Ralph Dumain asked:

>> but are you arguing for the consonance of Hegel's view of religion with

Feuerbach's and Marx's? I find your argument strained here <<

Paul Trejo wrote:

>> Religion is not alienation. Hegel's definition of Religion (that I

already gave at the start of this thread) is accurate, profound and
sufficient <<

*** ***

What I am implying is that what you find developed (also in a different
historical context) in Feuerbach's and Marx' philosophies is already
contained in Hegel's. This is the source of what we could call Feuerbach's
and Marx' Hegelianism.

Of course, this does not mean that Feuerbach's and Marx' philosophies do not
add anything new with regard to Hegel's; but as you cannot understand (for
instance) Lukács without Marx and Hegel (and that's the reason why they
define him as a "hegelo-marxist", the same happens with Marx, although Marx
is a more consistent and bigger theorist than Lukács.

What is actually left out in Hegel vis-à-vis Feuerbach's and Marx' position
on religion is the subject of alienation. Or at least this is how the matter
would look like. This is probably why Paul Trejo decided to introduce this
element in the discussion. But is it really so?

I am interested in learning Paul's interpretation of the section "Unhappy
Consciousness" in the 'Phenomenology of the Spirit', before I go on. I hope
he will accept the thread.








At 07:13 AM 5/30/2003 +0800, Maurizio Canfora wrote:

>Paul Trejo wrote:
>
> >>
>For Karl Marx, God does not create man but rather man creates God. Hegel
>has already stated that such a view is "foolish and perverted," (LECTURES

ON

>THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, 1827) and I quoted that [...]
>
>«Human Reason, human spiritual consciousness or consciousness of its own
>Essence, *is*
>Reason generally, *is* the Divine within humanity. Spirit, insofar as it

is

>called Divine Spirit, is not a spirit beyond the stars or beyond the world,
>for God is Present, is Omnipresent, and strictly *as* Spirit is God present
>in Spirit. Religion is a begetting of the Divine Spirit, not an invention

of

>human beings." (Hegel, LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, 1827,

trans.

>Hodgson, 1989, U. of California Press, vol. 1, p. 130)»
><<
>
>I believe that Hegel is here referring explicitly to the Enlightenment
>treatment of religion, as a mere superstition and as a "devilish" invention
>by corrupt priests. However, it would be incorrect, in my opinion, to
>analyse Feuerbach's (and Marx') treatment of religion as a side-effect of
>Enlightenment.
>
>Feuerbach and Marx came (biographically, historically and philosophically
>speaking) AFTER Hegel, therefore their analysis of religion could not do
>without Hegel's insight. I believe that their treatment of religion may be
>considered as a side-effect of Hegelianism. This might sound provocative to
>Paul -- but here I am not discussing the rather sterile and abstract issue
>whether Hegel would have approved of Marx: what I am trying to say is that
>Hegel's very analysis of religion made Feuerbach's atheism possible.
>
>Both Feuerbach and Marx do not consider religion as an "invention". They
>would actually agree with Hegel's affirmation that «*Human* Reason, *human*
>spiritual consciousness or consciousness of its own Essence, is Reason
>generally, is the Divine within humanity» [emphasis added]. What Hegel is
>actually stating here is the notion that there is a dialectical unity
>between *human* reason and *divinity*, that divinity *is* (or becomes) the
>*human* reason and vice-versa.
>
>Apart from being the pivotal message from Christianity -- for this very
>reason considered by Hegel the highest form of Religion -- this is also the
>core of Hegel's philosophy:
>humanity is God, the God that is «not a spirit beyond the stars or beyond
>the world, for God is Present, is Omnipresent, and strictly *as* Spirit is
>God present in Spirit».
>
>When Hegel mention the "Spirit" he is not dealing with a ghost which would
>be "beyond the stars" or in a haunted house. Recently Beat Greuter cited a
>wonderful passage from the Phenomenology, where it is clear that this
>"Spirit", this "we" which is an "I" is deeply human.
>
>It is bearing in mind this discovery from Christianity, that it is possible
>to abandon the viewpoint of Religion to reach the highness of Philosophy.
>Philosophy -- which contains and develops this truth from Christianity

(that

>Man is God) -- is the truth of Religion.
>
>** ** **
>
>It is in this sense that I mean that Feuerbach's later philosophy develops
>(probably without understanding it) an already present feature in Hegel's
>philosophy of religion. Far from naively considering religion as a simple
>invention by priests, Feuerbach too considers it as the «begetting of the
>Divine Spirit». What he also thinks, consistently with Hegel, is that this
>Divine Spirit is nothing else but Human Reason. Subsequently, he goes on
>analysing the reason why humanity needs to project its major "divine"
>attribute (Reason) in the varying and fallacious images of different
>personal Gods.
>
>But without Hegel, without the very content of the passage from the
>philosophy of religion that Paul quoted, no Feuerbach (and no Marx) could
>have approached the subject.
>
>All the best,
>Maurizio

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/

In response to the Fri30May03 post by Maurizio Canfora:

> I am interested in learning Paul's interpretation of the
> section "Unhappy Consciousness" in the 'Phenomenology
> of the Spirit', before I go on. I hope he will accept the thread.
>
> All the best,
> Maurizio

Great topic, Maurizio; I invested a lot of attention in the
'Unhappy Consciousness' motif in my master's thesis at
Cal State (1989).

