Yes.

For me it was just interesting, pleasing, to find something in this direction: I happily concur, therefore, in quite some of your critical remarks. It is more the theme than these two writers that interests me, and you I suppose.

Just now I won't attempt more than a few immediate reactions, comments, to yours, scattered if you will. I treat the subject systematically, or, where not that, more thoroughly, in several of my books, an effort over these ten years which seems to have rather exhausted me. So, not such a good interlocutor.

I was myself disappointed with Desmond and O'Regan, employed at denomenational universities, as also with Von Balthasar SJ over a series of half-remembered issues, going back a long way to even (my) pre-Hegelain days. And the same applies to Fr. Jamros, who just doesn't write philosophy, however.

It is not quite clear to me in yours where you speak or where these authors speak. However, where you (clearly) continue from the quote from them to saying "there is something just not quite right about Hegel's God-talk you make a jump. They do not say that. It is, if you can accept the word, your usual insinuation again. It is a mark of good theology, and always has been (I don't know how familiar you are with this)  to boldly developa new and creative theme, beginning, let's say, with St. Paul (or the prophets of Israel), and reaching to, but not ending with, Cardinal, now Saint, John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). Newman puts this forth as itself a doctrine and the clear conclusion from that is that this doctrine of development must itself go on developing, up to and after 1845. Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, generally considered "conservative", canonised Newman (made him a saint) with, undoubtedly, such writings as this in mind. The nature of some of your remarks elicit the necessity of including some such merely para-philosophical observations, re matter of which you may or may not be aware.

The clash between such theology and hypothetical ordinary believers has always existed, it's in the Gospels. As Hegel says, echoing the Founder, it is not always profitable to try to intiate just anyone into the philosophical (theological) citadel. On the other hand one can raise the question, as did Geach, whether a reciter of the Nicene Creed who understands nothing of what is said about, say, the Trinity there (or maybe none of the text at all) can be said to truly believe this would-be statement of belief, whatever else he believes. I cannot attempt to resolve this puzzle here. Hegel is very aware of it as his concept of a "true reason world"  shows (it attempts an answer).

It seems to be your words that "·these subtle thinkers .... are able to see through the subterfuge..  They are not ready to buy into Hegel's speculative reworking of the tradition". But they are, Alan, and this is the point of their article, if you read carefully. This second paragraph, namely, "At times etc." continues their previous paragraph, "But even these luminaries, etc.", continuing to describe how they, suspicious of Hegel, see things. I have myself been in touch with them and can vouch for theiropenness or, let's say for the moment, commitment to Hegel, whom they relate to Maximus the Confessor, on whom at least one of them is working. You can find a similar situation in the case of Ryan Haecker, who used to be on this list, and is now working, in a context of Hegelian theology, on Origen and the Alexandrian Church Fathers with Millbank and others (including the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury) at Cambridge U., England.. 

After this one comes to the philosophical meat of your comment. It's long and I'll have to pause here, just observing that, for example, God may well be a self-generating subject. I am not sure if you want to reject this or not. I would think God has to be that, as absolute freedom and, in religious terms, Lord of his being. Being would then turn out to be precisely being that Lord, however.

The infinite emptying into finitude seems to me a figure in quite some measure (I mean, all language is partly that).

What dies is always the God of previous religion. It, or perhaps he, is and has been continually doing that. In the end all talk will stop. Our philosophy is in that sense provisional and always has been. You say this yourself, "often utilised" etc.

Notions of truth, moreover, can be freely elaborated. All of which speaks for less biased theological, i.e. philosophical, consideration of Hegel, the reconciler. 

There may even be a place for some version of your view of things. Your remark about Catholics is not apposite. All philosophers, religious persons or artists, absolute spirit itself, leaves the everyday behind during its activity, answering only to itself. The person of faith believes that evertything he thinks fits in. he is not hampered or hindered but rather the opposite. this is also hegel's account of faith, Irecall. remember, the things which are seen, like your "Catholics", are temporal, passing away, not eternal and therefore not seen.

I have perhaps lapsed into conversational mode, in case I do not get opportulity etc. to continue in the above mode.

I hope my meaning is graspable.

Stephen Theron

From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of 'Alan Ponikvar' ponikvaraj@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 07 November 2018 20:25
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [hegel] Hegel's Dash