# Hegelianism



## Claudiu (May 4, 2014)

I have a question about Hegelianism, which might lead to more questions down the road. Anyways, here goes. 

Classical (Aristotelian) logic: 
- Law of identity: A = A. A thing is identical to itself. 
- Law of excluded middle: A v ~A. A thing is either something or not that thing.
- Law of non-contradiction: ~(A & ~A). A thing cannot be both true and untrue at the same instance. 

Hegel took fault with this formulation of classical logic. His critique was that a thing is always more than itself, a thing can be both itself and others, and a thing in existence is both itself and not itself. I think this is a denial of classical logic. He takes this to the basics of metaphysics. He starts by stating that Being is more than Being. It also includes Nothing. And this movement between Being and Nothing results in the greater reality of Becoming. He then takes this basic idea to formulate the rest of his philosophy and how reason (Geist) is an evolution from an unconscious unity to a conscious disunity and finally a conscious unity. 

My question is the first step in Hegel's philosophy. How does Hegel develop the idea that a thing is always more than itself. He takes this from Being = Nothing -> Becoming. I just fail to see how one could posit that Being is also Nothing, or that Being is more than Being and also includes its opposite, Nothing. He essentially got rid of contradiction by swallowing it up in his philosophy.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 4, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> I have a question about Hegelianism, which might lead to more questions down the road. Anyways, here goes.
> 
> Classical (Aristotelian) logic:
> - Law of identity: A = A. A thing is identical to itself.
> ...



I am going to give my own summary of Hegel's reading (I've read Philosophy of Right; Philosophy of History, and half of Phenomenology of Geist). Give me a day or two to get my bearings on this. I am not a Hegelian, but I understand how important he is for understanding the modern mind. He needs to be critically interacted with and not simply dismissed.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2014)

Here is a stab at it:

Contrary to popular opinion, Hegel really didn't say we should take a thesis, then negate it, which produces a synthesis. What he meant by that is whenever we see an object in reality and we make a statement on it (e.g, this is X), it necessarily includes a contradiction, because we haven't yet said all we can say about the object (those webs of relation, etc).


----------



## Claudiu (May 5, 2014)

I know what you mean (the thesis, antithesis, synthesis is a simplistic, reductionist way to put it for people who don't want to deal with his philosophy because it takes so much time and is pretty complicated). 

But how, and why can he say what he says about Being, which would then lead him to Nothing and Becoming. It doesn't seem to necessarily follow. The contradiction seems a bit forced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist (May 5, 2014)

When Hegel says "Nothing" or "Nothingness" he is not necessarily meaning a vacuum of existence. Nothing for Hegel can simply be "No-thing," or negating the thing.

As to the Identity of Being and Becoming, that is an old Greek move. The Greeks could never fully integrate Being (the One) with Becoming (the Many) and Hegel is simply a manifestation of it.


----------



## Claudiu (May 5, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> When Hegel says "Nothing" or "Nothingness" he is not necessarily meaning a vacuum of existence. Nothing for Hegel can simply be "No-thing," or negating the thing.
> 
> As to the Identity of Being and Becoming, that is an old Greek move. The Greeks could never fully integrate Being (the One) with Becoming (the Many) and Hegel is simply a manifestation of it.



One can say the old Greek ideas of Parmenides and Heraclitus were resolved in Plato as he allowed for the One and the Many. Hegel seems to take Heraclitus' side and turn it into becoming (even though interpreters claim being still fits in the system). But maybe I'm reading him wrong. 

So what's the necessity in negating the thing, or allowing (perhaps forcing) contradiction? The problem I'm having with Hegel is that his system sounds really nice as it's a metaphilosophy and is comprehensive. My issue is with the foundation of it. It seems rather arbitrary and random. Admittedly, I have more to learn. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it all.


----------



## Claudiu (May 5, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> He needs to be critically interacted with and not simply dismissed.





Many people too easily dismiss Hegel. I too think he must be dealt with considering the impact he had in what followed after him. I wonder what Van Til or Bahnsen wrote in regards to his philosophy? In the Bahnsen reader of Van Til there is a short section that deals with Hegel, but I'm looking for something more in-depth.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > When Hegel says "Nothing" or "Nothingness" he is not necessarily meaning a vacuum of existence. Nothing for Hegel can simply be "No-thing," or negating the thing.
> ...



Plato's synthesis of One/Many was a lot neater than his predecessors, though its debatable if its fully satisfactory.

When Hegel negates a thing, he is not actively doing so. He would just say, "That's the way reality is." Whenever you speak of a thing, you can never speak of the entirety of the thing (this would be the negation), for you aren't mentioning the numerous webs of relationships.


----------



## Claudiu (May 6, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Plato's synthesis of One/Many was a lot neater than his predecessors, though its debatable if its fully satisfactory.
> 
> When Hegel negates a thing, he is not actively doing so. He would just say, "That's the way reality is." Whenever you speak of a thing, you can never speak of the entirety of the thing (this would be the negation), for you aren't mentioning the numerous webs of relationships.



So when speaking of a table, for example, he wouldn't say table = table. That is, a table is a table. It is more than that. It is also a process. The web of relationships in this case would be a tree, and then the table, and then, say, ashes. In this sense, we can see more of the "becoming" picture. Instead of seeing things in a static sense, as just being, more can be said. And that would be the process. Is this correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > Plato's synthesis of One/Many was a lot neater than his predecessors, though its debatable if its fully satisfactory.
> ...



Basically, yes.


----------



## Claudiu (May 12, 2014)

Jacob, you mentioned earlier that Hegel must be dealt with, and in part because of his influence and legacy. Could you say more about that?

For starters, one thing I can think of is that his metaphysics has direct implications on things like the state, for example. With the historical move in putting the geist in a state of becoming, it's very easy to see how the individual loses his place in Hegel's philosophy. As the spirit becomes a conscious unity, the "I" gives way to the "all." In time this unity is made more apparent in the state, as it is the state that better expresses the unity or mind of the people.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Jacob, you mentioned earlier that Hegel must be dealt with, and in part because of his influence and legacy. Could you say more about that?
> 
> For starters, one thing I can think of is that his metaphysics has direct implications on things like the state, for example. With the historical move in putting the geist in a state of becoming, it's very easy to see how the individual loses his place in Hegel's philosophy. As the spirit becomes a conscious unity, the "I" gives way to the "all." In time this unity is made more apparent in the state, as it is the state that better expresses the unity or mind of the people.



For better or worse, modern thought uses the language of dialectic. Of course, Hegel didn't invent that, as any reader of Plato or Plotinus knows.

As to the state, when Hegel used that term he didn't mean what we mean by it. By State he meant the cultural life of a people (civil, church, military, linguistic), so in that case, especially in societies which are pre-melting pot and relatively religious homogenous, a state in fact does express the unity of a people.


----------



## Claudiu (May 18, 2014)

Ah, yes. I forgot about that usage of the state.

I think Hegel's formulation of dialectic allows for contradiction in a system. This is apparent not just in the general relativism of our age, but even in theologians.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Ah, yes. I forgot about that usage of the state.
> 
> I think Hegel's formulation of dialectic allows for contradiction in a system. This is apparent not just in the general relativism of our age, but even in theologians.



I'll take it a step further: Hegel sees any aspect of reality as embodying a contradiction, which thus calls for a further synthesis. I have my problems with it but on one level it kind of makes sense. It's like the saying "You can't step in the same river twice." I'll try to explain later.


----------



## Philip (May 18, 2014)

Hegelianism is the most significant heresy of the last two centuries.


----------



## Claudiu (May 20, 2014)

Philip said:


> Hegelianism is the most significant heresy of the last two centuries.



Elaborate, please!


----------



## Philip (May 21, 2014)

What I mean is this: Hegelianism believes in the inevitable upward progression of history, meaning that the new synthesis must be better than what preceded it. The creeping Hegelianism in the church has meant that new trends are embraced because they are new, and very slowly, without realizing it, we begin to remake God in our image. Hegelianism is the extreme form of natural theology that led the German church to embrace liberalism and then Nazism, and it's behind the push for Gay marriage in the church today. It puts synthesis in place of revelation and puts experience ahead of God's word.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 21, 2014)

Philip said:


> What I mean is this: Hegelianism believes in the inevitable upward progression of history, meaning that the new synthesis must be better than what preceded it. The creeping Hegelianism in the church has meant that new trends are embraced because they are new, and very slowly, without realizing it, we begin to remake God in our image. Hegelianism is the extreme form of natural theology that led the German church to embrace liberalism and then Nazism, and it's behind the push for Gay marriage in the church today. It puts synthesis in place of revelation and puts experience ahead of God's word.



that is true only in the broadest sweeps. Marx specifically rejected Hegel's proposal (Marx was offended that essence preceded existence) and then inverted it. I'm not so sure about the Nazi thing. I'm sure Hegel was involved, but more likely the German Church had been liberalizing much over the last few centuries regardless of Hegel.


----------



## au5t1n (May 21, 2014)

Philip said:


> What I mean is this: Hegelianism believes in the inevitable upward progression of history, meaning that the new synthesis must be better than what preceded it. The creeping Hegelianism in the church has meant that new trends are embraced because they are new, and very slowly, without realizing it, we begin to remake God in our image. Hegelianism is the extreme form of natural theology that led the German church to embrace liberalism and then Nazism, and it's behind the push for Gay marriage in the church today. It puts synthesis in place of revelation and puts experience ahead of God's word.



Well said.


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

Philip said:


> What I mean is this: Hegelianism believes in the inevitable upward progression of history, meaning that the new synthesis must be better than what preceded it. The creeping Hegelianism in the church has meant that new trends are embraced because they are new, and very slowly, without realizing it, we begin to remake God in our image. Hegelianism is the extreme form of natural theology that led the German church to embrace liberalism and then Nazism, and it's behind the push for Gay marriage in the church today. It puts synthesis in place of revelation and puts experience ahead of God's word.



I wouldn't credit "new" things to Hegelianism necessarily. Certainly, before Hegel, people were also attracted to something "new" because it was taken to be better than what preceded it.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 21, 2014)

Idealism was old hat long before Hegel. Much of Fichte and Schelling can be found in later German liberals (and I have documented references where liberal critical scholars were quite reticent of Hegel).


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Idealism was old hat long before Hegel. Much of Fichte and Schelling can be found in later German liberals (and I have documented references where liberal critical scholars were quite reticent of Hegel).



And I forgot which one was even more pronounced (then Hegel, even, if I'm not mistaking) on the idea of the dialectic, triad, or synthesis.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 21, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > Idealism was old hat long before Hegel. Much of Fichte and Schelling can be found in later German liberals (and I have documented references where liberal critical scholars were quite reticent of Hegel).
> ...



Hegel never thought of himself as using the triad (though it is certainly present in his works). There is even a book written on Hegel's non use of the triad.

Placed in the backdrop of German Idealism, Hegel is unremarkable. I find Ficthe more interesting and Johann Herder more profound (though Herder was more a Romantic than an Idealist). Hegel gets a bad rap because of the way Talmudists, neocons/neolibs/marxists, etc took his method and destroyed traditional morality (Hegel's treatise of politics is traditional conservatism)


----------



## Philip (May 21, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> that is true only in the broadest sweeps. Marx specifically rejected Hegel's proposal (Marx was offended that essence preceded existence) and then inverted it. I'm not so sure about the Nazi thing. I'm sure Hegel was involved, but more likely the German Church had been liberalizing much over the last few centuries regardless of Hegel.



Hegel was the major impetus for all of this, though. Schleiermacher, the father of German liberalism, was a contemporary of Hegel and his ideas were embraced alongside Hegel and both together led to the so-called "German Christian" movement in the Nazi era. Marxism, likewise, is a materialist adaptation of Hegel's historicism.

Why was history such a driving concern for 19th century German liberal scholars? Because of Hegel.



Claudiu said:


> I wouldn't credit "new" things to Hegelianism necessarily. Certainly, before Hegel, people were also attracted to something "new" because it was taken to be better than what preceded it.