My views then were very similiar to those of Professor
Howard Kainz: the Unhappy Consciousness can best
be compared to the social drop-out from all epochs in
history -- epitomized by the Monk and Nun.

When Hegel raises this topic it is within a sequence of
the evolution of consciousness.

From the Master/Slave relation, consciousness evolves
up to the Stoic consciousness (this is because the
Stoic chooses to be only Master of the Self and Slave
of the Self alone, thus synthesizing the opposites).

The next phase, we might say, the children of the Stoic,
however, become Skeptics. They see too many flaws
in the Stoic attitude. With all its beauty and poetry,
and living in harmony with human nature, the Stoic
can be too easily exploited, too kind and too gullible.
The Skeptic finds truth in *nothing* and nothing is
beyond his acid test.

The next phase, the children of the Skeptic, however,
become Cynics. Imagine being raised by a Skeptic
where a child can never be right! Nothing is true!
Nothing is good enough! The Cynic just drops out
of Society. This is the drop-out. This is the Unhappy
Consciousness.

The Unhappy Consciousness is universal, but it
has a profoundly Religious element. It is very
sharply developed in the Monestaries of Earth,
in every land and every century.

Kierkegaard, the icon of the Unhappy Consciousness
in modern literature, was himself drunk on God.

The Unhappy Consciousness is profoundly reflective.
It is deeply introspective. It is dissatisfied with the
follies of human nature. It does not see the Truth
anywhere -- but unlike the Skeptic, it feels certain
that the Truth exists somewhere -- perhaps in some
invisible realm that the hoi polloi do not know.

Hegel goes so far in this section to discuss the
intensity of solitary prayer (and this includes many
other cultural activities, such as iconic devotion,
intensive meditation, occult experiments and so on)
as the Unhappy Consciousness explores every
avenue possible to obtain transcendence.

Hegel describes this is moving detail in paragraphs
207 to 230 of the PHENOMENOLOGY. For Hegel,
however, the Unhappy Consciousness is
victorious only when it loses -- when it gives up
in defeat. This is ritualized in the category of
religious sacrifice. Hegel says,

"In the sacrifice actually carried out,
consciousness has also *in principle*
obtained relief from its misery."
(Hegel, Ph.G, para. 230)

The solitary metaphysical devotee makes many internal
changes in this time -- a time that is open to all people,
regardless of the century. For the first time, consciousness
learns to Surrender, not to a Master, not to the Self, but
to an Objective Something that is out there, real, but
remains somehow remote and unfathomable. Hegel says,

"Its Will does indeed become universal
and essential Will, but consciousness
does not itself *take* itself to be this
essential Will. The surrender of its own
Will, as a *particular* Will, is not taken
by it to be in principle the postive aspect
of Universal Will." (Hegel, ibid.)

What did she gain from all those wasted years of trying to
levitate (so to speak)? Answer: an iron will, the knowledge
of what Reason is *not*, and the pure freedom of
Self-consciousness. Hegel says,

"For-itself, action and its own actual
doing remain pitiful. It enjoyment
remains pain. The overcoming of
these in a positive sense remains a
*beyond*. But in this Object, in
which it finds that its own action
and being, as being that of this
*particular* consciousness, are
being and action *in themselves*,
there arises for consciousness the
idea of Reason." (Hegel, ibid.)

People generally hold the same potential for fulfillment
and growth. Hegel outlines the path of human growth
and its various stages throughout history. Yet not all
individuals work equally intensely to attain growth, and
so the result is lopsided.

The Unhappy Consciousness represents a stage of
human growth that is open to all people, yet it is
profoundly solitary. (What is poignant is that so many
solitary people -- in so many centuries -- may identify
with Hegel's description of their inner consciousness.)

The people who struggled for years in this way are
the only ones who could surpass it. The next stage
of Consciousness after the Unhappy Consciousness
is the Certainty and Truth of Reason.

Maurizio, these are very preliminary and hasty
observations regarding a very complicated topic, but
I hope I have given you some indication of my thinking
on this Hegelian masterpiece of literature.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo