Hegel: Philosophy of Religion

Author: Norbert Waszek. Translated by Pedro Sepúlveda Zambrano.

Este libro alberga tres motivos entrelazados -uno estético, uno práctico y uno teórico-. El motivo estético consistió en llegar a exponer tres niveles de análisis en el interior de una sola gran historia. El motivo práctico gravitó en la reducción lógica del argumento, para poder darle "musculatura" al texto, y mostrar así su concepto de la manera más clara y directa posible. Ambos motivos quedaron relativamente bien resueltos. El problema teórico residió ante todo en poder hacer de la unidad un (...) movimiento de la libertad, cuestión que requirió primero elevar la unidad a su forma suprema. A partir de ese dilema apareció además la necesidad de responder a la pregunta ¿por qué Hegel? Dicho en pocas palabras, porque a partir de su filosofía es posible pensar la unidad como autodeterminación múltiple. De ahí que el objeto de este libro no sea tanto defender la "diferencia" y la "multitud", cuanto más bien se trata de mostrar que la unidad puede ser en sí misma libre y diferente. La realización de esta unidad negativa e infinita debe entonces conjugar con lo otro, razonar lo heredado, asumirse como la totalidad de las diferencias y considerar a aquella diferencia como su verdad. Pero estas formas de unidad desarrolladas -unidades masivas, relativas y plenas; unidades concomitantes, constituyentes y soberanas; unidades singulares, particulares y universales, o unidades silogísticas- tienen lugar únicamente cuando ha sido forjado un bastidor de tejidos programáticos, o un juego metódico de conceptos. En ellos se realiza entonces y al fin la circulación efectiva entre las esferas disyuntivas que despliegan la vitalidad creadora del "espíritu de un pueblo". Este problema, en cambio, aún no está resuelto, y es más bien una tarea por hacer. (shrink)

After two centuries of Kant interpretation there is still no general agreement over the nature of Kant’s most basic philosophical commitments. One issue in particular about which it is difficult to find consensus is his metaphilosophical attitude towards the very project of metaphysics itself. Recently, a type of deflationist reading of Kant has been appealed to in order to address the problems inherent in his more traditional construal as a metaphysical skeptic who denies us the capacity to have any knowledge (...) of “things in themselves”, but who nevertheless seems to centrally rely on the existence of just such things.1 But how is either deflationism or skepticism consistent with Kant’s avowed intention in the Critique of Pure Reason to put metaphysics on the path of science,2 or with his signaled but unfulfilled intention to write a “Metaphysics of Nature”? (shrink)

Here, I consider three issues in Jon Stewart’s Hegel’s Interpretation of the Religions of the World chapter on Hegel’s treatment of Chinese religions in the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. First, I show how Stewart’s compilation of multiple courses into one unified entity hides the substantial promotion of its status in the 1831 lectures. Second, I contend that rather than identifying Hegel’s Chinese religion with the ancient Zhou practices as Stewart does, Hegel sees it as referring to state Ruism (...) up to and including Hegel’s time. Finally, I posit that the main challenge is distinguishing Hegel’s method of philosophical history from other forms of history and the consequences this has for evaluating the determinate religions. In the process, I argue for a broad dialectical interpretation over one committed to each step in Hegel’s treatment of these religions. (shrink)

An early work in continental philosophy of religion.

Reading The Phenomenology of Spirit through a linguistic lens, Jeffrey Reid provides an original commentary on Hegel's most famous work. Beginning with a close analysis of the preface, where Hegel himself addresses the book's difficulty and explains his tortured language in terms of what he calls the “speculative proposition”, Reid demonstrates how every form of consciousness discussed in The Phenomenology involves and reveals itself as a form of language. Elucidating Hegel's speculative proposition, which consists of the reversal of the roles (...) of the subject and predicate in such a way that the copula of the proposition becomes the lively arena of dialogical ambiguity and hermeneutical openness, this book offers new onto-grammatical readings of every chapter of The Phenomenology. Not only does this bring a new understanding to Hegel's foundational text, but the linguistic approach further allows Reid to unpack its complexity by relating it to contemporary contexts that share the same language structures that we discover in Hegel. Amongst many others, this includes Hegel's account of sense-certainty and the critique of the immediacy of consumer culture today. There's a YouTube interview on the book, under Professor Jeffrey Reid. (shrink)