Yes, but Hegelianism justified such a change by arguing for a progression of theology where one could say "The Westminster Standards were fine for the 17th century, but we're grown-ups now and that synthesis is long past." In other words, it's the philosophy of chronological snobbery. As Christians we should hold repugnant all forms of historicism.


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

Philip said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't credit "new" things to Hegelianism necessarily. Certainly, before Hegel, people were also attracted to something "new" because it was taken to be better than what preceded it.
> ...



Agreed. It's interesting to note how well Hegel's philosophy works with Darwinian evolution or with the idea of progression of thought, whether it be theology or anything else. Oddly enough, I've heard critiques against Reformed theology for doing this. Somehow, the systematic theology of the Reformed parallels the progression of theology. This usually comes from the "no creed but Christ" folks.


----------



## Claudiu (May 21, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > Baroque Norseman said:
> ...



He made use of the triad, but not exclusively. There are even quadrads and so on.


----------



## Philip (May 21, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Agreed. It's interesting to note how well Hegel's philosophy works with Darwinian evolution or with the idea of progression of thought, whether it be theology or anything else. Oddly enough, I've heard critiques against Reformed theology for doing this. Somehow, the systematic theology of the Reformed parallels the progression of theology. This usually comes from the "no creed but Christ" folks.



I would say that there can be a progress in theology, but it isn't Hegelian progress.

I would agree that latent Hegelianism gave credence to the mythology of evolution that followed Darwin's theory.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. It's interesting to note how well Hegel's philosophy works with Darwinian evolution or with the idea of progression of thought, whether it be theology or anything else. Oddly enough, I've heard critiques against Reformed theology for doing this. Somehow, the systematic theology of the Reformed parallels the progression of theology. This usually comes from the "no creed but Christ" folks.
> ...



Maybe so, but Hegel specifically rejected Darwin's views.

All heresies have a grain of truth--historicism takes history seriously, something Christians should do, too.


----------



## Philip (May 22, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Maybe so, but Hegel specifically rejected Darwin's views.



_The Origin of Species_ was published in 1849. Hegel died in 1831. Regardless, the right Hegelians may have rejected evolution, but the left Hegelians ran with it.



Baroque Norseman said:


> All heresies have a grain of truth--historicism takes history seriously, something Christians should do, too.



True enough. Marxism takes class differences seriously, which is also something which Christians should do. Doesn't make it less insidious.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe so, but Hegel specifically rejected Darwin's views.
> ...



I'm aware of the dates. Darwin didn't invent evolution. Heraclitus did and Hegel was aware of primitive evolutionary theories.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2014)

I'm all for bashing Hegel, but ad Hitlerum statements probably don't advance the discussion. He might be the most insidiuous thing in the modern world, but statements like that are impossible to prove.


----------



## Philip (May 22, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> I'm all for bashing Hegel, but ad Hitlerum statements probably don't advance the discussion. He might be the most insidiuous thing in the modern world, but statements like that are impossible to prove.



The _ad Hitlerum_ thing is merely to illustrate the point that whether or not Hegel intended it, the popular interpretation of his historical progression led to the attitude that the current _zeitgeist_ must be good and, in its theological expression, must be the will of God. This is why the theology of the German Christian movement was constantly appealing to historical inevitability, and it's why Barth and Bonhoeffer ended up completely eschewing natural theology. "History" became a loaded term in German academia.



Baroque Norseman said:


> I'm aware of the dates. Darwin didn't invent evolution. Heraclitus did and Hegel was aware of primitive evolutionary theories.



Again, the question is, why was it Darwin's theory in particular which captured the western imagination? Why not an earlier theory? Well, latent Hegelianism is a fairly good reason---evolution fits nicely into Hegelian models, particularly interpreted through a materialist-Marxist (as opposed to idealist) lens.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all for bashing Hegel, but ad Hitlerum statements probably don't advance the discussion. He might be the most insidiuous thing in the modern world, but statements like that are impossible to prove.
> ...



While I am unconvinced, I will admit that is an interesting idea and makes for a better line of approach than seeing Nazi connections.

