Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hegel] Re: the death of God

Expand Messages
  • greuterb
    ... John, Yes, some times ago I was very interested in the three syllogism Hegel writes about at the end of the Phenomenology. Already at that time and more
    Message 1 of 168 , Jul 29, 2011
      Am 27.07.2011 22:06, John writes:

      > Â
      > --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > greuterb <greuterb@...> wrote:
      > > Alan,
      > >
      > > Now we are at the point again we discussed since more than 10 years.
      > > Hegel wrote several times in his work (please do not insist on
      > > quotations) that religion and philosophy have the same 'content'. From
      > > this Paul and Bob and others conclude that the Logic is 'religion' in
      > > philosophical (logical) form. Your reply is not bad, better I think as
      > > my several attempts since 10 years. Nevertheless, is your answer also
      > > sufficient? Your write: "The absolute form - unlike the religious
      > > absolute - creates at the point of breakdown by providing the insight
      > > into absolute form that becomes new content." I take this as 'the
      > > philosophical absolute (pure) knowledge develops its own (new) content
      > > from which the form cannot be separated but is (like the content) a
      > > moment of the absolute. This I think is consistent with what Hegel's
      > > concept of the absolute claims. However, Hegel says "the same content".
      > > He does not write 'new content'. You say that this is a "Hegelian
      > joke".
      > > But why a joke? Hegel is a serious philosopher. In such an important
      > > philosophical question he usually does not make jokes. But according to
      > > what you write here and to what I wrote several times in recent years
      > > the answer is quite easy: In the expressions "same content" and 'new
      > > content' 'content' does not mean the same. In the first expression it
      > > only means 'issue' or' topic' or 'subject-matter' or 'aim' or 'result'
      > > etc. as a general characterization of what is at stake in the forms of
      > > absolute spirit: 'the absolute', 'the truth', 'the whole'. In the
      > second
      > > expression, however, it is said how this general issue is carried
      > out or
      > > developed or appears (not merely as form but as well as content), and
      > > here there is no longer sameness but otherness. This does not mean that
      > > religion is perished in philosophy. Quite the opposite: it has further
      > > on its own right regarding form and content. With this Hegel avoids
      > > both: that religion becomes the servant of philosophy (i.e. deism) as
      > > well as that philosophy becomes the servant of religion (i.e.
      > philosophy
      > > in the Middle Ages). But it means that religion has lost its
      > > absoluteness for explaining the world *). This now is the task of
      > > philosophy which takes the absolute as the conceptual movement of
      > > reality in all its manifestations (today the particular sciences
      > > extrapolating from their results to the whole try to adopt this task,
      > > but it is hopeless).
      > >
      > > *) You write: "What Hegel never says but which is implied by everything
      > > else he says is that the religious absolute is sterile." With this I do
      > > not agree.
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > > Beat Greuter
      > Dear Beat,
      > I have to say that I have been dissatisfied with your comments over
      > the years on the matter of religion and philosophy having the same
      > content. But today I think you have expressed the matter quite well.
      > Your conclusion is:
      > "It means that religion has lost its absoluteness for explaining the
      > world."
      > I mentioned in a recent post that I am presently reading Rosenzweig's
      > _The Star of Redemption_. I find that Rosenzweig, whether knowingly or
      > not, casts a good deal of light on the three syllogisms that close the
      > encyclopedia.
      > I recall that when I was first starting out here, for some reason or
      > other you typed in these three syllogisms. I was quite impressed with
      > them, and one of the strong motivations for my continuing with the
      > study of Hegel was to understand what these three syllogisms were all
      > about.
      > Rosenzweig's "system" has three terms: man, world, God. And there are
      > three relations: creation, revelation and redemption. For Rosenzweig
      > there is a development, a progression, from creation to
      > redemption--but, from God's view at least, this progression isn't
      > temporal, but rather, as Hegel would say, logical. Also, according to
      > Rosenzweig, in the last relationship, redemption, God Himself is
      > transformed.
      > So, then with Hegel there are three terms: nature, spirit and logic.
      > And there are three relations--the three syllogisms. There is a
      > progression from the first syllogism to the ultimate conclusion in the
      > third syllogism. In this third syllogism logic is transformed into
      > "self-knowing reason". The third syllogism is called "the Idea of
      > philosophy".
      > So I wondered, then, if the three syllogisms could be understood in
      > terms of creation, revelation and redemption. The middle term, which
      > defines the syllogism, is first nature--that seems to have to do with
      > creation. The middle term of the second is spirit which seems to have
      > to do with what we could call revelation. And the middle term of the
      > third syllogism, "the Idea of philosophy", has "self-knowing reason,
      > the absolutely universal, for its middle term". This certainly sounds
      > like redemption, at least in the Aristotlian understanding of it.
      > And then I wondered if the three syllogisms could have to do with the
      > three terms of absolute spirit: art, religion and philosophy.
      > Certainly creation has to do with art; and revelation with religion.
      > And, again, at least in the Aristotlian understanding of the matter,
      > philosophy has to do with the ultimate redemption.
      > So, then, one can see that while art and religion are both very
      > important, absolutely vital moments in the progression, it is
      > philosophy which provides the ultimate "explanation" of "the world".
      > John