Realistic theologies are keyed to what is said to be actual, reading knowledge of God and the aims of ethical action from the given. Idealistic theologies are keyed to claims about truths transcending actuality. I am opposed to lifting realistic actuality above idealistic discontent, even as I acknowledge that idealism poses the greater danger. A wholly realistic theology would be a monstrosity, a sanctification of mediocrity, inertia, oppression, domination, exclusion, and moral indifference. Christianity is inherently idealistic in describing the being (...) or movement of spirit as the ultimate reality and in holding to transcendent moral truths. But an idealistic theology lacking a sense of tragedy, real-world... (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Für eine Verhältnisbestimmung von Religion und Philosophie unterzieht der protestantische Theologe Martin Wendte Hegels philosophisches System einer theologischen sowie einer philosophisch-immanenten Kritik. Das Beweisziel dieser Arbeit besteht im Nachweis, dass auch Wendtes philosophische Kritik nur haltbar unter offenbarungstheologischen Voraussetzungen, also gar keine immanente Hegel-Kritik ist. Der Grund dafür liegt in der Unwiderlegbarkeit Hegels, der bloß den notwendig absoluten Anspruch der Disziplin Philosophie ausdrückt; ein absoluter Anspruch, dem der der Theologie in nichts nachsteht.

Bubbio’s new book is a synthesis of his earlier interventions in Hegel studies, nourished by his research on the notion of sacrifice. It offers an unabashed defence of the theological moment in Hegel’s idealism that is bound to attract much interest and critical attention. The book situates itself expertly in the current landscape. Aside from the original proposal it presents, it is a lucid introduction to the state of discussions in current Hegel scholarship. Many sections have great informative value, notably (...) the one on figural reading in Chapter 3. Nevertheless, the overall thesis defended by the book will be viewed critically by a number of readers. (shrink)

The point of departure for this article is a comparative study of Adorno and Arendt on the question of evil and modernity. To be precise, I observe how Adorno and Arendt present us with very different ways of understanding radical evil as an expression of the modern project of acceleration. This divergence presents us with a problematic which does not fit easily into the framework of the contemporary post-metaphysical engagement with evil. The latter projects a relational, non-substantive concept of evil (...) addressed under the order of collective memory and against the background of a normatively neutralized order of history. Yet I show, by tracing the continuities and discontinuities which exist between Arendt and Adorno’s conceptualizing of radical evil, on the one hand, and the different elements of this contemporary engagement, on the other, how the initial problematic is symptomatic of a continuing investment in history and can only be addressed in terms of such an investment. This investment is the product of a dynamic between history and memory, informing the work of both thinkers, which partially intersects with the Hegelian strategy of theodicy. I thus conclude with a consideration of whether certain aspects of the latter should be rehabilitated. (shrink)

Hegel uses the term Einsicht (‘insight’) throughout several key subsections of Chapter Six of the Phenomenology of Spirit (notably in ‘Faith and Pure Insight’ and ‘The Struggle of the Enlightenment with Superstition’). Nowhere else in his work does the term enjoy such a sustained treatment. Commentators generally accept Hegel’s use of the term in the Phenomenology as simply referring to the type of counter-religious reasoning found in the French Enlightenment. I show how Hegel derives the term, through the lens of (...) Kant’s essay, ‘What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?’ from the Pantheismusstreit, the philosophical debate between Mendelssohn and Jacobi about knowledge of God. The Aufklärung provenance of Einsicht shows how a deep complicity between faith and reason, in the form of immediate knowing, leads beyond the Terror to a happier outcome in the Morality section. Finally, passing reference to Einsicht in the Vorbegriff of the Encyclopaedia Logic confirms its role in the ethical and political vocation of Hegel’s Science. (shrink)

The paper discusses four different topics: (1.) the role of personality in Hegel's system; his definitions of both (2.) logical and (3.) realphilosophical personality; (4.) the tension between the two.

When I was first studying Hegel I encountered quite divergent readings of his views on religion. The teacher who first presented Hegel to me was a Jesuit, Quentin Lauer at Fordham University, who read Hegel as a Christian theologian providing a better metaphysical system for understanding the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. When I studied at Yale, Kenley Dove read Hegel as the first thoroughly atheistic philosopher, who presented the conditions of thought without reference to any foundational absolute being. (...) Meanwhile, also at Yale, John Findlay read us a deeply Neo-Platonic Hegel who taught about absolute forms held in a cosmic mind. In giving my own reading I want to talk about the ways Hegel redefines both metaphysics and religion. I would like to approach these issues by way of the medieval controversy over double truth, which was a previous conflict between religion and science. (shrink)

The 1830s and 1840s saw the proliferating usage of “the Beyond” (Jenseits) as a choice term for the afterlife in German public discourse. This linguistic innovation coincided with the rise of empiricism in natural science. It also signaled an emerging religious debate in which bald challenges to the very existence of heaven were aired before the wider German public for the first time. Against the belief of many contemporaries that empirical science was chiefly responsible for this attack on one of (...) the central tenets of Christianity, this essay shows instead that the role played by Christian dissenters in the negation of the Beyond. The polemical invocation of an empty Beyond coincided with the separation in the mid 1840s of two dissenting sects – the Deutschkatholiken (“German Catholics”) and the Protestant Free Congregations – from the main Christian Churches. During the Revolution of 1848, these sects, later known as Free Religious Congregations, deepened their critique of the Beyond as they articulated a new creed of radical humanism and natural scientific monism. Yet, despite their secularist agenda the Free Religious failed to fully secularize. The essay concludes by suggesting that the anticlerical activity of the Free Religious and affiliated freethinking organizations, which lasted into the 1930s, marks a century in which movements of radical political and social dissent remained open to and indeed partially dependent on the negation of the Beyond in order to sacralize humanity and nature. (shrink)

In 1837 an eighteen-year old maker of verse epigrams wrote of Hegel.

A new and critical edition of Hegel’s Religionsphilosophie Vorlesungen is in preparation. These important lectures will also appear in English and Spanish translation concurrently with the German edition. Walter Jaeschke of the Hegel-Archiv staff is constructing the German text, to be published by Felix Meiner Verlag ; Peter C. Hodgson of Vanderbilt University is editing the English translation; Ricardo Ferrara of the University of Buenos Aires is editing the Spanish translation. Jaeschke, Hodgson and Ferrara have entered into an agreement regarding (...) common editorial principles for the different language versions. Jaeschke explained the background and some of the guiding principles of the project in a two-part article printed in the 1980 Owl. Hodgson followed the second part of Jaeschke’s article with his own statement of procedures for the English translation. My purpose in this paper is to provide an update to Hodgson’s statement by giving additional information about the new edition, a progress report on work on the English translation, and a foretaste of some of the interesting differences which are emerging as the distinct lecture series become clearly and accurately distinguished from one another for the first time. (shrink)

The following paper, by Dr. Walter Jaeschke, of the Hegel-Archiv, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, was discussed during the course of the meeting of the Nineteenth Century Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion which was held in New York City, November 15–17, 1979. It has been translated by Peter C. Hodgson, Chairman, Graduate Department of Religion, Vanderbilt University. The concluding sections of Dr. Jaeschke’s study, along with a proposal by Professor Hodgson for the completion of an English study edition of Hegel’s (...) lectures on religion, will appear in the next issue of the OWL. (shrink)

This review praises Hodgson’s study for exhibiting the experimental openness of Hegel’s thinking: far from being part of a closed system, Hegel’s philosophy of religion is a work in progress. But the review criticizes the final chapter of the study for hedging this openness, for narrowing Hegel’s contemporary legacy to a few currently fashionable gestures.

Hegel’s dispute with Schleiermacher in Berlin concerned two disciplines: dogmatics and philosophy. My contribution reconstructs the proper historical circumstances for each of Hegel’s disputes, defining the theoretical unity that underlies both. That unit strictly depends on a theory of ‘objective mind’ that is fulfilled between Heidelberg and Berlin. My contribution uses as a starting point to explain what is new in the Berlin disputes, and what is a repetition of Hegel’s lecture of Schleiermacher’s Dialogues about Religion, which he had criticized (...) at least since the Frankfurt times. Showing the relevance of the theory of ‘objective mind’ for the interpretation of the Hegelian concept of religion as a sphere of absolute mind, my contribution corrects two main mistakes of twentieth-century interpretations of Hegel: 1. Hegel doesn’t consider religion as a cultural phenomenon simply cancelled by philosophy; 2. his philosophy is not a speculative translation of Christian dogmas. The clarification of the reasons why Hegel was against Schleiermacher are therefore an attempt to remove reasons to be against Hegel's concept of religion. (shrink)