As an adherent of Scottish Common Sense Realism I am certainly no friend of Hegel. Some of his vocabulary I have found helpful and that's the extent of it.


----------



## Claudiu (May 22, 2014)

I haven't studied Alfred Whitehead's philosophy, but I wonder how it fits or relates to Hegel's. I am only vaguely familiar with process philosophy/theology (the idea that reality is constructed by events - or the process - rather than substances). It seems to go against Scholastic, Aristotelian and classical metaphysics.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 22, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> I haven't studied Alfred Whitehead's philosophy, but I wonder how it fits or relates to Hegel's. I am only vaguely familiar with process philosophy/theology (the idea that reality is constructed by events - or the process - rather than substances). It seems to go against Scholastic, Aristotelian and classical metaphysics.



Wolfhart Pannenber does a good job dealing with Whitehead in Metaphysics and the Idea of God.


----------



## Philip (May 22, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> While I am unconvinced, I will admit that is an interesting idea and makes for a better line of approach than seeing Nazi connections.



As a question of hermaneutics, I'll just say here that when Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Kierkegaard are understood as primarily attacking and reacting to latent Hegelianism in the church, they make more sense, even though we would still have problems with say, the latent Pelagianism of Kierkegaard or the flawed theory of revelation in Barth and Bonhoeffer.

Also, a point of clarification: I am not claiming that Hegel was responsible for Nazism. I am saying that his idea of inevitable historical progress, popularized and dumbed-down, was a contributing factor in the acceptance of the German Christian movement. One can also make the claim that Kantian ethics led many to stand idly by because of misplaced scruples applied foolishly as categorical imperatives.



Baroque Norseman said:


> As an adherent of Scottish Common Sense Realism I am certainly no friend of Hegel. Some of his vocabulary I have found helpful and that's the extent of it.



Oh absolutely---we just have to be self-aware about the terminology, particularly in German theology and philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries.


----------



## Claudiu (May 22, 2014)

Phillip, Kierkegaard was a latent Pelagian?


----------



## Claudiu (May 22, 2014)

If you are trying to underscore the fact that Kierkegaard emphasized human freedom and personal responsibility, I can kind of see where you're coming from. But I don't know if I would classify Kierkegaard as a latent Pelagian in terms of his final view on sin, faith, and ultimately salvation.


----------



## Philip (May 23, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> If you are trying to underscore the fact that Kierkegaard emphasized human freedom and personal responsibility, I can kind of see where you're coming from. But I don't know if I would classify Kierkegaard as a latent Pelagian in terms of his final view on sin, faith, and ultimately salvation.



If you take him as systematic theology, he tends to look at faith as an act of the will. I don't think the Pelagian tendency is intentional on his part, but I think it's there.


----------



## Claudiu (May 23, 2014)

Philip said:


> If you take him as systematic theology, he tends to look at faith as an act of the will. I don't think the Pelagian tendency is intentional on his part, but I think it's there.



Isn't faith an act of the will?


----------



## Philip (May 23, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Isn't faith an act of the will?



No, it's a gift of God. It is that which enables acts of the will and reorients the will toward love of and trust in God.

At any rate we're way off-topic with Hegel.


----------



## Claudiu (May 23, 2014)

Philip said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't faith an act of the will?
> ...



Alright, I'll PM you.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2014)

For any who are interested, Michael Horton has a fantastic discussion of Hegel in _Covenant and Eschatology_. He points out where Hegel is correct pace Kant: why bother with a noumenal distinction if it is never attainable; and postmodernism: historicism at the very least implies a divine telos.

And then he points out some good problems with Hegel: his ontology is an overcoming estrangment.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 26, 2014)

What a fun discussion! How do I miss these things?

Hegel is seminal for understanding our world; he was quite brilliant, though ultimately blazingly wrong!

I often think about how Plato sought to resolve the one and many question by placing the key insight of Parmenides in his world of forms and Heraclitus in his world of matter. Aristotle brings form down into matter, seeking, in a sense, to harmonize Parmenides and Heraclitus (seeing that Plato didn't really do that simply by separating them). 

Similarly in modern (not contemporary) philosophy, one can think of Descartes' (and company's) affinity with Plato's rationalism and Locke (and company's, especially Hume's) affinity with Aristotle's empiricism. Since it was Hume who awoke Kant from his "dogmatic slumbers" one can think of Kant resolving Descartes and Rationalism to his upper story (the noumenal realm) and Locke, Hume, and so forth to the lower story (the phenomenal realm). Hegel, Aristotle-like, sought to bring that upper story down into the lower, or, as he would put it, "to immanentize the Absolute." 

Hegel seeks to read all of history as verifying this approach, with Christian theology reconceived as an expression of his philosophy. In that way, he did enormously influence philosophy and theology, along some of the lines that Philip suggests. It's interesting to raise the question of Hitler: was he coming off of Hegel or Nietzsche, often taken to be the leading anti-Hegelian? Many Nietzsche scholars have, of course, not only challenged the thesis of his influence on Hitler (I think it was there, albeit twisted--Hitler was a parvenu whom Nietzsche would not have begun to recognize as an ubermensch), but have even challenged the notion that Nietzsche was anti-Hegelian, some arguing that he simply picked up and modified Hegel in particular ways. 

We can speak of Hegel's influence, as has been done here, on a number of problematic thinkers. I find his influence, however, on not just the most obvious of liberals but on figures like Philip Schaff and John W. Nevin to be quite interesting. Ah, German idealism: what an interesting, brilliant, and misleading approach. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Claudiu (May 26, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> What a fun discussion! How do I miss these things?
> 
> Hegel is seminal for understanding our world; he was quite brilliant, though ultimately blazingly wrong!
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post. 

I like the bit where you mention how the philosophies relate: Pre-Socratics - Plato - Aristotle ... Descartes/Kant - Locke/Hume - Hegel. 

Yes, German Idealism! (It's a shame we don't really cover that bit of history of thought in America as we ought to. We mainly just stick with the analytic side and go from there, as if that's all there is. Very Anglo-American of us.)


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2014)

Ironically, it was German Idealism that reconvinced me of the Filioque and moved me out of Eastern Orthodoxy's orbit.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 26, 2014)

That's not too, ironic, Jacob! I could see how that (together with other expressions of Western philosophy) could move one away from the irrationalism and mysticism of the East. 

In a different, but not wholly unrelated vein, when I was a teenager under the preaching of the gospel, the Spirit used something in Shakespeare (_Hamlet_) to draw me back to the truth to which I had stopped my ears. I was too arrogant to hear God's Word and He was kind and loving enough to use something in literature to which I would listen to subdue me to hear and receive the truth as it was preached.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Claudiu (May 26, 2014)

Does anybody here know what affect Hegelianism had on the philosophy of John Dewey?


----------



## Claudiu (May 26, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> Does anybody here know what affect Hegelianism had on the philosophy of John Dewey?



From what I can see, he had the idea that past doctrines must be reconstructed to better fit the present. This non-foundational approach seems to be fairly Hegelian, or at least postmodern.


----------



## Philip (May 26, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> From what I can see, he had the idea that past doctrines must be reconstructed to better fit the present. This non-foundational approach seems to be fairly Hegelian, or at least postmodern.



That's more Benthamite utilitarianism plus American pragmatism, really.


----------



## Claudiu (May 26, 2014)

Philip said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can see, he had the idea that past doctrines must be reconstructed to better fit the present. This non-foundational approach seems to be fairly Hegelian, or at least postmodern.
> ...



Ah, yes, American pragmaticism. So American.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2014)

Somewhat tangential but I maintain relevant is a comment I saw in Frei's _Eclipse of Biblical Narrative_. Noting that Hegel is notoriously difficult, he pointed out, as others have done, that one can read Goethe's _Faustus: Part 1_ as an aesthetic commentary on Hegel's _Phenomenologie_. I read Faustus earlier this year and while a 1:1 correspondence isn't there, it certainly makes sense that way. Mephistoles can be seen as the Spirit of Negation.


