Re: [hegel] Re: something to think about
- Am 09.09.2011 08:26, John writes:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>, AlanJohn,
> Ponikvar <ponikvaraj@...> wrote:
> > You drop names and make assertions. What I would love to see you do
> is make
> > your case. My hope is that you might have something interesting to say.
> > You have staked out a controversial claim, one that could be
> > You say that if one ignores the philosophy of religion then one cannot
> > understand Hegel. I have read the lectures on religion and briefly
> > what I find speculatively interesting about these lectures. I have
> no idea
> > what you think about the content of these lectures. The comment
> about the
> > trinity might be the beginning of something. But again you provide too
> > little to judge. I have invited you to discuss what you mean. In fact, I
> > urge you to discuss your views and stop pouting about how
> misinformed the
> > rest of us are.
> > In your long response to Bob I was looking for signs that you are
> ready to
> > discuss. But alas there is nothing there on the substance of your
> views as
> > far as I can see.
> > - Alan
> I have no interest in my personal views about this or anything else. I
> can see no reason why you would be interested in them. What I am
> interested in is Hegel's philosophy. But, again, I have no interest in
> Hegel's philosophy in general. Discussions of Hegel _in general_ bore
> me to death.
> That you (and Bob too) read the lectures on the philosophy of religion
> and came up sucking wind, well, that's your problem really. Why you
> would think that in a post or two from me, or in some sort of
> "discussion", Hegel's philosophy of religion could be made accessible
> for you more readily than by reading Hegel's own words--I don't
> understand that.
You seem to look on this world and Hegel's philosophy in a fundamental
way, that there is a truth beyond interpretation and discussion. It is
precisely Hegel's philosophy which tells us the reverse against Kant's
fundamentalism which sees a true objective world beyond subjective
investigations and therefore a truth (objectivity) which never can be
achieved. If you read the Phenomenology and its transition into Pure
Knowing carefully you will find that in Pure Knowing and its unfolding
in the Logic the subjective moment for its own (the being-for-itself of
world relation) as well as the objective moment for its own (the
being-in-itself of religion) are sublated in their unity and this means
that now the opposite moments in the concept (the for-itself and the
in-itself) have to be revealed within this unity. This is indeed a new
form - the philosophical form - which has now to develop its own content
- the philosophical content - that shows the path of arising
objectivity. Consciousness-related contents and religious contents for
their own can never claim truth or objectivity since they are embedded
in an absolute which they do not thematize critically as the philosopher
does or at least should do.
> But this has got nothing to do with you. Ultimately what it has to do[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> with is that the world at large needs philosophy. It hasn't had
> philosophy for a very long time. If I could have accomplished anything
> in studying Hegel over the past several years, I would most like to
> see Hegel's philosophy take its rightful place in the "academy" and in
> the world of people who are interested in philosophy. And I would hope
> this would be the whole of Hegel, and not some truncated version of
> Hegel based on our preconceptions and personal limitations.
> Certainly the idea of a Hegel or of philosophy that really is
> philosophy being something that is at war with God and
> religion--that's just ridiculous. Anyone who imagines such a thing
> knows nothing about philosophy.
> But as to what you or I or Bob understands--that is our problem and
> responsibility and no one elses.
> But if you want to do a detailed reading of Hegel's philosophy of
> religion, obviously, I would be quite happy to accompany you in
> unraveling the argument he presents there. But to just talk in general
> about it--what in the world would be the point of that?
- What is curious about Hegel's discussion of Christianity is that he finds
that he has to go back to its inception point as he does in Revealed
Religion to find an evident but ignored truth: the truth of Christianity is
not Christ, his message, or the promise of his return. The truth is the
living Christian community in that early time poised between the past event
and the future hope. It is this being poised between that most interests
Hegel as he then moves into Absolute Knowing in the Phenomenology.
The Unhappy Consciousness which comes earlier in the exposition actually is
a Christianity that has moved beyond its own communal truth to become about
the divide between a finite individual and the divine as the bad infinite.
So the speculative truth of Christianity is no longer a living truth for
Christians but something that itself has passed. Hegel may have had some
quixotic interest in reinvigorating this original truth or he may more
cynically have been appropriating it for his own philosophic interests. I do
But the appeal of viewing Christianity as a death of god religion is that
such a reading facilitates one of Hegel's main philosophic interests: to
move from the divide between man and a transcendent god to a true infinite
for which the divide freed of its theological setting is inherent to the
true infinite itself as the truth about the human condition. God then is
relegated to being nothing but this divide inherent to the absolute. It does
not name what is normally meant by god. The meant god has died on the cross.
Christianity speculatively comprehended has god die not so that we might
await his return but rather so that we might find the speculative kingdom
within and cease our futile attempt to grasp the void.
From: Paul Trejo <petrejo@...>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [hegel] Re: Hegel's "mysticism" and Christian doctrine
In response to the Tue13Sep11 post by Beat Greuter:
> John,Beat, the choices you offer are too dualist -- too Either/Or.
> In this sense you should found a secret society which is devoted to
> Hegel as a theologian with its members looking at him as their master.
> With this perhaps you will agree with me you destroy Hegel as a
> philosopher of reason. This is a great pity since after Analytical
> Philosophy has become caught in its cul-de-sac Hegel has become
> (at least for some of its adherents) a kind of anchor for having
> prepared the philosophical resources to overcome its intractable
> contradictions, a light in the history of interpretation of Hegel's
> philosophy, a light which you intend to blow out again as so many
> did before in the history of Hegel reading.
> Beat Greuter
It is not a one-sided matter of: 'Either Theology Or Philosophy
and No Middle Ground', because Hegel offers a Third Way.
The Analytical school, I have found so far, has a fixed idea about
Religion. That fixed idea arrests the concept of Religion at its
lowest and most primitive forms. Yet there is an organic aspect
to Religion - an organic aspect that Hegel attempted to reveal in
his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1818-1831).
Religion is not all one thing - i.e. the superstitions that circulated in
Europe for so many centuries. There are aspects of Religion that
you evidently have not explored.
For example, as Hegel showed in his theory that Christianity is
the Consummate Religion (volume 3), Christianity is the only
Religion to have grown up alongside Greco-Roman Philosophy,
in particular the Stoic ideology and Neoplatonism.
For the reason, the Early Fathers of the Second Century were
skilled not only in NT dogma, but also in Plato and Aristotle.
These are the beginnings of a movement that carried Western
Civilization along for nearly 20 centuries.
All the European superstitions in the world cannot devalue a
movement so strong and vital as this culture.
--Paul Trejo, MA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]