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

understand and update G.W.F. Hegel is a Public Group with 427 members.

understand and update G.W.F. Hegel
- Public Group,
- 427 members

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

Therefore, you are not a Hegelian

Expand Messages

Maurizio Canfora
... The CONTENT of Religion is not picture-thinking. The CONTENT of Religion is not representation. The CONTENT of Religion is not Vorstellung. (...) Hegel
Message 1 of 14 , Feb 8, 2004
Paul Trejo wrote:

>>

The CONTENT of Religion is not picture-thinking. The
CONTENT of Religion is not representation. The CONTENT of Religion is not
Vorstellung. (...) Hegel
again *repeats* his standard formula: the CONTENT of
Religion is the Absolute Truth, the same Truth that is
expressed in the Science of Logic.
<<

Yes, but this underlying Truth is nothing else than the dialectical unity of
what we call "Man" and what we call "God".

>>

That is the error of the Strauss-Feuerbach materialists.
Just because Hegel shows how Humanity is a real part of God,
they conclude that any old human being is equal to God,
as much as Jesus Christ, just by being born.
<<

In the entire "corpus" of Hegel's philosophy, I do not find a single
sentence endorsing the abusive assumption that philosophical analysis must
become a justification of the mere historical fact that the mere historical
Jesus Christ really was the incarnated God. Jesus Christ was no more God
than any other of his contemporaries.

And Hegel never affirms that Christ was God, while the rest of Humanity is
fallible and has to follow a cathartic path towards "divinity". This would
re-introduce, through a mystical window, that "bad infinity" Hegel loathes,
which he managed kicking out of his philosophical door.

>>

This same Absolute Truth is *attempted* to be expressed
in the State, yet it is ridiculous to presume that just any
State, because it is a State, always attains the Absolute
Truth of the Spirit -- which is Universal Freedom. We all
know of countless examples of unjust States.
<<

But this is not what Beat (or Hegel) is assuming. See below.

>>

In the same way, the materialistic
writers tend to give Divine value to the State -- yet this
is only a half-truth. For Hegel the State will *eventually*
become Divine, namely, when it attains Universal Freedom.
But if we look at real, existing history, we
continue to see oppression and injustice in almost every single direction.
<<

Here we come to the core of your position. And this core is completely
un-Hegelian. You have probably much more in common with the traditional
Roman Catholic doctrine, with Pope John Paul II, than with Hegel.

You continue to assume that there is an "ideal" goal, the one of "Universal
Freedom", which is defined as a kind of final target, and abstractly
caracterised by an opposition to everything which is unjust in this world.
This "Universal Freedom" is a sort of mystical utopia, where *eventually*
(but how and when is not for us to know, only "God" knows) Humanity will
land, after a long journey inspired by some world-historical men.

Sorry to say that this visionary idea has nothing to do with Hegel's
philosophy. This is probably something we all learned at Sunday School; or
is a beautiful tale which could become, alternatively, a good plot for a
Hollywood movie or a justification for another George W.'s war. Hegel never
affirmed that the State will eventually become divine. And he never looked
at "real" history to find in it oppression and injustices. What you call
"Universal Freedom" is not a void, abstract ideal to oppose (as you did) to
the "real, existing history". This is not a Hegelian thought.

*** ***

Hegel's vantage point is exactly the reverse. What you call the "real,
existing history" is not what Hegel would call reality (actuality,
Wirklichkeit). On the contrary, it is what Hegel would call an "accident,
mere existence".

As Hegel himself explained, "actuality" does not correspond to mere
existence. "Actual" is what has to happen, because of the implications
already contained in itself. In other terms - to take an example - in a
situation where an underprivileged class is blatantly exploited by a
privileged one, there are already the germs of revolt and violent change.
That revolt is then "actual". The contingent and terrible consequences of
exploitation and revolt (such as death, injustice, revenge) accompany the
realisation of the actual, but are not "actual" themselves. They are awful
"accidents".

Therefore, "actuality" is by itself already a realization (an actualization)
of Universal Freedom. According to Hegel, what is "rational", i.e. what
corresponds to the progress in the consciousness of freedom, must happen,
because rationality - according to the lesson taught by the old ontological
argument - presupposes its own existence. Therefore, what is rational is
also actual in the sense explained above. As a consequence, the reverse is
also correct: what is actual is rational, i.e. it corresponds to the
progress in the consciousness of freedom.
Hegel explains to us that what we see around us is not the irrational result
of a plot, or of violence and brute force; instead, it is the result of the
becoming rational of the actual. Hence the rationality of the actual prompts
us to fight against injustice and oppression, which are the irrational
components of human history.

*** ***

Therefore, the simplistic assumption that "Universal Freedom" (or worse,
"God") is there waiting for us at the end of this valley of tears, and that
the power of the negative (violence, contradiction, conflicts) will
disappear once we reach this abstract ideal of "Universal Freedom" must be
rejected as deeply un-Hegelian.

