In response to the Sat31May03 post by Maurizio Canfora:

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

> Fantastic.
>
> So, don't you agree that the Unhappy Consciousness
> is actually the phenomenological counterpart of the
> religious alienation later described by Feuerbach?
> Don't you think that the role of philosophy should
> be to free humanity from internal and self-inflicted
> diremption?
>
> Maurizio Canfora

No, Maurizio, I don't agree that Feuerbach rises to the
level of Hegel's narrative. Also, I don't believe that the
role of Philosophy should be so narrowly limited to
this tiny part of Hegel's great Encyclopedia.

The growth from the Unhappy Consciousness to
the Recognition of Reason is one small moment in
Hegel's larger phenomenological path. The smallest
path we should isolate should still include this short
line-up (which is still only a small part of Hegel's
larger picture) which progresses from lower to
higher states of awareness:

1. Master/Slave Consciousness
2. Stoic Consciousness
3. Skeptical Consciousness
4. Cynical Consciousness
5. Unhappy Consciousness
6. Rational Consciousness

What we behold here is a common, human path of
consciousness expansion, followed by millions of
people over many centuries. Yet, as Hegel showed,
now that this has been done by Humanity, any given
individual can rise all these levels (and more)

Feuerbach's dualism never got Hegel right. The fact
that Hegel refused to respond to Feuerbach (as he
refused to dally with any parvenu) is a most vital
historical fact. Feuerbach is so far from Hegel -- so
dualistic and materialistic -- that he does not merit
a response. (Let Feuerbach first master Kant, and
then he might be qualified to address Hegel.)

Religion is far more complex than Feuerbach made
it seem. Ideology took a major step backward with
Feuerbach. Marx (according to Rosen) adopted
Feuerbach to spite Bruno Bauer, but Marx never
developed Feuerbach's ideas (nor vice verse).

Feuerbach is not Hegelian. He does not build upon
Hegel. He does no improve upon Hegel. Feuerbach
reverts to pre-Hegelian thinking. Feuerbach does not
even rise as high as Kant. Feuerbach is not worth
discussing, IMO, in a discussion about Hegel.

Hegel also agreed with me about Feuerbach, one may
say, since Hegel deliberately and personally gave
Feuerbach the cold shoulder. Until Marxists deal
with this vital historical fact, they continue to deal
uncritically with urgent matters that demand criticism.

Hegel's Unhappy Consciousness involves a moment
of consciousness *even higher* than the Skeptic and
the Cynic moments (and these two moments may be
seen as characteristic of the modern time).

The modern interpretation of Feuerbach does not move
up through the Skeptic, the Cynic, the Unhappy
Consciousness and then to first strains of Reason,
but the *reverse*!

The Unhappy Consciousness is pulled back into the
Skepticism of modern times! The attainment of
Reason, that is, Dialectical Reason, is never attained
by Feuerbach! That is obvious to anybody who
reads Feuerbach objectively, without the baggage
of Marx's biased (and ambivalent) interpretation.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo