Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

American Buddhist Perspectives

Home
About

Home
Buddhist
Religion News
Philosophy: just for fun explanation?

Philosophy: just for fun explanation?

Last updated on: October 31, 2006 at 5:42 pm by Justin Whitaker

Philosophy: just for fun explanation? 2006-10-31T17:42:00-07:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

For the original post with Hegel Quote and comments, see here. (disclaimer: I only slept for about 3 hours last night – writing a big paper, preping for Kant class today, etc., so I may ramble more than usual)

Responses to all, in order, at last: (beginning with Zen’s first post after my last post… got it?)

Zen – “How could God be other than an abstraction AND mere difference in the Christian world?”

um… I think the Christian God could be quite substantial/active, as in Job and later in the transubstantiation (eucharist) Catholicism. If you question is to suggest that abstraction necessitates mere difference, I think you may be right.

Zen – “I still don’t really understand what you quoted. Can you deconstructed it for zen unsound and me and cheesy chips and your other readers?”

The original quote was:

“Neither the one nor the other has truth; the truth is just their movement in which simple sameness is an abstraction and hence absolute difference, but this, the difference in itself, is distinguished from itself and is therefore selfsameness” (§780, pp.472-3, The Phenomenology of Spirit).

Deconstructed:

Neither our concept of a separate divine being nor ourselves as totally isolated autonomous agents is true. Truth is in the process in which our label (simple sameness) is placed on each of these. The label, being static, is absolutely different from both the ‘divine’ and ‘us’ – both of which are in movement. The label (the difference in itself), is not the thing to which it is applied and is therefore empty, really applicable only to itself, not really useful for understanding what it is labeling…

So, anyhow… We have this idea of a God ‘up there’ or whatnot. We also have the idea of ourselves having a ‘soul’. Both of these we think to be eternal, unchanging in some way. But Hegel says, ‘no, both ideas are false. What is true though is that we come up with the ideas as part of our spiritual development’ (for him it was Spirit in the big-‘S’ way- socio-cultural, not individual). So, great, the Spirit has advanced beyond God as an agent in the world, good for Spirit. In historical terms, Hegel has just praised Protestantism for bringing a more rational understanding of God. Now he’s showing how we need to or will move beyond Protestantism to simply living reasonably.

The greater reason of Protestantism is the extent to which they isolated God, getting Him out of world, where He was confusing (is it God mad at us, or just a tornado? How can I trust science if God/angels/the devil can come muck up experiments whenever they want?). So Protestantism (specifically German Lutheranism, not the Jerry Fallwell types) brought reason to bear on the very concept of God, whiddling God down to nothing more than a mere abstractness, just a label and some meaningless qualities.

Finally Hegel is pointing out that the labels are just labels – the only thing they represent IN TRUTH is themselves. They are perfectly empty, totally detached from reality, which is in flux.

—————-

Brittany – “It’s all relative…. the only truth is an abstract undefinable that some would define one way or another. But this game of defining, contrasting and claiming truth is in it’s rawest stripped form a dance… we’re all partners in the same dance…. and that abstract movement of difference in the same dance is the truth.”

– you nailed it, I think. The movement itself is not relative though, that is what is true and real.

—————–

Nacho (I’ll take some selected bits) – “I think Hegel was off his rocker.”

Yes. But in a good way.

“He is talking about God ultimately, but we can say that about Hegel easily. After all for him, God is all, the root of all, and not a stranger to “itself.” What exists, if created by God, is a manifestation of God. And the notion God is an abstraction, so as you note simple sameness.”

Yup. Sort of. My professor was fairly adament that Hegel was an atheist. He uses the term Geist or Spirit, not ‘God’ except to refer to the mere label we use (I think, it’s been a while for me too now – a whole year). Geist or Spirit is the movement or unfolding of history and humanity’s self-understanding therein.

“It is simple identity — which points to a difference, but cannot point to essence. Yet the difference that is established in that identity move (saying “God”) immediately points to what “isn’t” – to that which is excluded in the differential relation, — but it is altogether pointing to the same relation because that excluded is a ‘constitutive outside.'”

Yes – I think. You’re starting to write like Hegel, or someone like him. This bit perhaps could be clarified, for me at least.

That move of identity is reflective, and would always be changing because it is a moving target at any time it is invoked and yet “same” in the sense of that reflection which considers itself.

Yea, this makes sense. “The move of identity” here is what I call labelling, right? We can only label things reflectively, after the experience is ‘processed’ by our concepts (in our head). And yea, I think the ‘same’ is as you say, it is a reflection on past reflections on, say, God. So we’ve moved up from God as immediate actor in nature and the reflections we may have on that to a meta-level – reflecting on our reflections, categorizing them, making them rational. We thus get twice removed from reality.. Bummer.

It seems to me that for Hegel to label something God is to engage in simple abstraction because it is to rely on a positivity of terms.

What’s a ‘positivity of terms?’

It is not a negation that carves out space precisely to give boundedness to essence otherwise undefinable. Well, I’m off my rocker too, but this dialectic for Hegel is between identity and difference, between self and other, and they recognize each other in each other, there is a mutual acknowledgement because to assert self-identity is to assert an other (a constitutive outside) against which I define my-self.

Ok, I’ve lost you…. I think you’ve reached Hegelhood.

Does that make any sense Justin?

Yes professor, crystal clear.

and Nacho part 2: Just realized I did not make something clear.

Yea, that part between “Hey Justin!” and “Does that make any sense Justin?”

What I think he is trying to outline is that God is the only entity that knows itself qua itself, not in the sense of encountering otherness because there is no otherness to God —

Hm… Again I’ll go with the ‘atheistic Hegel’ version of things and say he’s just talking about the Spirit of history, and here from a religious perspective. Certainly there is no otherness to the Spirit of history – it is the totality of all human consciousness through time, and Hegel is trying to get a feel for it and describe it in its progress.

Well, just my muddleheaded attempt at parsing Hegel. Thanks Justin.

And thank you. Due to my lack of sleep I’m a bit muddled myself 🙂 But I appreciate your contribution.

And just for fun, again – here’s what Hegel says soon after the passage above:

“The difficulty that is found in these Notions stems solely from clinging to the ‘is’ and forgetting the thinking of the Notions in which the moments just as much are as they are not—are only the movement which is Spirit” (ibid., p.473)

I think that clarifies everything, don’t you?

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 31, 2006

Buddhism: just for fun

Next Post

November 11, 2006 Life: same old story, elections, connections

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz