Hi John,

I'd be very interested to know the source of the citation you give below.

1. The subtle question of whether God's actions are free of necessary was
also an issue in the French reception of Hegel - particularly in relation to
the writings of Victor Cousin. We would need to examine the ideas of
freedom and necessity first. There is for one thing the problem of
'univocity' - whether such terms mean the same thing as applied to God as
applied to man. Even aside from that, they are not unambiguous in their
finite sense. For example, Hegel's necessity is generally opposed to the
accidental, rather than to the contingent. Some of his less-informed
commentators blunder here, though I cannot say Barth is among them. This is
because they assume the categories of modern empiricism - particularly that
of disconnected, random events, atoms of reality to be known separately, on
the model of disconnected sensation (or "nerve-hits" in the materialist
version). The 'freedom' that Barth attributes to God is of this kind - a
random 'free' act. Hegel's program is to 'transcend' (aufheben) finite
oppositions as that between freedom and necessity - both as applied to man,
and as applied to God. This is what is behind the quote from Hegel, where
he also speaks of God's freedom.

2. The author below then criticises Hegel for the lack of transcendence in
his idea of God. Here in contrast I agree, and consider Hegel mistaken and
one-sided (the common charge of "pantheism" laid against him).

3. I'm afraid the meaning of the remark that Hegel's idea of the Trinity
is 'economic' escapes me, though the point about its being historical simply
repeats the point about its lack of transcendence. Hegel writes extensively
about this. As Barth points out, he tries to see necessity in the doctrine,
rather than Barth's version of it as simply revealed in the Bible.

4. The quote from Barth is certainly intriguing. His stress on identity
seems intended to bolster the unique impressiveness of scripture. My own
feeling is that revelation is found principally in our own minds and in
nature, and what is called biblical revelation is at least principally a
compound of these. The stress on scripture doesn't stand up even to modern
translations to my mind. Many people are certainly receptive to a more
bible-bashing approach, but although intense, as it lacks rational content,
it is often not lifelong.

5. I'm sorry to hear though, that I am classified as "modern and secular"
for this reason!

All the best
Stephen Cowley

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: [hegel] Barth's critique of Hegel


> The following is a brief summary of Barth's critique of Hegel:
>
> "Barth's critique of Hegel is well known. First, the divine act of
> Self-differentiation, of positing an Other over against himself and
> then reconciling that Other to himself is, for Hegel, a necessary
> rather than free act. This means that creation and reconciliation
> are both necessary for God, which completely undermines the
> graciousness of those activities. Second, ultimately, the process
> by means of which God comes to full consciousness of himself
> (becomes, that is, Absolute Spirit) is indistinguishable from the
> process by means of which human beings come to consciousness
> of God. God comes to consciousness of himself in and through
> human consciousness of him. And that can only mean that God's
> being becomes (develops, unfolds) in and through the historical
> process. It also means - to apply this thought to the doctrine of
> the Trinity - that the act of Self-differentiation which 'constitutes'
> the Trinity is a historical, 'economic' act. The 'immanent Trinity'
> would be, in Hegel's view, a purely eschatological reality; it is
> the consequence of the economy of God. Incarnation is constitutive
> of the divine being in a very bold sense indeed. The historicization
> of God here knows no limits."
>
> This certainly corresponds to the general understanding of Hegel.
>
> But in the third paragraph of Hegel's Lecture Manuscript on the
> Philosophy of Religion, he writes:
>
> "This object [God] exists solely through itself and for its own sake.
> It is something that is absolutely self-sufficient, unconditioned,
> independent, free."
>
> This seems to suggest that there is something missing in the above
> characterization of Hegel.
>
> But however that may be, in the end Barth's and Hegel's positions seem
> to be almost identical. The above is continued so:
>
> "Barth's view differs from Hegel's on all these points...[a brief
description
> of Barth's views is given]...Perhaps the most significant consequence
> of this is that the immanent Trinity [for Barth] is made to be wholly
> identical in content with the economic Trinity. As Barth puts it: 'the
reality
> of God in His revelation cannot be bracketed by an "only", as though
> somewhere behind His revelation there stood another reality of God; the
> reality of God which encounters us in His revelation is His reality in all
the
> depths of eternity.'"
>
> At any rate the difference between Barth and Hegel is probably too subtle
> for modern, secular people like us to discern.
>
> John

In response to the Thu04Sep03 post by John Bardis:

> The following is a brief summary of Barth's critique of Hegel:
>
> "Barth's critique of Hegel is well known. First, the divine act of
> Self-differentiation, of positing an Other over against himself and
> then reconciling that Other to himself is, for Hegel, a necessary
> rather than free act. This means that creation and reconciliation
> are both necessary for God, which completely undermines the
> graciousness of those activities. Second, ultimately, the process
> by means of which God comes to full consciousness of himself
> (becomes, that is, Absolute Spirit) is indistinguishable from the
> process by means of which human beings come to consciousness
> of God. God comes to consciousness of himself in and through
> human consciousness of him. And that can only mean that God's
> being becomes (develops, unfolds) in and through the historical
> process. It also means - to apply this thought to the doctrine of
> the Trinity - that the act of Self-differentiation which 'constitutes'
> the Trinity is a historical, 'economic' act. The 'immanent Trinity'
> would be, in Hegel's view, a purely eschatological reality; it is
> the consequence of the economy of God. Incarnation is constitutive
> of the divine being in a very bold sense indeed. The historicization
> of God here knows no limits."
>
> This certainly corresponds to the general understanding of Hegel.

I cannot agree, John. Barth does not do justice to Hegel's idea
of FREEDOM in God. This is no minor point. Barth suggests
that Hegel's God is CONSTRAINED to Create, and to Create
precisely *this* Creation. That does not exist in Hegel's
writings. Where Barth gets all these errors I cannot guess.
Barth, bluntly, does not understand Hegel. However, like
David Strauss (1835) before him, Barth seems to wish to
appropriate the Hegelian language for his own purposes.

> But in the third paragraph of Hegel's Lecture Manuscript on
> the Philosophy of Religion, he writes:
>
> "This object [God] exists solely through itself and for its
> own sake. It is something that is absolutely self-sufficient,
> unconditioned, independent, free."
>
> This seems to suggest that there is something missing in
> the above characterization of Hegel.

Excellent, John! You've nailed perhaps the central point in any
criticism of Barth. I'm slightly curious -- perhaps you know --
how did Barth arrive at his errors about Hegel; are these common
criticisms of *other* philosophers today? Of pantheists?

> But however that may be, in the end Barth's and Hegel's
> positions seem to be almost identical.

I must disagree, John. There are wide differences, going by
the article by Barth himself. Hans Kung will disagree, too.

> The above is continued so:
>
> "Barth's view differs from Hegel's on all these points...[a brief
> description of Barth's views is given]...Perhaps the most
> significant consequence of this is that the immanent Trinity
> [for Barth] is made to be wholly identical in content with the
> economic Trinity. As Barth puts it: 'the reality of God in His
> revelation cannot be bracketed by an "only", as though
> somewhere behind His revelation there stood another reality
> of God; the reality of God which encounters us in His revelation
> is His reality in all the depths of eternity.'"
>
> At any rate the difference between Barth and Hegel is probably
> too subtle for modern, secular people like us to discern.
>
> John

Well, John, I agree insofar as a discussion of Barth -- who
misrepresents Hegel -- is outside the scope of a Hegel List,
particularly when so many readers are not yet familiar with
Hegel's own theology. This should be our starting point, and
the errors by Barth will only serve to confuse things more (for
those who are interested in Hegel's theology in the first place,
which may be a limited readership anyway).

Ultimately, Barth remains a dualist, and cannot work with
the logical methodology of Hegel's specific dialectical logic.
The problem of Immanence/Transcendence is not so glibly
explained with an Either/Or methodology.

But I don't want to talk about Barth -- the important thing is
to disseminate Hegel's System -- including his theology --
since there is so much misinformation out there. Barth is
part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

The summary of Barth's critique of Hegel, Stephen, comes from an essay by Bruce McCormack in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. He also wrote an oddly named though quite interesting book, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology.

Concerning freedom and necessity as applied to God:

According to Christian theologians the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son) from all eternity. All this happens by necessity from God's nature. This is God in
and for Himself, otherwise known as the immanent Trinity.

Then there is what you can call the eternal decree. This has to do with creation, incarnation,
predestination, etc. This decree is also decreed from all eternity. But it doesn't proceed by necessity from God's nature. It proceeds according to God's free will. From all eternity God chose creation. He could have chosen otherwise or not at all. All this has to do with God in relation to creation, otherwise known as the economic Trinity.

The position generally ascribed to Spinoza is that the world derives by necessity from God's nature. There was no free act of will on God's part in regard to creation. McCormack and Barth are saying that Hegel also
took this view of the matter.

But according to Barth there is no difference between the economic and immanent Trinity. So he winds up at
about the same place as Hegel. But they are saying that Hegel missed a step - namely God's free act of will in regard to creation. When you say that Hegel was a pantheist, you are agreeing with them.

But Hegel claimed that he wasn't a pantheist. The sentence that I quoted from Hegel - "[God] is something that is absolutely self-sufficient, unconditioned, independent, free" - seems to suggest that Hegel was aware of God's freedom in regard to creation.

You are quite persistent, by the way, concerning the Bible. When Barth speaks of revelation he isn't referring to the Bible. For Barth - and for Christian theologians in general, and even for the Church in general - God's revelation is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the prophetic and apostolic witness to God's revelation.

I mean that I am modern and secular. Antique arguments about the Trinity and revelation and the Bible and Jesus Christ are quite foreign to my nature. We could just as well be talking about Hindu philosophy.

John

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Cowley
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [hegel] Barth's critique of Hegel


Hi John,

I'd be very interested to know the source of the citation you give below.

1. The subtle question of whether God's actions are free of necessary was
also an issue in the French reception of Hegel - particularly in relation to
the writings of Victor Cousin. We would need to examine the ideas of
freedom and necessity first. There is for one thing the problem of
'univocity' - whether such terms mean the same thing as applied to God as
applied to man. Even aside from that, they are not unambiguous in their
finite sense. For example, Hegel's necessity is generally opposed to the
accidental, rather than to the contingent. Some of his less-informed
commentators blunder here, though I cannot say Barth is among them. This is
because they assume the categories of modern empiricism - particularly that
of disconnected, random events, atoms of reality to be known separately, on
the model of disconnected sensation (or "nerve-hits" in the materialist
version). The 'freedom' that Barth attributes to God is of this kind - a
random 'free' act. Hegel's program is to 'transcend' (aufheben) finite
oppositions as that between freedom and necessity - both as applied to man,
and as applied to God. This is what is behind the quote from Hegel, where
he also speaks of God's freedom.

2. The author below then criticises Hegel for the lack of transcendence in
his idea of God. Here in contrast I agree, and consider Hegel mistaken and
one-sided (the common charge of "pantheism" laid against him).

3. I'm afraid the meaning of the remark that Hegel's idea of the Trinity
is 'economic' escapes me, though the point about its being historical simply
repeats the point about its lack of transcendence. Hegel writes extensively
about this. As Barth points out, he tries to see necessity in the doctrine,
rather than Barth's version of it as simply revealed in the Bible.

4. The quote from Barth is certainly intriguing. His stress on identity
seems intended to bolster the unique impressiveness of scripture. My own
feeling is that revelation is found principally in our own minds and in
nature, and what is called biblical revelation is at least principally a
compound of these. The stress on scripture doesn't stand up even to modern
translations to my mind. Many people are certainly receptive to a more
bible-bashing approach, but although intense, as it lacks rational content,
it is often not lifelong.

5. I'm sorry to hear though, that I am classified as "modern and secular"
for this reason!

All the best
Stephen Cowley

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: [hegel] Barth's critique of Hegel


> The following is a brief summary of Barth's critique of Hegel:
>
> "Barth's critique of Hegel is well known. First, the divine act of
> Self-differentiation, of positing an Other over against himself and
> then reconciling that Other to himself is, for Hegel, a necessary
> rather than free act. This means that creation and reconciliation
> are both necessary for God, which completely undermines the
> graciousness of those activities. Second, ultimately, the process
> by means of which God comes to full consciousness of himself
> (becomes, that is, Absolute Spirit) is indistinguishable from the
> process by means of which human beings come to consciousness
> of God. God comes to consciousness of himself in and through
> human consciousness of him. And that can only mean that God's
> being becomes (develops, unfolds) in and through the historical
> process. It also means - to apply this thought to the doctrine of
> the Trinity - that the act of Self-differentiation which 'constitutes'
> the Trinity is a historical, 'economic' act. The 'immanent Trinity'
> would be, in Hegel's view, a purely eschatological reality; it is
> the consequence of the economy of God. Incarnation is constitutive
> of the divine being in a very bold sense indeed. The historicization
> of God here knows no limits."
>
> This certainly corresponds to the general understanding of Hegel.
>
> But in the third paragraph of Hegel's Lecture Manuscript on the
> Philosophy of Religion, he writes:
>
> "This object [God] exists solely through itself and for its own sake.
> It is something that is absolutely self-sufficient, unconditioned,
> independent, free."
>
> This seems to suggest that there is something missing in the above
> characterization of Hegel.
>
> But however that may be, in the end Barth's and Hegel's positions seem
> to be almost identical. The above is continued so:
>
> "Barth's view differs from Hegel's on all these points...[a brief
description
> of Barth's views is given]...Perhaps the most significant consequence
> of this is that the immanent Trinity [for Barth] is made to be wholly
> identical in content with the economic Trinity. As Barth puts it: 'the
reality
> of God in His revelation cannot be bracketed by an "only", as though
> somewhere behind His revelation there stood another reality of God; the
> reality of God which encounters us in His revelation is His reality in all
the
> depths of eternity.'"
>
> At any rate the difference between Barth and Hegel is probably too subtle
> for modern, secular people like us to discern.
>
> John


