy. He can say he is a Lutheran insofar is Lutheranism is

this form

> of "logical" Religion he sublated to the level of philosophy. In

this sense,

> I could define myself a Christian too, in the sense that

Christianism has

> taught to me the possibility of the dialectical identity between

Man and

> God.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Maurizio Canfora