Best regards,
Maurizio Canfora
jgbardis
... single ... analysis must ... historical ... more God ... Humanity is ... This would ... loathes, ... In pages 318-336 of THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY Hegel
Message 2 of 14 , Feb 8, 2004
--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "Maurizio Canfora"
<mauriziocanfora@y...> wrote:

> In the entire "corpus" of Hegel's philosophy, I do not find a

single
> sentence endorsing the abusive assumption that philosophical

analysis must
> become a justification of the mere historical fact that the mere

historical
> Jesus Christ really was the incarnated God. Jesus Christ was no

more God
> than any other of his contemporaries.
>
> And Hegel never affirms that Christ was God, while the rest of

Humanity is
> fallible and has to follow a cathartic path towards "divinity".

This would
> re-introduce, through a mystical window, that "bad infinity" Hegel

loathes,
> which he managed kicking out of his philosophical door.

In pages 318-336 of THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY Hegel
discusses Christianity. Here is a little of what he says
there:

"For Spirit makes itself its own [polar] opposite - and
is the return from this opposite to itself. Comprehended
in pure ideality, that antithetic form of Spirit is the
Son of God; reduced to limited and particular conceptions,
it is the World-Nature and Finite Spirit: Finite Spirit
itself therefore is posited as a constituent element
[Moment] in the Divine Being. Man himself therefore is
comprehended in the Idea of God, and this comprehension
may be thus expressed - that the unity of Man with God
is posited in the Christian Religion.

"But this unity must not be superficially conceived, as
if God were only Man, and Man, without further
condition, were God. Man, on the contrary, is God only
in so far as he annuls the merely Natural and Limited in
his Spirit and elevates himself to God....For Suffering
itself is henceforth recognized as an instrument
necessary for producing the unity of man with God.

"This implicit unity exists in the first place only for
the thinking speculative consciousness; but it must also
exist for the sensuous, representative consciousness - it
must become an object for the World - it must appear, and
that in the sensuous form appropriate to Spirit, which is
the human.

"Christ has appeared - a Man who is God - God who is Man;
and thereby peace and reconciliation have accrued to the
World....The appearance of the Christian God involves
further its being unique in its kind; it can occur only
once, for God is realized as Subject, and as manifested
Subjectivity is exclusively One Individual."

"The real attestation of the Divinity of Christ is the
witness of one's own Spirit...for only Spirit recognizes
Spirit."

"The Christian community is the Kingdom of Christ - its
influencing present Spirit being Christ: for this kingdom
has an actual existence, not a merely future one. This
spiritual actuality has, therefore, also a phenomenal
existence; and that, not only as contrasted with heathenism,
but with secular existence generally. For the Church, as
presenting this outward existence, is not merely a religion
as opposed to another religion, but is at the same time
a particular form of secular existence, occupying a place
side by side with other secular existence. The religious
existence of the Church is governed by Christ; the secular
side of its government is left to the free choice of the
members themselves. Into this kingdom of God an
organization mustbe introduced."

But in the Church "the will, as human, is not yet
interpenetrated by the Deity; the human will is
emancipated only abstractly - not in its concrete
reality - for the whole sequel of History is occupied
with the realization of this concrete Freedom."

etc, etc

John
Ralph Dumain
To me this looks like a master equivocation, having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too duplicity of the highest order. Curious how Maurizio s Stalinist Hegelianism
Message 3 of 14 , Feb 8, 2004
To me this looks like a master equivocation,
having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too duplicity of the highest order. Curious
how Maurizio's Stalinist Hegelianism both contradicts and harmonizes with
Paul's mechanical/theological Hegelianism. Oh well, better those two than
Hegel the magus.

At 04:49 PM 2/8/2004 +0000, jgbardis wrote:
>"But this unity must not be superficially conceived, as
>if God were only Man, and Man, without further
>condition, were God. Man, on the contrary, is God only
>in so far as he annuls the merely Natural and Limited in
>his Spirit and elevates himself to God....For Suffering
>itself is henceforth recognized as an instrument
>necessary for producing the unity of man with God.
>
>"This implicit unity exists in the first place only for
>the thinking speculative consciousness; but it must also
>exist for the sensuous, representative consciousness - it
>must become an object for the World - it must appear, and
>that in the sensuous form appropriate to Spirit, which is
>the human.
>
>"Christ has appeared - a Man who is God - God who is Man;
>and thereby peace and reconciliation have accrued to the
>World....The appearance of the Christian God involves
>further its being unique in its kind; it can occur only
>once, for God is realized as Subject, and as manifested
>Subjectivity is exclusively One Individual."
>................
>"The Christian community is the Kingdom of Christ - its
>influencing present Spirit being Christ: for this kingdom
>has an actual existence, not a merely future one. This
>spiritual actuality has, therefore, also a phenomenal
>existence; and that, not only as contrasted with heathenism,
>but with secular existence generally. For the Church, as
>presenting this outward existence, is not merely a religion
>as opposed to another religion, but is at the same time
>a particular form of secular existence, occupying a place
>side by side with other secular existence. The religious
>existence of the Church is governed by Christ; the secular
>side of its government is left to the free choice of the
>members themselves. Into this kingdom of God an
>organization mustbe introduced."
JOHN BARDIS
Equivocation? I looked it up it the dictionary. Well, yeah, it looks like equivocation to me too. But I try to get along with everyone. John ... From: Ralph
Message 4 of 14 , Feb 8, 2004
Equivocation?