Kathleen Dow Magnus' Hegel and the Symbolic Mediation of Spirit is a welcome exposition of the role of the symbol in Hegel's philosophy, and it is an important contribution to scholarship on Hegel's philosophy of language, aesthetics, and theology. Magnus is concerned to provide an alternative to the view that Hegel fails to recognize the value of the symbol in the course of privileging the sign. As Jacques Derrida writes, "The sign, as the unity of the signifying body and the (...) signified ideality, becomes a kind of incarnation". Magnus' accords Derrida's perspective the seriousness it deserves, while considering it within a close reading of Hegel himself. (shrink)

This volume contains the proceedings of the symposium held at Wofford College in 1968, in celebration of the Bi-centennial of the birth of Hegel. Hegelian philosophy has strong roots in America, and for the past one hundred and fifty years it has offered a major philosophical perspective from which to interpret religious concepts and phenomena. Its immediate dialectical relationship to phenomenology and existentialism made it almost inevitable that the strength of this position would receive fresh attention as more recent moods (...) subsided. Consequently this book undoubtedly heralds a rebirth of Hegel scholarship and a renewed concern with Hegelian philosophy of religion after the serious criticism by Kierkegaardians and Marxists which has dominated recent philosophy of religion. The main papers include "Some Historical Presuppositions of Hegel's System" ; "The Young Hegel and the Postulates of Practical Reason" ; "Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind as a Development of Kant's Basic Ontology" ; "Hegel's 'Unhappy Consciousness' and Nietzsche's 'Slave Morality'" ; "Hegel's Reinterpretation of the Doctrine of Spirit and the Religious Community" ; "Hegel and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Religion" ; "'Authenticity' and 'Warranted Belief' in Hegel's Dialectic of Religion" ; "Hegel on The Identity of Content in Religion and Philosophy". The volume suggests the possibility of initiating dialogue with analytic philosophers regarding the Hegelian claim that "language is spirit," but such dialogue is never developed. In addition to bringing to light an interpretation of new source material for the study of the development of Hegel's position, there is also a unique interpretation of historical method. Henrich attempts to immerse his study more thoroughly in the immediate setting, biblical, theological, social and philosophical than did either R. Kroner or W. Dilthey in their classic studies of Hegel. At the same time the analysis of Hegel's relationship to Hölderlin is clarified with fresh interest for those who have been made conscious of Hölderlin through Heidegger. A number of the essays devote special attention to the Kant-Hegel relationship, analyzing with great care the Kantian atmosphere at the University of Tübingen and Hegel's place in this setting. If it is the case that secular theology is fundamentally a version of Hegelian immanence, then some of these essays can be seen as a restoration of the Hegelian doctrine of spirit in response to such secularization. On the other hand, if it is the case that the Kierkegaardian critique was a criticism of this very doctrine of immanence in the name of an "infinite gap" and that such Kierkegaardianism dominated philosophy of religion in the first half of this century, it is striking that so little direct confrontation of Hegel and Kierkegaard is attempted in these essays. It is time for Hegelianism to receive such renewed attention; but its dialogue with analysis, Kierkegaard, and phenomenology is still to be undertaken. We may be entering a period of genuine pluralism in contemporary philosophy where this very discussion can occur, and for this conversation these essays offer an excellent starting point.--H. A. D. (shrink)

The renaissance of Hegel studies, now well into its third decade in the United States, has from its beginning included serious efforts to reexamine Hegel's philosophy of religion. These efforts naturally point beyond themselves to investigations into Hegel as a source of productive possibilities for philosophical theology. Hodgson's book is an exemplary instance of such an investigation. It is written with admirable clarity and takes account of a rich variety of texts and traditions. It stands as a critical and insightful (...) retrieval of Hegel's philosophy of religion and of history for the purposes of constructive philosophical theology. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the developments of Young Hegelianism in Restoration Prussia, with a special focus on Max Stirner’s radical critique of Hegelian thinking. It presents an overview of the history of Hegelianism in the 1830s and 1840s, and addresses the theoretical issues raised by Stirner’s attack in 1844. It examines important aspects of Young Hegelianism, including ideas of a modernized civic humanism and emancipation, and traces the Young Hegelians’ reconfiguration of Hegel’s thought in order to eliminate what they saw as (...) its conservative or insufficiently critical elements. The refurbished republicanism of the Young Hegelians took up the new challenges of the industrial age that was dawning in Germany, with special attention to the social question and the intransigent conflicting interests that typified the emergent economic order. Stirner’s critique is framed by its anti-humanist repudiation of Left Hegelian emancipatory projects. (shrink)