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 4, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Somewhat tangential but I maintain relevant is a comment I saw in Frei's _Eclipse of Biblical Narrative_. Noting that Hegel is notoriously difficult, he pointed out, as others have done, that one can read Goethe's _Faustus: Part 1_ as an aesthetic commentary on Hegel's _Phenomenologie_. I read Faustus earlier this year and while a 1:1 correspondence isn't there, it certainly makes sense that way. Mephistoles can be seen as the Spirit of Negation.



Hmmm, I ought to look into that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 4, 2014)

Also, I have a comment I'll have to write later when I have more time. In short, it has to do with the law and politics. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Philip (Jun 4, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Somewhat tangential but I maintain relevant is a comment I saw in Frei's _Eclipse of Biblical Narrative_. Noting that Hegel is notoriously difficult, he pointed out, as others have done, that one can read Goethe's _Faustus: Part 1_ as an aesthetic commentary on Hegel's _Phenomenologie_. I read Faustus earlier this year and while a 1:1 correspondence isn't there, it certainly makes sense that way. Mephistoles can be seen as the Spirit of Negation.



Goethe's _Faust_ part 1 was published in 1806. _Phenomenologie_ was published in 1807. If anything, Goethe influenced Hegel.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2014)

Thank you for the factual correction. I was quoting Frei, in any event. I think the larger point stands: German idealism isn't unique to Hegel. In many ways he simply refined the system. Some of his ideas--like the kernel and the husk--were employed long before him (and continue today in American bible studies).


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 4, 2014)

My comment relates to the legal aspect. I think the law today is thought of in a Hegelian sort of way by many. Instead of having a Protestant sort of conception of it, we have a more innovative one. By that I mean that law before, like Protestantism, was thought of as having an original meaning that is still applicable today. One could think of the debate over the Constitution in these terms. Conservatives will try to retain the original meaning as formulated by the founders. Progressives will assume a more stretchy type meaning, or even complete disregard (sometimes things are reversed and you'll see Conservatives have more disregard). Also, we hear a lot about the "consciousness of the people." According to these folks the court is some legal drama through which we, as a collective whole, shape our values etc. In some ways that's true. We reflect our values and commitments through our legal system and culture in general. But that's not the exclusive role of the legal system. In the classical sense, it is a place for the execution of justice (however imperfect) based on a standard that's thought of as transcendent. I think it's the idea of the transcendent, or natural law aspect that is lost.

Edit: I guess the "Protestant" way of thinking is not so exclusive. The Roman Catholics and the natural law concept can still be transcendent, at least in the sense that it comes from God and is unchanging.


----------



## Philip (Jun 4, 2014)

Claudiu, that's partly true, but it has more to do with post-modern methods of interpretation than with Hegelianism as such. Traditionally a Hegelian view of law would tend to work through established legislative bodies, as is the norm in continental Europe. However, in the common-law systems of the Anglophone world, the relationship between judicial and legislative functions is more complex, given that a judge is expected to interpret the spirit of the law and consider traditions of interpretation in his or her decision. However, with the rise first of pragmatic and then of post-modern interpretation, the notion of a fixed "spirit" of the law is seen as outmoded, and instead the old principles of common law are discarded in favour of the current _zeitgeist_. In other words, Hegelianism is only one of a number of factors contributing to the decline of our legal system.


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 4, 2014)

Philip said:


> Claudiu, that's partly true, but it has more to do with post-modern methods of interpretation than with Hegelianism as such. Traditionally a Hegelian view of law would tend to work through established legislative bodies, as is the norm in continental Europe. However, in the common-law systems of the Anglophone world, the relationship between judicial and legislative functions is more complex, given that a judge is expected to interpret the spirit of the law and consider traditions of interpretation in his or her decision. However, with the rise first of pragmatic and then of post-modern interpretation, the notion of a fixed "spirit" of the law is seen as outmoded, and instead the old principles of common law are discarded in favour of the current _zeitgeist_. In other words, Hegelianism is only one of a number of factors contributing to the decline of our legal system.



Ditto. I don't think it's purely a Hegelian thought behind it. But the general concept or spirit seems to be there. Mostly, it's the post-modernism of today.


----------

