- Jun 23
Hi Stephen,
I hope you and Regina will have a good summer in Sweden. I’m in Arizona for ten days, also tired, just arrived yesterday.
The passage that I quoted can be found in the Suhrkamp Werke, Wissenschaft der Logik, at: http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Hegel,+Georg+Wilhelm+Friedrich/Wissenschaft+der+Logik/Erster+Teil.+Die+objektive+Logik/Erstes+Buch%3A+Die+Lehre+vom+Sein/Erster+Abschnitt%3A+Bestimmtheit+(Qualit%C3%A4t)/Zweites+Kapitel%3A+Das+Dasein/C.+Die+Unendlichkeit/c.+Die+affirmative+Unendlichkeit
It's in the seventh paragraph. They have much though not all of the Suhrkamp Werke there. All the major works. Valuable!
And in the Miller translation at:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl136.htm#HL1_143
likewise in the seventh paragraph, here numbered as §293.
Best, Bob
From: <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "stephen theron stephentheron@... [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:37 AM
To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hegel] Science as an Aspect of God (following Hegel)Dear Bob,
Thanks for this. To my annoyance I have not brought the Suhrkamp with me to Sweden (hope to be reunited with it in October) so embarked on a meditative search over the paragraphs on finite and infinite in EL. i am pretty sure the doctrine is the same. Perhaps mine to you was a little bit of a throwback, not sure. "(T)he infinity consists in sublating its own self". I.e. this is the immutability which is thus not restricted or restricting, as it could not anyhow be of course. This self-relation would be one continuous (or instantaneous or both at once) infinite act, corresponding to the theological generation of the Word, for Hegel, I mean in the first place Hegel, and the response thereto. There is a theologian called Scola, I think, following Barth in his own intention at least, who relates this (Father and Word/Son) directly to "Male and female created he them" (i.e. throughout nature too). No one here so far has tied this up with Dante. Perhaps one had better not, one step enough.
Landed here two midnights ago. Takes time to settle in and down.
For today,
Stephen Theron.
From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Robert M Wallace bob@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 16 June 2019 16:03
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] Science as an Aspect of God (following Hegel)Hi Stephen,
Here’s the reference: “The infinite is only as a going beyond [Hinausgehen über] the finite…. The finite is not sublated [aufgehoben, “lifted up”] by the infinite as by a power existing outside it; on the contrary, its infinity consists in sublating its own self [sich selbst aufzuheben]” (Hegel’s Science of Logic, trans. A.V. Miller, p. 146; Suhrkamp Werke 5:160; Gesammelte Werke 21:133).
That’s all I have time for now.
All the best, Bob
From: <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "stephen theron stephentheron@... [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 3:08 AM
To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hegel] Science as an Aspect of God (following Hegel)Hello Bob,
I am struck here by your citation that the infinite "is only as the self--surpassing of the finite". I would be grateful if you happen to be able to give me the source for that phrase. As you may recall I in the past rather questioned your saying things similar. These days, more days spent reading Hegel perhaps, I can see a sense, which might well be his, in which, on his premises, this is true, i.e. it need not mean, as I once took it to do, that the infinite, the Idea, grows out of our finite being, though I add that I am not certain that that is impossible to say either.
Rather I take it that all God's works are necessary (this is the basis of necessity's identity with freedom): the Idea purposed all it does from for ever, even to the self-fixing (so to say only) of necessity itself (as dependent upon, identical with indeed, absolute freedom, with no shadow of turning, as it was said. The Idea is totally in tune with its own act, is purely that act, thinking itself, as Aristotle wisely said, wherein is included everything as otherwise nothing except as thus thought, as part of "the system", the design rather. All of which Hegel claims to be logical or rather supra-logical truth, as itself founding logic.
Within this system the Idea would be "only" the self-surpassing of the finite. But one would want to see "self" as ultimately applying to the Idea, but not as if prior to its act (i.e. the Idea does not surpass itself, or you might equally say ever or constitutively does so). It is its act, entirely, and therefore in a sense it is not (i.e. is not as something extra which then has an act, even when viewed eternally, as it should be). So given the finite, we cannot understand it without attributing it to this Act, to the Idea (as Hegel writes of the contingent at the end of LPEG or near the end). It will, or it must then, surpass itself or simply be, to be anything, self-surpassing. But this, turning things round, is the very proof that it is "made out of nothing", is not what it is and is what it is not, to cite an ancient source.
Your comments appreciated!
Stephen Theron.
Stephen Theron
From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Robert M Wallace bob@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 14 June 2019 17:11
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] Science as an Aspect of God (following Hegel)Hi Srivats,
Thanks again. I’ll intersperse myself now as “BB.”
B: There may not be a “moral” value, as such, but there certainly is a value. Nor could this situation be “oppressive”—since what unifies the five domains is precisely that they all embody (in one way or another) freedom, or “self-determination” as I mostly call it in the talk.
S: I think the idea of freedom or self-determination in Hegel is not in any simple way related to the individual. So when Hegel is talking about self- determination or freedom, he is talking about Spirit and in so far as Spirit has a component that supersedes the individual, so does that freedom. The freedom is of the pattern of consciousness to develop into its next form.. This freedom, doubtless is also the truth of necessity. So a Slave consciousness can be followed by a Stoic one, but this has little to do with individual slaves or stoics.
BB: But it has a everything to do with individual slaves or stoics insofar as those individuals seek to be self-determining or free. They discover, if they are fully self-aware, that their slavery or their stoicism, as such, doesn’t make them self-determining or free. In this sense, Spirit has no “component that supersedes the individual.”
B: The “good” of the configuration is precisely that it embodies freedom (self-determination). That’s also the sense in which it’s “rational.”
S: Again, Golgotha is the path that can lead to freedom of the Spirit (perhaps) through the death of the individual(s).
BB: Since individuals are finite, Spirit as infinite necessarily involves the death of every individual. But that doesn’t mean that Spirit has an existence or life that are separate from those of individuals. The infinite “is [only] as the self-surpassing of the finite”: Spirit is only as what we do and can experience. If there were individuals to whom full-fledged Spirit was not available to be experienced, there would be no Spirit.
S: Which is the only way in which I can understand the configuration of art, science, ethics, religion and politics (I am not paying attention to John's more precise sequence and Fichtean reference here) leading to better things -- it has to apply to World War II and Nazi Germany, and the surely possible fate of Muslims in India today.
BB: This configuration is not something to be accomplished in the future, or something that will “lead to better things.” As I said earlier, it’s always already present; rather than a “philosophical goal,” in the future, it’s “actual,” in Hegel’s sense: that is, it’s fully present in every now. This is certainly an unfamiliar idea, for what we might call “secular” or “modern” thought. But it’s what Hegel (like Plato and Aristotle) is all about. If this wasn’t already clear in the Phenomenology, it should be made fully clear by the Encyclopedia, in which Absolute Spirit (art, religion, and philosophy) returns to the “Idea” (Enc. §574), which was the timeless, non-historical conclusion of the Logic. There has never been a time at which the Idea wasn’t fully present, and insofar as Absolute Spirit returns to the Idea, the same is true of Absolute Spirit.
Best, Bob
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:08 AM Robert M Wallace bob@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you, Srivats! Thanks for the congratulations.
Now you write:
S: What it means is that there is a configuration of the subsets science, religion, ethics, art and philosophy which go together. There is no moral value of what this going together implies -- it may well be quite oppressive to humans who live in the regime (of their going together)
B: There may not be a “moral” value, as such, but there certainly is a value... Nor could this situation be “oppressive”—since what unifies the five domains is precisely that they all embody (in one way or another) freedom, or “self-determination” as I mostly call it in the talk.
S: it is extremely difficult to say what the 'good' of the configuration (of these finite domains) will be at any point in time -- except that they are actual because rational at that moment, driving towards something 'better',
B: The “good” of the configuration is precisely that it embodies freedom (self-determination). That’s also the sense in which it’s “rational.”
One comment here: The Phenomenology of Spirit is a fascinating book, but the Encyclopedia is in many ways much more straightforward, and it’s more explicit on key issues, such as the issues that we’re discussing here. It’s only thanks to the Encyclopedia that I’ve gotten the hang of these issues, as far as I have.
Best, Bob
From: <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "R Srivatsan r.srivats@gmail..com [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups..com>
Reply-To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 7:57 PM
To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hegel] Science as an Aspect of God (following Hegel)Thanks Bob for these responses in spite of your time pressure. And congratulations on your daughter's wedding (do people do that in the US? We do -- it is seen as an achievement of parents that children settle down).
Now, if you put it this way (the way you have in your last post) I have no problem with what you are saying. What it means is that there is a configuration of the subsets science, religion, ethics, art and philosophy which go together. There is no moral value of what this going together implies -- it may well be quite oppressive to humans who live in the regime (of their going together) -- except that it is always working its way out.
I realize I was attributing an ought to you, and in doing so, fell into the trap of thinking with the ought myself :-)
However, it is extremely difficult to say what the 'good' of the configuration (of these finite domains) will be at any point in time -- except that they are actual because rational at that moment, driving towards something 'better', and since we belong to the present configuration, we don't actually know what that better will be (being non actual in the present).
Warmest always
SrivatsOn Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:15 AM Robert M Wallace bob@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hi Srivats,
You write:
S: Historically, Hegel's exploration in the Preface to the PhS is of the non-negotiable opposition between religion and science of his day -- it is an exposition of his disenchantment with the abandonment of Spirit by both religion and science in (his) contemporary moment.
Bob: If by “non-negotiable” you mean that it was not negotiable by the advocates of religion and of science in his day, I agree.
S: Of course, Hegel argues that they go together in Absolute Knowing, but that final stage (and it is one) is not historical, it is a philosophical goal. Absolute Knowing is the realization of the infinite in such a way that the sides (finite and infinite) merge. In so far as religion, science, art, ethics and philosophy are finite forms of conceptualization, they are separate. To achieve the status of Absolute Knowing, these boundaries must fall away. In that sense it is an ideal, an ought, which will show that both religion and science are sublated within it.
Bob: If Absolute Knowing were “an ideal, an ought,” it would be subject to Hegel’s critique of the “ought” in Fichte and Kant: that this “ought” is a spurious infinity, which fails to be infinite because it’s opposed to the finite, and limited by this opposition. Rather, Hegel clearly thinks of Absolute Knowing (like all true “absolutes”) as always already in process, containing what is non-“absolute.” To say that it’s “not historical” is to make it finite.
S: Time comes into it because Hegel, unlike Schelling, doesn't subscribe to the immediate identity of I = I. The work of philosophy has to be done.
Bob: As Hegel sees it (IMO) the work of philosophy is always already in process. So in one sense “time comes into it”: like all human activities, it takes time. But it is also always already present (“actual,” as he puts it when he says that “the rational is the actual and the actual is rational”). It is not “immediate,” because it requires time and effort. But the reason for its not being immediate is not that it’s a “philosophical goal,” or that it’s in the future.
Best, Bob
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:57 PM Robert M Wallace bob@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thanks, Srivats.
No, I don’t think the Phenomenology is predicated on a historical assessment that science and religion don’t go together. I think its conclusion is that they go together in Absolute Knowing.
Of course, when it is sublated in Absolute Knowing, religion acknowledges that it is not the whole, but only an aspect. But it is nevertheless still present (sublation preserves as well as negating).
Similarly, when “science” as we normally understand it, namely as Consciousness, is sublated in Self-Consciousness and Spirit, and ultimately in Absolute Knowing, it is nevertheless still present as an aspect. In this way, science and religion “go together” in Absolute Knowing.
The same relationship is spelled out again in the Encyclopedia, in which science (as Consciousness) and religion (an aspect of Absolute Spirit) go together in Philosophy (the consummation of Absolute Spirit).
Best, Bob
From: <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "R Srivatsan r.srivats@gmail..com [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups..com>
Reply-To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM
To: "hegel@yahoogroups.com" <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [hegel] Science as an Aspect of God (following Hegel)Hi Bob,
Now if the question was whether Hegel said art, science, religion, ethics and philosophy
(Message over 64 KB, truncated) - << 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. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More