Resumen: A la luz de la distinción elaborada por E. Tugendhat entre religión y mística, retomada a su modo por el teólogo J. Ratzinger, se examina la idea hegeliana según la cual la filosofía eleva la forma representativa propia de la religión a concepto. ¿Significa esto que la religión cristiana es..

0 0 1 152 943 Lewis & Clark College 21 2 1093 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Regarding each philosophy as a variation of that of Spinoza , t his article compares the German Idealism of Schelling and Hegel with the Indian Ved ā nta of Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja, as well as Abhinavagupta’s Kaśmiri Śaivism. It argues that only Hegel’s philosophy does not fail. For Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Abhinavagupta, and Schelling, the experience of ultimate reality—Brahman for Śaṅkara (...) and Rāmānuja, Śiva for Abhinavagupta, the Absolute for Schelling—is self-authenticating and so excludes the possibility of error. However, there is also no possibility of truth as no criterion distinguishes truth from error when individuals make contradictory claims. By contrast, Hegel’s Geist is an extended mind that potentially encompasses the human community. Geist develops historically. Experience is conceptual and concepts must be socially recognized to be legitimate. Experience is fallible, for Hegel, and better accounts are obtained through mutual criticism. Although disagreement represents an impassible impasse for Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja , Abhinavagupta, and Schelling, it is the road forward for Hegel. (shrink)

In recent years, commentators have devoted increasing attention to Hegel’s conception of conscience. Prominent interpreters like Frederick Neuhouser have even argued that many points of contact can be found between Hegel’s conceptions of conscience and moral subjectivity and historical and contemporary liberalism. In this paper, I offer an interpretation of an under-examined 1830 addition to the Philosophy of Spirit concerning the relation between religion and the state which proves particularly resistant to the kind of liberal interpretation of conscience which Neuhouser (...) provides. I assess the significance of Hegel’s argument for the “inseparability” of ethical and religious conscience for liberal interpretations. I conclude by arguing that we can identify a kind of consistency between the Philosophy of Right and the later writings and lectures, but that Hegel’s conception of conscience is incompatible with contemporary political liberalism. (shrink)

In this paper I rely on recent literature that emphasises the importance of recognition in Hegel's philosophy in order to apply the recognition-theoretic approach to the notion of sacrifice in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Firstly, I conduct a preliminary analysis by examining the general meaning of sacrifice as a form of determinate negation. Secondly, I focus on two phenomenological moments (the struggle between ?faith? and ?pure insight?, and the cult) in order to answer the question, ?Is a real (effective and (...) unselfish) sacrifice possible?? Finally, I argue that sacrifice should be considered as a Darstellung, and I explain the twofold connection between sacrifice and recognition. I conclude that there is no sacrifice without recognition, and the process of recognition is intrinsically sacrificial. (shrink)

In this article, I draw upon the ‘post-Kantian’ reading of Hegel to examine the consequences Hegel’s idea of God has on his metaphysics. In particular, I apply Hegel’s ‘recognition-theoretic’ approach to his theology. Within the context of this analysis, I focus especially on the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ. First, I argue that Hegel’s philosophy of religion employs a distinctive notion of sacrifice (kenotic sacrifice). Here, sacrifice is conceived as a giving up something of oneself to ‘make room’ for the (...) other. Second, I argue that the idea of kenotic sacrifice plays a fundamental role in Hegel’s account of Christ. Third, I conclude by sketching some of the consequences of Hegel’s idea of a God who renounces his own divinity for an idealistically conceived metaphysics. My main thesis is that the notion of incarnation is conceived by Hegel as the expression of a spirit that advances only insofar as it is willing to withdraw and make room for the other. A kenotic reading of the Hegelian notion of the incarnation is also useful in terms of a clarification of the dispute between ‘left Hegelians’ and ‘right Hegelians’ concerning the status of the idea of God in Hegel’s philosophy. (shrink)