Selection, Round 2, comments...

Was he just talking out of his ass in those lectures? And were those philosophy of history talks total nonsense too—you know, that whole bit about history moving toward this ever-growing consciousness of freedom and all that? I mean, he didn't even write the book on it. Same deal with aesthetics?

It’s not just that Hegel claimed to be a believer; he actually was. Like, in his downtime, he’d hang out with that theosophist Baader just to geek out over Meister Eckhart. I mean, there's no way he wouldn't have lost his job because of that, right?

@Amanda Jackson5

It’s really not your place to weigh in on how the mods do their jobs.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Look, it isn't your job as a moderator to hand out these kinds of black-and-white judgments; your job is simply to manage the board. I haven't insulted anyone, I haven't incited any hatred, and I certainly haven't been crude—as for whether I was being "unpleasant" to someone, frankly, I couldn't care less. There’s plenty of stuff on this forum that I find unpleasant to read, too.
Think about that.

Well, that is exactly what I am doing right now.

gentlerider7 said:You’re just seeing what you want to see because you guys are completely biased.

Right, because you’re clearly the gold standard of objectivity here. By all means, keep preaching; maybe if you say it loud enough, we’ll all suddenly wake up from our delusions. Just stay consistent, I guess.

James Lee77 said:Was he just talking out of his ass in those lectures? And were those philosophy of history talks total nonsense too—you know, that whole bit about history moving toward this ever-growing consciousness of freedom and all that? I mean, he didn't even write the book on it. Same deal with aesthetics?

It’s not just that Hegel claimed to be a believer; he actually was. Like, in his downtime, he’d hang out with that theosophist Baader just to geek out over Meister Eckhart. I mean, there's no way he wouldn't have lost his job because of that, right?

I actually know what Hegel thought about God and the divine, mostly because I’ve sat down with his logic science. You clearly haven't. Honestly, that book is a far more useful resource for understanding his views than any of those random notes he left behind for his theology classes.

By the way, I think John really hit the nail on the head with that realization..

ruggedraven36 said:Besides, God himself has to carry every single lie within him—otherwise, he'd be missing something entirely. By definition, the absolute can't have anything existing outside of his own being.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I actually know what Hegel thought about God and the divine, mostly because I’ve sat down with his logic science. You clearly haven't. Honestly, that book is a far more useful resource for understanding his views than any of those random notes he left behind for his theology classes.

I mean, anyone who’s actually dug into Logic Science probably agrees with you. It’s not like there are these different camps of left-Hegelians or right-Hegelians or whatever.

James Lee77 said:Was he just talking out of his ass in those lectures? And were those philosophy of history talks total nonsense too—you know, that whole bit about history moving toward this ever-growing consciousness of freedom and all that? I mean, he didn't even write the book on it. Same deal with aesthetics?

It’s not just that Hegel claimed to be a believer; he actually was. Like, in his downtime, he’d hang out with that theosophist Baader just to geek out over Meister Eckhart. I mean, there's no way he wouldn't have lost his job because of that, right?

That just proves he wasn't a (Christian) believer—he was an researcher.
He sought out theosophists, mystics, and even traveled to the East...

A true believer doesn't research; they believe.
To them, investigation is synonymous with doubt.

Given the Hegelian view of God as a process (rather than a person or a being), and the fact that he was investigating being itself rather than "God," we would probably label him an agnostic by modern standards.
In that era, such a category didn't exist, so people today love to simply slap the "believer" label on him. They transplant facts from one century to another without accounting for the massive shifts in context or the zeitgeist.

If willfully ignoring those distinctions isn't bias, I don't know what is.

Quincy:

James Lee77 As if I haven't heard this all before. It looks like everyone who actually took the time to read this is about to find out. logic science I’m right there with you on that one. This whole idea of dividing people into "left-wing Hegelians" and "right-wing Hegelians" is just a total fabrication.

Have you actually read logic science or haven't you? Because if you haven't, I honestly don't even know what we're talking about here.

steelridge58 said:By the way, I think John really hit the nail on the head with that realization..

God and the absolute are two different things. Especially not according to Hegel.

So I was reading through this. We're basically debating your whole revolutionary take on Hegel—the idea that we should just toss out everything he didn't publish while he was actually alive.

steelridge58 said:Well, that is exactly what I am doing right now.

Fair point. My bad.

Sandra Murphy33 said:That just proves he wasn't a (Christian) believer—he was an researcher.
He sought out theosophists, mystics, and even traveled to the East...

A true believer doesn't research; they believe.
To them, investigation is synonymous with doubt.

Given the Hegelian view of God as a process (rather than a person or a being), and the fact that he was investigating being itself rather than "God," we would probably label him an agnostic by modern standards.
In that era, such a category didn't exist, so people today love to simply slap the "believer" label on him. They transplant facts from one century to another without accounting for the massive shifts in context or the zeitgeist.

If willfully ignoring those distinctions isn't bias, I don't know what is.

But couldn't someone explore just to deepen their faith or confirm what they already believe?

Is there actually an issue if he were a believer?

James Lee77 said:So I was reading through this. We're basically debating your whole revolutionary take on Hegel—the idea that we should just toss out everything he didn't publish while he was actually alive.

Look, I never said they should be discarded; I just suggested putting them into perspective. It’s a bit like teaching high schoolers theology—you’d expect the discourse to be scaled down accordingly. Trying to pull some sort of definitive Hegelian apology for religion out of those messy, unfinished lecture notes is, to put it mildly, intellectually dishonest and biased—which is funny, considering that’s exactly what you’re accusing me of doing. Anyone who has actually spent time with his major works—whether they lean left or right—can see pretty clearly that Hegel could be interpreted in a dozen different ways, but he certainly wasn't some religious apologist.

Amanda Flores88 said:But couldn't someone explore just to deepen their faith or confirm what they already believe?

Is there actually an issue if he were a believer?

Honestly, even if he were religious, it wouldn't change his philosophy one bit.

Sandra Murphy33 said:That just proves he wasn't a (Christian) believer—he was an researcher.
He sought out theosophists, mystics, and even traveled to the East...

A true believer doesn't research; they believe.
To them, investigation is synonymous with doubt.

Given the Hegelian view of God as a process (rather than a person or a being), and the fact that he was investigating being itself rather than "God," we would probably label him an agnostic by modern standards.
In that era, such a category didn't exist, so people today love to simply slap the "believer" label on him. They transplant facts from one century to another without accounting for the massive shifts in context or the zeitgeist.

If willfully ignoring those distinctions isn't bias, I don't know what is.

I mean, I guess every believer deals with doubt at some point. If you didn't have those questions, maybe it wouldn't even be about faith anymore—it would just be about facts and knowledge. Even when you look at all that research from theosophists, mystics, or folks out in the East, it all kind of points back to that one piece of advice from Pavlov for Christians: “Test everything to see if it’s from God, and then hold on to whatever is good.”
Quincy:

Since he’s got his own whole thing going on regarding God as... I guess it’s all just part of the process. (not just about a person or a being) the whole fact that he wasn't even looking for God, but rather... battleI mean, if we were living in today's world, maybe we’d actually just call Hegel an agnostic. I guess that's how it would go down now.

I don't know about that specific fact, honestly. If someone claims philosophy is basically theology and that philosophizing is just a way to serve God, I guess we might call them a panentheist nowadays. Maybe.

I would argue he was a believer who carried a seed of doubt in his heart—a doubt that ultimately served as the foundation for his entire philosophy. 🙂

James Lee77 said:I mean, I guess every believer deals with doubt at some point. If you didn't have those questions, maybe it wouldn't even be about faith anymore—it would just be about facts and knowledge. Even when you look at all that research from theosophists, mystics, or folks out in the East, it all kind of points back to that one piece of advice from Pavlov for Christians: “Test everything to see if it’s from God, and then hold on to whatever is good.”
Quincy:

Since he’s got his own whole thing going on regarding God as... I guess it’s all just part of the process. (not just about a person or a being) the whole fact that he wasn't even looking for God, but rather... battleI mean, if we were living in today's world, maybe we’d actually just call Hegel an agnostic. I guess that's how it would go down now.

I don't know about that specific fact, honestly. If someone claims philosophy is basically theology and that philosophizing is just a way to serve God, I guess we might call them a panentheist nowadays. Maybe.

We pulled that particular quote, along with several others, from ZL, where he offers various critiques of Christian theology.
As for his assertion that philosophy is theology, I actually went ahead and bolded and somewhat exaggerated that point in my previous post regarding 😬
In reality, what he is doing is replacing Christian theology with philosophy itself.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Honestly, even if he were religious, it wouldn't change his philosophy one bit.

What really grinds the gears of atheists is when believers start acting as divine spokespeople—deciding what God thinks, what He’d say, or what He finds distasteful—and then treating atheists like some sort of lost souls in need of a rescue mission.

If we want to understand how a thinker like Hegel viewed God as a believer, our only real recourse is to ask Hegel himself... Arguing over interpretations is a losing battle. Of course, believers seem convinced they'll eventually get their chance to ask Him directly, whereas for atheists, the window might have already closed.😁

Sandra Murphy33 said:I would argue he was a believer who carried a seed of doubt in his heart—a doubt that ultimately served as the foundation for his entire philosophy. 🙂

We pulled that particular quote, along with several others, from ZL, where he offers various critiques of Christian theology.
As for his assertion that philosophy is theology, I actually went ahead and bolded and somewhat exaggerated that point in my previous post regarding 😬
In reality, what he is doing is replacing Christian theology with philosophy itself.

The thing about Hegelian philosophy is that it’s aggressively self-critical and essentially starts from scratch without leaning on any preconceived notions. Because of that, I don't see how it could possibly link up with religion, unless you count deriving the existence of God through some sort of logical deduction within a metaphysical framework—but frankly, I’ve yet to encounter a formula that actually pulls off a logical proof for God. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that this intense drive some believers have to "prove" God or make Him fit into a "logical" box probably just stems from their own underlying doubts.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Look, I never said they should be discarded; I just suggested putting them into perspective. It’s a bit like teaching high schoolers theology—you’d expect the discourse to be scaled down accordingly. Trying to pull some sort of definitive Hegelian apology for religion out of those messy, unfinished lecture notes is, to put it mildly, intellectually dishonest and biased—which is funny, considering that’s exactly what you’re accusing me of doing. Anyone who has actually spent time with his major works—whether they lean left or right—can see pretty clearly that Hegel could be interpreted in a dozen different ways, but he certainly wasn't some religious apologist.

But wait, it wasn't like he was teaching some high school religion class. These were philosophy of religion lectures at the university in Washington, D.C.—which was basically the most important university back then. It was actually pretty common for professors from other departments to just show up and sit in on those philosophy lectures. So, yeah, he was lecturing to the smartest minds in Europe at the time, not some kids in a classroom. These talks happened in 1821, 1824, 1827, and 1831. Those last ones? Well, he was actually the university president by then (starting in 1830), so I don't think anyone was gonna come up to him and say, "Hey, go teach some teenagers about religion."