- Dec 18, 2018Alan,Your argument amounts to this -- "most scholars think that Hegel's Unhappy Consciousness (UC) is about Christianity".In other words, your argument is "consensus."That is the weaker argument -- no matter how many words you use (or anybody uses).Hegel never mentions Christ one single time in his UC section. Hegel never mentions the Church one single time in his UC section.Neither you, nor Wahl, nor Bardis, are willing to address this textual fact from the PRIMARY SOURCE, from Hegel himself. So, you rely on secondary sources -- the ocean of "text" that is called the "consensus" as well as the "canon".A defense of the canon is the main ruckus I hear around here. I demand more than the canon. I demand more than a consensus. I demand a DIRECT READING OF HEGEL.And yet, when I post quotations from Hegel here, I hear objections about that as well! What the hell!This is a Hegel list, dammit! Quote from Hegel, not from the canon! Let's hear from the PRIMARY SOURCE and not from the consensus!I have offered dozens of arguments to support my case -- from Hegel's PhG as well as from his LPR2. I have asked Srivats for his first-hand perceptions of living Hinduism -- and its history. He has told us -- there is an ASCETIC structure to Hinduism going back thousands of years -- long before Christ.Here is a solid argument. Hegel moves from prehistoric inarticulate Sense-Certainty to articulate Perception, to Scientific Understanding. That is one Triad. Full stop.Begin a new Triad -- Hegel moves from prehistoric Master/Slave relationship, to Stoicism and its children, including the Unhappy Consciousness. Stoicism begins in ancient Greece -- long before Christ. The ASCETIC ideal is known long before Christianity. It is also known in Hinduism -- long before Christ.Srivats affirmed this -- and then vanished. He will not contradict Alan Ponikvar -- heaven forbid!But my argument stands firm -- and it is has been confirmed by history -- specifically, the Ramayana. I could also cite Jose Ortega y Gasset on prehistoric history and its vicissitudes in this context.Actually -- I present many arguments -- but Alan Ponikvar covers his ears and sings, "la la la la la," in DENIAL.Sincerely,--Paul Trejohis is not in any evident sense an error. It is an interpretation with so much textual support that it has become the consensus reading.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 8:40:11 PM CST, 'Alan Ponikvar' ponikvaraj@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
This is not in any evident sense an error. It is an interpretation with so much textual support that it has become the consensus reading.
Because you are alone in your view, to even get a hearing you need to make a strong argument.
Instead, you make the very weak argument that Hegel does not explicitly identify the UC as a Christian consciousness.
Everyone knows this and still comes to accept the consensus reading because everything he says about the experience of this consciousness conforms with the Christian experience right down to how the mediator is a dead ringer for a minister.
To make a convincing case, you would have to go point by point through the text explaining why the obvious Christian allusions are illusory allusions. Good luck with that.
Moreover, you have not indicated how our understanding of the text is improved by ignoring the obvious allusions to Christian experience.
In other words, your comments are too narrowly focused on your assertion, weakly defended, that the consensus reading is in error.
You have nothing to say about what hangs on this consensus reading being in error.
This is important because one way the evidence that has convinced everyone of the truth of the consensus reading could be negated would be by showing that as convincing as this evidence might seem it contradicts some more important truth about the text that most people would be unwilling to give up.
In general, a strong circumstantial case for a reading might be overturned if there is some fact being ignored that cannot be ignored.
This would be like a murder case where all the evidence points to one suspect but it turns out that the suspect was at the time of the murder miles away from the scene of the crime. This one fact would be enough to overturn the otherwise strong circumstantial case.
So, if you wish to be informative on this matter, you need to show the significance of rejecting the Christian reading of UC.
How is our understanding of the text improved by avoiding this “error”? What is put at risk by embracing this “error”?
As things stand, you show no interest is starting where everyone is. A good faith attempt to change minds would start from acknowledging that it seems as if the UC is a Christian consciousness.
A good faith effort would also attempt to address why Hegel writes in a way that would encouraging this “error”.
Instead, you seem to suggest that there is no textual basis for the consensus reading simply because Hegel does not call the UC a Christian consciousness.
You seem to suggest that some outrage against reason is being committed.
This is hyperbolic and insures that you will not be heard.
- Alan
From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 2:05 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com; hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] Some thoughts on Jean WahlAgain, Wahl is entirely mistaken to project Christ and Christianity into Hegel's narrative in the Unhappy Consciousness. Hegel's never mentions Christ even one time, so no matter how many dozens of times Wahl repeats hus error, it remains an error.All best,
--Paul
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>
Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Learn More