I looked it up it the dictionary.

Well, yeah, it looks like equivocation to me too.

But I try to get along with everyone.

John

----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph Dumain
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [hegel] Re: Therefore, you are not a Hegelian

To me this looks like a master equivocation,
having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too duplicity of the highest order. Curious
how Maurizio's Stalinist Hegelianism both contradicts and harmonizes with
Paul's mechanical/theological Hegelianism. Oh well, better those two than
Hegel the magus.

At 04:49 PM 2/8/2004 +0000, jgbardis wrote:
>"But this unity must not be superficially conceived, as
>if God were only Man, and Man, without further
>condition, were God. Man, on the contrary, is God only
>in so far as he annuls the merely Natural and Limited in
>his Spirit and elevates himself to God....For Suffering
>itself is henceforth recognized as an instrument
>necessary for producing the unity of man with God.
>
>"This implicit unity exists in the first place only for
>the thinking speculative consciousness; but it must also
>exist for the sensuous, representative consciousness - it
>must become an object for the World - it must appear, and
>that in the sensuous form appropriate to Spirit, which is
>the human.
>
>"Christ has appeared - a Man who is God - God who is Man;
>and thereby peace and reconciliation have accrued to the
>World....The appearance of the Christian God involves
>further its being unique in its kind; it can occur only
>once, for God is realized as Subject, and as manifested
>Subjectivity is exclusively One Individual."
>................
>"The Christian community is the Kingdom of Christ - its
>influencing present Spirit being Christ: for this kingdom
>has an actual existence, not a merely future one. This
>spiritual actuality has, therefore, also a phenomenal
>existence; and that, not only as contrasted with heathenism,
>but with secular existence generally. For the Church, as
>presenting this outward existence, is not merely a religion
>as opposed to another religion, but is at the same time
>a particular form of secular existence, occupying a place
>side by side with other secular existence. The religious
>existence of the Church is governed by Christ; the secular
>side of its government is left to the free choice of the
>members themselves. Into this kingdom of God an
>organization mustbe introduced."

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.netGroup 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)or but the mails are issued under the GNU FDL (see ttp://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hegel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Beat Greuter
... Why do you think is Maurizio s Hegelianism Stalinist? I cannot find in the slightest his recent post to be reminiscent of Stalinist. But in principle I
Message 5 of 14 , Feb 8, 2004
Ralph Dumain wrote:

> To me this looks like a master equivocation,
> having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too duplicity of the highest order.
> Curious
> how Maurizio's Stalinist Hegelianism both contradicts and harmonizes with
> Paul's mechanical/theological Hegelianism. Oh well, better those two
> than
> Hegel the magus.

Why do you think is Maurizio's Hegelianism Stalinist? I cannot find in
the slightest his recent post to be reminiscent of Stalinist. But in
principle I agree with you that the extremes can shake hands.

Best wishes,
Beat Greuter
Maurizio Canfora
Dear list, ... with ... He (probably) did it because once I have tried to argue that Stalinism was a necessary moment in the development of communist
Message 6 of 14 , Feb 8, 2004
Dear list,

Ralph:
> > how Maurizio's Stalinist Hegelianism both contradicts and harmonizes

with
> > Paul's mechanical/theological Hegelianism.

Beat:
> Why do you think is Maurizio's Hegelianism Stalinist? I cannot find in
> the slightest his recent post to be reminiscent of Stalinism.

He (probably) did it because once I have tried to argue that "Stalinism" was
a necessary moment in the development of communist societies (by the way, if
you read what I wrote to Paul, it should be clear why I did so).

However, I do not tend to think to "Stalinist" as an insult (or not only).
When I see what Russia has become today, I also tend to believe that a
figure such as the one of Stalin was by far nobler than its little
capitalist mafia-style epigones (this is also something Alexandr Zinoviev
recently said).

Kind regards,
Maurizio Canfora
Paul Edward Trejo
... The trouble, Maurizio, is that you are too eager to call it Man, and too hesitant to call it, God. Yet there must be a balance. Man can too easily
Message 7 of 14 , Feb 9, 2004
In response to the Sun08Feb04 post by Maurizio Canfora:

> Trejo wrote:
> > The CONTENT of Religion is not picture-thinking. The
> > CONTENT of Religion is not representation. The CONTENT
> > of Religion is not Vorstellung. (...) Hegel again
> > *repeats* his standard formula: the CONTENT of
> > Religion is the Absolute Truth, the same Truth
> > that is expressed in the Science of Logic.
>
> Yes, but this underlying Truth is nothing else than
> the dialectical unity of what we call "Man" and what
> we call "God".

The trouble, Maurizio, is that you are too eager to call
it "Man," and too hesitant to call it, "God." Yet there
must be a balance. "Man" can too easily be misunderstood
to mean just any human being, without any development.
That is not Hegel's Idea. That is why you said:

> In the entire "corpus" of Hegel's philosophy, I do not
> find a single sentence endorsing the abusive assumption
> that philosophical analysis must become a justification
> of the mere historical fact that the mere historical
> Jesus Christ really was the incarnated God. Jesus Christ
> was no more God than any other of his contemporaries.

John Bardis has already quoted Hegel directly to show the
error in your viewpoint, Maurizio. You mildly acknowledged
him, but you accused him of 'cherry picking' quotes. All
this demonstrates is that you (like Beat) are not familiar
with Hegel's vast Theological literature. John Bardis only
scratched the surface.

That is as it should be. If John were to produce quote after
quote (the way I do) from Hegel's late Theological writings,
he would practically re-type the entire lectures from 1818
to 1831. And as we have seen in the past year, that *still*
would not convince the anti-Theologians on this List!

> And Hegel never affirms that Christ was God, while the rest
> of Humanity is fallible and has to follow a cathartic path
> towards "divinity". This would re-introduce, through a mystical
> window, that "bad infinity" Hegel loathes, which he managed
> kicking out of his philosophical door...

You have made so many errors there, Maurizio, that it is hard
to count them all. First, Hegel clearly affirms that Christ
was God. He does this again and again. Only a reader who
steadfastly refuses to read Hegel's many Theological writings
could continue to ignore this simple fact. Despite this, I
will continue to type it yet *more* quotes from Hegel to show
that you are mistaken. Hegel says,

"Christ is the one who, because his demand
is Immediate, expresses it Immediately from
God, and God speaks through him. His having
this life of the Spirit in the Truth, so that
it is simply there without Mediation, expresses
itself prophetically in such a way that it is
God who says it." (Hegel, LPR, vol. 3, p. 320)

And also,

"It is said, 'Christ has died for all.' This
is not a single act but the eternal Divine
History. It is a moment in the nature of
God; it has taken place in God." (Hegel,
LPR, ibid. p. 328)

And also,

"Thus for the other subjects the presentation
of the Divine History is something that is
objective for them, and they must now traverse
this History, this Process, in themselves."
(Hegel, LPR, ibid. p. 329)

And Hegel goes on and on like this, page after page, chapter
after chapter. Yet the modern reader of Hegel is usually
blissfully ignorant of these plain facts.

> Here we come to the core of your position. And this core is
> completely un-Hegelian. You have probably much more in common
> with the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine, with Pope John
> Paul II, than with Hegel.

We are at the core of my position, Maurizio, however, it is
entirely Hegelian. It is Christian. Hegel said he was a
Christian. That was not spoken in bad-faith. And while I
am not a Catholic, and Hegel was not a Catholic, nevertheless
Hegel complained of the fact that Kant's philosophy of the
Unknowable Thing-in-itself had infected Protestant Christian
doctrine. On this point, Hegel said, Catholic doctrine was
to be preferred.

Nevertheless, the theology which I find in Hegel (and which
I find quite acceptable) is certainly not Catholic, and no
Catholic I ever met would accept it. I note that no Protestant
I know has accepted Hegel's theology, either. (For those who
wish to jump to conclusions and say that Hegel is therefore to
be counted among the atheists, I can quote Hegel himself who
flatly rejects such a notion.)

> You continue to assume that there is an "ideal" goal, the
> one of "Universal Freedom", which is defined as a kind of
> final target, and abstractly characterised by an opposition
> to everything which is unjust in this world. This "Universal
> Freedom" is a sort of mystical utopia, where *eventually*
> (but how and when is not for us to know, only "God" knows)
> Humanity will land, after a long journey inspired by some
> world-historical men.
>
> Sorry to say that this visionary idea has nothing to do with
> Hegel's philosophy...

Maurizio, your willful ignoring of Hegel's Theology has also
skewed your ability to evaluate Hegel's idea of Spirit as it
relates to History. Yet one does not need to read Hegel's
vast literature on Theology to read his works on History,
which clearly envisions a Progress to History, a Progress
toward Freedom which is Divine, in Hegel's theory. Hegel
says:

"The insight to which Philosophy is to lead
us is that the real world is at is ought to
be; that the truly Good -- the Universal
Divine Reason -- is not a mere abstraction,
but a vital principle capable of realizing
itself. This Good, this Reason, in its
most concrete form, is God." (Hegel, 1830,
PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY, trans. Sibree, p. 36)

And also,

"The great point is that Freedom in its Ideal
conception has not subjective will and caprice
for its principle, but the recognition of
Universal Will, and that the Process by which
Freedom is realized is the Free development of
its successive stages." (Hegel, POH, ibid.
p. 48)

And also,

"The goal of attainment we determined at the
outset: it is Spirit in its COMPLETENESS, in
its Essential Nature, i.e. Freedom." (Hegel,
POH, ibid. p. 55)

Now, Maurizio, few people are as dull as those who would claim
that the current level of the State *today* matches Hegel's
ideal for the full development of Spirit in its COMPLETENESS.
That is obviously a project for future development. That is,
as Hegel explicitly says, the Divine Purpose.

> ...Therefore, the simplistic assumption that "Universal Freedom"
> (or worse, "God") is there waiting for us at the end of this
> valley of tears, and that the power of the negative (violence,
> contradiction, conflicts) will disappear once we reach this
> abstract ideal of "Universal Freedom" must be rejected as
> deeply un-Hegelian.
>
> Best regards,
> Maurizio Canfora

Well, Maurizio, you are minimizing my statements to fit them
into a mere parody, but even in that effort you go too far and
you injure Hegel's System in your enthusiasm. Hegel himself
says,

"Spirit is only that which it attains by its
own efforts; it makes itself ACTUALLY what
it was always POTENTIALLY." (Hegel, POH,
ibid. p. 55)

Yet Hegel already said that the goal to be attained is Freedom.
How can Spirit, which is Free, strive for Freedom? Hegel shows
us how complex this is with the following paradox:

"Thus Spirit is at war with itself; it has
to overcome itself as its most formidable
obstacle." (Hegel, POH, ibid. p. 55)

This makes sense in a Metaphysical Context. God, the Truth,
says Hegel, is the Whole. Yet the Whole of existence contains
a tremendous amount of conflict. This is true not only in the
realm of Nature, but also in human History, quite obviously.
How is it that God, the Whole, is continually in conflict?
Hegel's Metaphysics address this. God loses God in order to
find God again. That is the meaning of the Trinity. Why
does God do this? That is another question entirely.

Whatever one may say about Hegel's Theology, Maurizio, one
cannot align it with Catholicism or Tradition. Cyril O'Regan
and H.S. Harris have shown that quite well, and no other
Hegel scholars who are interested in Hegel's Theology have
really questioned it -- Hegel is clearly Heterodox. Yet one
must first be a Theologian before one can be Heterodox.

So, Maurizio, my position is closer to Hegel's than yours.
Hegel's position is clearly much more in harmony with
Theology than your position is.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
Maurizio Canfora
... Now, Maurizio, few people are as dull as those who would claim that the current level of the State *today* matches Hegel s ideal for the full development
Message 8 of 14 , Feb 9, 2004
Paul Trejo:

>>>

Now, Maurizio, few people are as dull as those who would claim
that the current level of the State *today* matches Hegel's
ideal for the full development of Spirit in its COMPLETENESS.
That is obviously a project for future development. That is,
as Hegel explicitly says, the Divine Purpose.
<<<

Not at all. This is just falling back into bad infinity. This is not what
Hegel says.

This "completeness" you are mentioning has already been achieved, in each
and every stage of the development of the Spirit. In other words, each and
every stage of the development in the consciousness of freedom represents
the whole of the Spirit at a determinate time. Only this "whole" constitutes
the truth. Otherwise, this completeness you are talking about becomes
another "external" reference point, yet to be reached, yet to exist, an
abstractly posited criteria according to which you gauge reality without
understanding the dialectical action of the negative already taking and
continuously place within it.

You seem to abhor Enlightenment philosophers, but you are actually quite
close to their moralistic stance (which is only one aspect of their thought,
by the way). They oppose Religion, but they actually recreate one, and an
abstract one, in their dualism.

In my opinion, your vision of Hegelianism is fraught with religious
prejudices, you try to project back on Hegel some sort of eschatological
meaning his Philosophy clearly does not have. There's no Heaven waiting for
us at the end of this life. Hegel is not Haller. And his dictum on the
rationality of the actual was criticised sharply by contemporary reactionary
(Catholic and not) philosophers who saw in it exactly what you fear the
most: a "divinisation" (to use your words) of the real, quite close to (what
you call) "materialism", and I would call the full recognition of the
autonomy of humanity as the sole actor capable to address and drive his own
actions.

*** ***

I do not believe this will convince you.
You say that you are not cherry-picking Hegel's texts. But Hegel cannot be
quoted by tiny bits. It is dangerous to do so. All along his works, Hegel
endorses and criticizes from within the different stages in the development
of the Spirit. THis means - of course - acknowledging their part of Truth.
In the Lessons on the Philosophy of Religion, for instance, Hegel talks
about magic (Zauberei). Does this make of him a magus? In his Logic, he
deals with Kant's philosophy. Does this make him a Kantian?

Yes and no.
Hegel finds the rational within this attitudes and sublates them. He can say
he is Kantian insofar his Kantianism has been preserved in his new form of
philosophy. He can say he is a Lutheran insofar is Lutheranism is this form
of "logical" Religion he sublated to the level of philosophy. In this sense,
I could define myself a Christian too, in the sense that Christianism has
taught to me the possibility of the dialectical identity between Man and
God.

Kind regards,
Maurizio Canfora
Beat Greuter
... This seems to be an interesting question: What does Universal Freedom mean for Hegel? Does such a notion exist in his philosophy? Examined by Hegel s
Message 9 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
Maurizio Canfora wrote:

> Paul Trejo wrote:
> ........
> >>
> This same Absolute Truth is *attempted* to be expressed
> in the State, yet it is ridiculous to presume that just any
> State, because it is a State, always attains the Absolute
> Truth of the Spirit -- which is Universal Freedom. We all
> know of countless examples of unjust States.
> <<
>
> But this is not what Beat (or Hegel) is assuming. See below.
>
> >>
> In the same way, the materialistic
> writers tend to give Divine value to the State -- yet this
> is only a half-truth. For Hegel the State will *eventually*
> become Divine, namely, when it attains Universal Freedom.
> But if we look at real, existing history, we
> continue to see oppression and injustice in almost every single direction.
> <<
>
> Here we come to the core of your position. And this core is completely
> un-Hegelian. You have probably much more in common with the traditional
> Roman Catholic doctrine, with Pope John Paul II, than with Hegel.
>
> You continue to assume that there is an "ideal" goal, the one of
> "Universal
> Freedom", which is defined as a kind of final target, and abstractly
> caracterised by an opposition to everything which is unjust in this world.
> This "Universal Freedom" is a sort of mystical utopia, where *eventually*
> (but how and when is not for us to know, only "God" knows) Humanity will
> land, after a long journey inspired by some world-historical men.
>
> Sorry to say that this visionary idea has nothing to do with Hegel's
> philosophy. This is probably something we all learned at Sunday School; or
> is a beautiful tale which could become, alternatively, a good plot for a
> Hollywood movie or a justification for another George W.'s war. Hegel
> never
> affirmed that the State will eventually become divine. And he never looked
> at "real" history to find in it oppression and injustices. What you call
> "Universal Freedom" is not a void, abstract ideal to oppose (as you
> did) to
> the "real, existing history". This is not a Hegelian thought.

This seems to be an interesting question: What does "Universal Freedom"
mean for Hegel? Does such a notion exist in his philosophy? Examined by
Hegel's philosophy itself it could express an 'all'-judgement: 'All' men
are free instead of merely a few men or even only one man. It could also
mean "infinite freedom" self-consciousness has achieved having become a
true universal which in principle can negate all specific contents and
is not embeded in a given substance anymore. But as we know for Hegel it
needs also an actualization of this freedom, otherwise it continues to
be abstract. So, "Universal Freedom" could also mean actualized
"Universal Freedom" in time or at the end of all times. But to actualize
in time means to determine. With this "Universal Freedom" loses its mere
abstract universality or "ought to be" and becomes concrete: There was
or is a determinate freedom of the Ancient Greek ethical life
(Aristotle), the Ancient Roman ethical life, of Italian and English
Republicanism (Machiavelli, Algernon Sidney, Locke etc.), of Liberalism
(Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith etc.) or even of Leibniz's State of God which
preserves the freedom of the individual substances (Monads). So, I agree
with Maurizio's reply:

> Paul Trejo:
> >>>
> Now, Maurizio, few people are as dull as those who would claim
> that the current level of the State *today* matches Hegel's
> ideal for the full development of Spirit in its COMPLETENESS.
> That is obviously a project for future development. That is,
> as Hegel explicitly says, the Divine Purpose.
> <<<
>
> Not at all. This is just falling back into bad infinity. This is not what
> Hegel says.
>
> This "completeness" you are mentioning has already been achieved, in each
> and every stage of the development of the Spirit. In other words, each and
> every stage of the development in the consciousness of freedom represents
> the whole of the Spirit at a determinate time. Only this "whole"
> constitutes
> the truth. Otherwise, this completeness you are talking about becomes
> another "external" reference point, yet to be reached, yet to exist, an
> abstractly posited criteria according to which you gauge reality without
> understanding the dialectical action of the negative already taking and
> continuously place within it.

However, 'dialectic' does not only include the negation of determination
but comprehends also its positive part. So, I wonder what the purpose or
goal of "the dialectical action of the negative already taking and
continuously place within it" is? Is it "Universal Freedom"? And in this
case what does "Universal Freedom" include? Is it also "another
'external' reference point"? For Paul it is as he writes "the Absolute
Truth of the Spirit" where "for Hegel the State will *eventually* become
Divine". As Maurizio replies this implies an inferior infinity
"abstractly caracterised by an opposition to everything which is unjust
in this world", or it is just a final state at the end of all times
where the dialectic ceases and the opposites, conflicts and differences
have disappeared. In my opinion for Hegel there is no such notion as
"Universal Freedom" apart from abstract freedom (i.e. of
self-consciousness) or the concrete universal which, however, includes
explicitly its difference.

Best wishes,
Beat Greuter
Stephen Cowley
... From: Maurizio Canfora ... was ... if ... If this is the Italian Left s idea of nobility , one starts to see how and why Mussolini started as a socialist!
Message 10 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: Maurizio Canfora
> He (probably) did it because once I have tried to argue that "Stalinism"
was
> a necessary moment in the development of communist societies (by the way,
if
> you read what I wrote to Paul, it should be clear why I did so).
>
> However, I do not tend to think to "Stalinist" as an insult (or not only).
> When I see what Russia has become today, I also tend to believe that a
> figure such as the one of Stalin was by far nobler than its little
> capitalist mafia-style epigones (this is also something Alexandr Zinoviev
> recently said).

If this is the Italian Left's idea of "nobility", one starts to see how and
why Mussolini started as a socialist! As for "necessary moments", I can
only say: "the dialectic is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Hopefully
this is just Maurizio's Latin temperament getting the better of him though
and we will soon return to rational debate.

Stephen Cowley
Paul Edward Trejo
Although I am exhausted from debating this issue for nearly two years on this Yahoo Hegel List, and for nearly ten years on other Hegel Lists, I am pleased
Message 11 of 14 , Feb 10, 2004
Although I am exhausted from debating this issue for nearly
two years on this Yahoo Hegel List, and for nearly ten years on
other Hegel Lists, I am pleased that the issues have become
clearer for a new crop of students.

I am under no illusions that I will convince Beat or Maurizio
that Hegel clearly was -- as he said -- a theological thinker.
But I hope these debates will show to that there are deep
divisions within contemporary Hegel scholarship.

There are great and famous writers on their side and on my side.
The issue is not anywhere close to being resolved. But I want
students to know that, even in the Hegel Society of America,
they will find a heated debate by fine scholars on both sides
of this divide.

I should probably note that the translators themselves, such
as P.C. Hodgson, A.V. Miller, T. Geraets, Jon Stewart and
others, tend more toward a Theological Hegel.

It is the Political Science professors, under the influence
of 150 years of secular writers, who continue to wish to argue
for a non-theological and even a non-metaphysical Hegel.

The strident tone taken by Maurizio, namely, "therefore you
are not a Hegelian," is not uncommon in this field. I don't
wish to accuse Maurizio, however, because in fact he has many
scholars over the past 150 years to support him.

My main point is that the Metaphysical and Theological Hegel
also has a lot of support by some great writers. I sometimes
feel I should quote Hegel, month after month, because his
obviously theological quotations continue to be suppressed,
after 170 years!

So, enough! I have made my point long enough, and it is clear
that Maurizio and Beat have no intention of reading Hegel's
Theological texts in the spirit in which Hegel wrote them.

This is too bad. It suggests that Hegel studies cannot find
a unified front -- after 170 years -- and therefore another
generation (at least) will be needed before Hegel studies can
stand up to the level of a Science of Philosophy, with scholars
that agree on the key points, ready to confront philosophers
from other schools with a sufficiently non-contradictory
literature to make forward progress.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, M.A.

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "Maurizio Canfora"
<mauriziocanfora@y...> wrote:
> Paul Trejo:
>
> >>>
> Now, Maurizio, few people are as dull as those who would claim
> that the current level of the State *today* matches Hegel's
> ideal for the full development of Spirit in its COMPLETENESS.
> That is obviously a project for future development. That is,
> as Hegel explicitly says, the Divine Purpose.
> <<<
>
> Not at all. This is just falling back into bad infinity. This is

not what
> Hegel says.
>
> This "completeness" you are mentioning has already been achieved,

in each
> and every stage of the development of the Spirit. In other words,

each and
> every stage of the development in the consciousness of freedom

represents
> the whole of the Spirit at a determinate time. Only this "whole"

constitutes
> the truth. Otherwise, this completeness you are talking about

becomes
> another "external" reference point, yet to be reached, yet to

exist, an
> abstractly posited criteria according to which you gauge reality

without
> understanding the dialectical action of the negative already taking

and
> continuously place within it.
>
> You seem to abhor Enlightenment philosophers, but you are actually

quite
> close to their moralistic stance (which is only one aspect of their

thought,
> by the way). They oppose Religion, but they actually recreate one,

and an
> abstract one, in their dualism.
>
> In my opinion, your vision of Hegelianism is fraught with religious
> prejudices, you try to project back on Hegel some sort of

eschatological
> meaning his Philosophy clearly does not have. There's no Heaven

waiting for
> us at the end of this life. Hegel is not Haller. And his dictum on

the
> rationality of the actual was criticised sharply by contemporary

reactionary
> (Catholic and not) philosophers who saw in it exactly what you fear

the
> most: a "divinisation" (to use your words) of the real, quite close

to (what
> you call) "materialism", and I would call the full recognition of

the
> autonomy of humanity as the sole actor capable to address and drive

his own
> actions.
>
> *** ***
>
> I do not believe this will convince you.
> You say that you are not cherry-picking Hegel's texts. But Hegel

cannot be
> quoted by tiny bits. It is dangerous to do so. All along his works,

Hegel
> endorses and criticizes from within the different stages in the

development
> of the Spirit. THis means - of course - acknowledging their part of

Truth.
> In the Lessons on the Philosophy of Religion, for instance, Hegel

talks
> about magic (Zauberei). Does this make of him a magus? In his

Logic, he
> deals with Kant's philosophy. Does this make him a Kantian?
>
> Yes and no.
> Hegel finds the rational within this attitudes and sublates them.

He can say
> he is Kantian insofar his Kantianism has been preserved in his new

form of
> philosophy. He can say he is a Lutheran insofar is Lutheranism is

this form
> of "logical" Religion he sublated to the level of philosophy. In

this sense,
> I could define myself a Christian too, in the sense that

Christianism has
> taught to me the possibility of the dialectical identity between

Man and
> God.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Maurizio Canfora
robertfanelli002@aol.com
In a message dated 2/9/2004 2:24:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Maurizio, I do not know what country or what politcal system you live under, but to say that
Message 12 of 14 , Feb 15, 2004
In a message dated 2/9/2004 2:24:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mauriziocanfora@... writes:

> However, I do not tend to think to "Stalinist" as an insult (or not only).
> When I see what Russia has become today, I also tend to believe that a
> figure such as the one of Stalin was by far nobler than its little
> capitalist mafia-style epigones (this is also something Alexandr Zinoviev
> recently said).
>

Maurizio,

I do not know what country or what politcal system you live under, but to say
that Stalin, the butcher of millions of Russians and others, was 'nobler'
than this or that is extraordinary. Even if one compares Stalin to gangsters,
one would have to hesitate to use the term, 'nobler'.

Regards,

Bob Fanelli

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
robertfanelli002@aol.com
In a message dated 2/10/2004 5:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Amen. Regards, Bob Fanelli ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message 13 of 14 , Feb 15, 2004
In a message dated 2/10/2004 5:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Stephen@... writes:

> If this is the Italian Left's idea of "nobility", one starts to see how and
> why Mussolini started as a socialist! As for "necessary moments", I can
> only say: "the dialectic is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Hopefully
> this is just Maurizio's Latin temperament getting the better of him though
> and we will soon return to rational debate.

Amen.

Regards,

Bob Fanelli

>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Emmanuel Selva
Dear Hegel List, Excuse-me my ausence. I have reading the e-mails on dispute with Trejo, but I did not to understand the dissension; the major here is Hegel
Message 14 of 14 , Feb 15, 2004
Dear Hegel List,

Excuse-me my ausence.

I have reading the e-mails on dispute with Trejo, but I did not to understand the dissension; the major here is Hegel himself, not I, you, he, etc., etc....

We are every one hegelians here. Or, are we not? Seemingly, there are not one no-hegelian here, nobody but Hegel himself. If it is correct, what is to be a hegelian today? Are we every one hegelians today? Or, are we every one no more hegelians today?

If Hegel himself is not a hegelian, how I think (see Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. Miller, para. 72, p. 45), then, why dissension?

Today, our major challenge is to retake the problems of Hegel's Philosophy, because hegelian Philosophy did not to solve entirely all problems that Hegel himself put and put up with of beginning at the end of his System.

Regards,

Emmanuel Selva,
The brazilian Hegel's Retaker.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

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

Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

understand and update G.W.F. Hegel is a Public Group with 427 members.

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

Therefore, you are not a Hegelian