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Two remarks here:

> Well, John, I agree insofar as a discussion of Barth -- who
> misrepresents Hegel -- is outside the scope of a Hegel List,
> particularly when so many readers are not yet familiar with
> Hegel's own theology. This should be our starting point, and
> the errors by Barth will only serve to confuse things more (for
> those who are interested in Hegel's theology in the first place,
> which may be a limited readership anyway).

I disagree here. We can learn about Hegel by discussing common
interpretations of him, or by studying his relations with contrasting
figures - of which Barth is certainly one.

> But I don't want to talk about Barth -- the important thing is
> to disseminate Hegel's System -- including his theology --
> since there is so much misinformation out there. Barth is
> part of the problem, not part of the solution.
>
> Best regards,
> --Paul Trejo

But not the *only* important thing - and applying Hegel's concepts to more
recent work might help clarify his thought for many of us.

All the best
Stephen

John,

Quite right, Hegel was not a pantheist. He also defended Spinoza
from charges of pantheism (although Hegel was not a Spinozist,
either). Hegel said that 'nobody has ever suggested that' notion
that any bit of material flotsam and jetsam is God. Even Spinoza's
Substance, says Hegel, was not Matter, but was God, so much so
that Spinoza, far from being a Materialist (or a pantheist) was really
an Acosmist (e.g. only God exists, and the world as such does not
exist at all).

Hegel's Ontological Solution makes it clear -- Being exists *within*
the Absolute Idea. In other words, the World exists *inside* of
God, the Whole, the True Infinite that has no outside whatsoever.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN BARDIS" <jgbardis@...>
To: <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [hegel] Barth's critique of Hegel


> The summary of Barth's critique of Hegel, Stephen, comes from an essay by
Bruce McCormack in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. He also wrote an
oddly named though quite interesting book, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic
Dialectical Theology.
>
> Concerning freedom and necessity as applied to God:
>
> According to Christian theologians the Son is begotten from the Father and
the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son) from all eternity. All
this happens by necessity from God's nature. This is God in
> and for Himself, otherwise known as the immanent Trinity.
>
> Then there is what you can call the eternal decree. This has to do with
creation, incarnation,
> predestination, etc. This decree is also decreed from all eternity. But it
doesn't proceed by necessity from God's nature. It proceeds according to
God's free will. From all eternity God chose creation. He could have chosen
otherwise or not at all. All this has to do with God in relation to
creation, otherwise known as the economic Trinity.
>
> The position generally ascribed to Spinoza is that the world derives by
necessity from God's nature. There was no free act of will on God's part in
regard to creation. McCormack and Barth are saying that Hegel also
> took this view of the matter.
>
> But according to Barth there is no difference between the economic and
immanent Trinity. So he winds up at
> about the same place as Hegel. But they are saying that Hegel missed a
step - namely God's free act of will in regard to creation. When you say
that Hegel was a pantheist, you are agreeing with them.
>
> But Hegel claimed that he wasn't a pantheist. The sentence that I quoted
from Hegel - "[God] is something that is absolutely self-sufficient,
unconditioned, independent, free" - seems to suggest that Hegel was aware of
God's freedom in regard to creation.
>
> You are quite persistent, by the way, concerning the Bible. When Barth
speaks of revelation he isn't referring to the Bible. For Barth - and for
Christian theologians in general, and even for the Church in general - God's
revelation is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the prophetic and apostolic witness
to God's revelation.
>
> I mean that I am modern and secular. Antique arguments about the Trinity
and revelation and the Bible and Jesus Christ are quite foreign to my
nature. We could just as well be talking about Hindu philosophy.
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Cowley
> To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [hegel] Barth's critique of Hegel
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> I'd be very interested to know the source of the citation you give
below.
>
> 1. The subtle question of whether God's actions are free of necessary
was
> also an issue in the French reception of Hegel - particularly in
relation to
> the writings of Victor Cousin. We would need to examine the ideas of
> freedom and necessity first. There is for one thing the problem of
> 'univocity' - whether such terms mean the same thing as applied to God
as
> applied to man. Even aside from that, they are not unambiguous in their
> finite sense. For example, Hegel's necessity is generally opposed to
the
> accidental, rather than to the contingent. Some of his less-informed
> commentators blunder here, though I cannot say Barth is among them.
This is
> because they assume the categories of modern empiricism - particularly
that
> of disconnected, random events, atoms of reality to be known separately,
on
> the model of disconnected sensation (or "nerve-hits" in the materialist
> version). The 'freedom' that Barth attributes to God is of this kind -
a
> random 'free' act. Hegel's program is to 'transcend' (aufheben) finite
> oppositions as that between freedom and necessity - both as applied to
man,
> and as applied to God. This is what is behind the quote from Hegel,
where
> he also speaks of God's freedom.
>
> 2. The author below then criticises Hegel for the lack of transcendence
in
> his idea of God. Here in contrast I agree, and consider Hegel mistaken
and
> one-sided (the common charge of "pantheism" laid against him).
>
> 3. I'm afraid the meaning of the remark that Hegel's idea of the
Trinity
> is 'economic' escapes me, though the point about its being historical
simply
> repeats the point about its lack of transcendence. Hegel writes
extensively
> about this. As Barth points out, he tries to see necessity in the
doctrine,
> rather than Barth's version of it as simply revealed in the Bible.
>
> 4. The quote from Barth is certainly intriguing. His stress on
identity
> seems intended to bolster the unique impressiveness of scripture. My
own
> feeling is that revelation is found principally in our own minds and in
> nature, and what is called biblical revelation is at least principally a
> compound of these. The stress on scripture doesn't stand up even to
modern
> translations to my mind. Many people are certainly receptive to a more
> bible-bashing approach, but although intense, as it lacks rational
content,
> it is often not lifelong.
>
> 5. I'm sorry to hear though, that I am classified as "modern and
secular"
> for this reason!
>
> All the best
> Stephen Cowley
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 2:32 AM
> Subject: [hegel] Barth's critique of Hegel
>
>
> > The following is a brief summary of Barth's critique of Hegel:
> >
> > "Barth's critique of Hegel is well known. First, the divine act of
> > Self-differentiation, of positing an Other over against himself and
> > then reconciling that Other to himself is, for Hegel, a necessary
> > rather than free act. This means that creation and reconciliation
> > are both necessary for God, which completely undermines the
> > graciousness of those activities. Second, ultimately, the process
> > by means of which God comes to full consciousness of himself
> > (becomes, that is, Absolute Spirit) is indistinguishable from the
> > process by means of which human beings come to consciousness
> > of God. God comes to consciousness of himself in and through
> > human consciousness of him. And that can only mean that God's
> > being becomes (develops, unfolds) in and through the historical
> > process. It also means - to apply this thought to the doctrine of
> > the Trinity - that the act of Self-differentiation which 'constitutes'
> > the Trinity is a historical, 'economic' act. The 'immanent Trinity'
> > would be, in Hegel's view, a purely eschatological reality; it is
> > the consequence of the economy of God. Incarnation is constitutive
> > of the divine being in a very bold sense indeed. The historicization
> > of God here knows no limits."
> >
> > This certainly corresponds to the general understanding of Hegel.
> >
> > But in the third paragraph of Hegel's Lecture Manuscript on the
> > Philosophy of Religion, he writes:
> >
> > "This object [God] exists solely through itself and for its own sake.
> > It is something that is absolutely self-sufficient, unconditioned,
> > independent, free."
> >
> > This seems to suggest that there is something missing in the above
> > characterization of Hegel.
> >
> > But however that may be, in the end Barth's and Hegel's positions seem
> > to be almost identical. The above is continued so:
> >
> > "Barth's view differs from Hegel's on all these points...[a brief
> description
> > of Barth's views is given]...Perhaps the most significant consequence
> > of this is that the immanent Trinity [for Barth] is made to be wholly
> > identical in content with the economic Trinity. As Barth puts it: 'the
> reality
> > of God in His revelation cannot be bracketed by an "only", as though
> > somewhere behind His revelation there stood another reality of God;
the
> > reality of God which encounters us in His revelation is His reality in
all
> the
> > depths of eternity.'"
> >
> > At any rate the difference between Barth and Hegel is probably too
subtle
> > for modern, secular people like us to discern.
> >
> > John
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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 hegel@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Trejo" <petrejo@e...> wrote:

> I'm slightly curious -- perhaps you know --
> how did Barth arrive at his errors about Hegel?

I'm sure, Paul, that his errors about Hegel were in the air he
breathed in the world of German academic theology.

I think Hegelian theology pretty much came to an end with the death
of Hegel.

I believe his exposure to Hegelian theology came from a book by P.
K. Marheineke, Grundlehren der christl. Dogmatik, 1827. Barth quotes
this guy several times. He will occasionally refer to a modern
philosopher like Hegel or Kant, but he never quotes them.

John