      Yes, some times ago I was very interested in the three syllogism Hegel
      writes about at the end of the Phenomenology. Already at that time and
      more today I have some doubt whether these syllogisms can really explain
      Hegel's thought. In my opinion such a macro consideration of his
      philosophy can be misleading concerning the meaning of 'dialectic' as
      far as 'dialectic' is taken as thesis - antithesis - synthesis. So, I
      prefer today the micro consideration of the movement of the Concept in
      the Logic. With this I can better understand what Hegel's real intention
      is also because the meaning of 'dialectic' changes with the level the
      concept has achieved in the Logic. Only with this method and content is
      taken as unity.

      Nevertheless, your comment is interesting. I read years ago Franz
      Rosenzweig's _The Star of Redemption_. But I must confess that I cannot
      remember very well. The whole book seems to be Hegelian but against
      Hegel. That's usual. Rosenzweig writes in Part 1., Introduction: "This
      ...... non-identity of being and thought must emerge from thought itself
      and cannot be reconciled by an additional third coming from a deus ex
      machina, the will [against Schopenhauer and late Schelling], which is
      neither being nor thought. And, because the ground of the unity of being
      and thought is sought in thought the ground of non-identity would have
      to be revealed in thought." (my translation). With this one could
      explain "how the world can be contingent though it has to be thought as
      necessary". Coming from this one could perhaps explain the three
      syllogisms at the end of the Phenomenology though probably it could be
      better explained in the micro structure of the Logic:

      The first one: Logic (pure Concept) - Nature - Spirit:
      With this the absolute necessity of the actualization of the concept in
      its contingent other along the path of the Encyclopaedia is shown as
      unfolding this necessity. Freedom is only achieved in the extreme of
      spirit posited as the union of the concept with itself (ENZ, para 575).

      The second one: Natur - Spirit - Logic:
      With this (subjective) spirit finds regularities in the contingency of
      nature. "The science appears as a subjective cognition" (ENZ, para 576)
      The freedom is in the intellectual reflection.

      The third one: Spirit - Logic - Nature
      With this the pure concept has revealed as the nature of the thing which
      now mediates the appearance of subjective spirit with its objective
      universal as an eternal process (ENZ, para 577). This is the realized
      absolute which is not an isolated absolute posited beyond the other two
      syllogisms but these are the sublated presupposition of the third

      An analog structure you can find in the Science of Logic itself:

      Being - Essence (Reflection) - Concept:
      The Concept in its necessity is the union of Being and Essence

      Essence - Concept - Being:
      The Concept mediates Essence and Being.

      Concept - Being - Essence:
      Being itself is the unity of the Concept and Essence (Reflection) which
      it has made its own mediating extremes.

      Beat Greuter

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • john
      ... Dear Stephen, Of course I don t really know much of anything about all this. Just looking on the internet, I see that there are about 50,000 Jews in
      Message 168 of 168 , Aug 11, 2011
        --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, stephen theron <stephentheron@...> wrote:
        > John,
        > Well there is still a German-speaking Jewish population although it is for the time being much smaller.
        > Besides which, there are others who are surely interested.
        > I see the irony of course.
        > Stephen.

        Dear Stephen,

        Of course I don't really know much of anything about all this. Just looking on the internet, I see that there are about 50,000 Jews in Germany now. But it seems they mainly arrived after the fall of the USSR, and they don't know any more about Judaism or the Bible than dogs or cats.

        I believe most Protestants use a revised version of the Luther translation, and Catholics use a translation which just _isn't_ the Luther translation.

        The interesting thing about the Buber-Rosenzweig Bible is that it attempts to capture, not only the content, but also the form. It tries to stay as close to the actual form of the Hebrew Bible as it is possible to do in German. There is an English translation of the first five books following the Buber-Rosenzweig translation. But apparently German is much more amenable to this sort of thing than is English.

        So, anyway, Scholem asked if this translation, whose audience ceased to exist as it was being prepared, would, nontheless, find an audience. One might think that, fifty years later, Scholem's question could be answered. Did the work find an audience? Is it still in print? Does it now have an audience? Have there been, and are there now, people actively engaged in reading it?

        Of course it may just be too early yet to know. My view is that, just on principle, this should become the standard translation of the OT in German for both Protestants and Catholics. And all Germans who fancy themselves to be the least bit cultured, even if they aren't religious, should also have a copy of this translation and study it, just as they have and study Homer or the Greek play-writes. I don't believe I'm asking too much.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.