Selection, Round 2, comments...

Amanda Jackson5 said:You can split the whole thing into what people call metaphysical versus non-metaphysical interpretations, but honestly, the mere fact that you can even draw that line shows just how much Hegel towers over the debate; he’s operating on a level of universality that makes those distinctions feel pretty small by comparison.

It’s always a bit surreal when you run into a conservative who claims that spiritual growth is basically just an ongoing journey toward a deeper awareness of freedom, especially when they insist on celebrating the anniversary of the French Revolution every single year. It’s such a strange contradiction to witness.

If I’m remembering correctly, he also thought the Prussian monarchy was the absolute peak of that whole "freedom consciousness" thing instead of Jacobin France—and look, Hegel actually backed the revolutionary spirit, he just couldn't stomach the terror part.

ruggedraven36 said:The reason I used parentheses is because in this specific quote God represents the absolute. If you swap out "God" for "the absolute," the whole meaning stays exactly the same.

"Only the absolute represents the true correspondence between the concept and the reality of all finite things—but all finite things carry a layer of untruth, possessing a concept and an existence that fails to align with how they are perceived."

Exactly.

And I think you’ve realized by now that this is the exact kind of meaning we see pop up in those March 28th quotes.

steelridge58 said:Exactly.

And I think you’ve realized by now that this is the exact kind of meaning we see pop up in those March 28th quotes.

Which quotes? I only saw that one single bit that ties back to my point.

ruggedraven36 said:Which quotes? I only saw that one single bit that ties back to my point.

I actually laid all of that out way back in post #32.

steelridge58 said:I actually laid all of that out way back in post #32.

There aren't any Hegelian quotes in that post—except for the one I already brought up.

ruggedraven36 said:There aren't any Hegelian quotes in that post—except for the one I already brought up.

The quote does mention Hegel, and you can find that exact same passage right here:
http://uwe-mortensen.de/Schnaedelbac...sLehre1993.pdf
on page 6.

steelridge58 said:The quote does mention Hegel, and you can find that exact same passage right here:
http://uwe-mortensen.de/Schnaedelbac...sLehre1993.pdf
on page 6.

That isn't a Hegelian quote; it’s a quote *about* Hegel. And I don't buy it. In this context, God doesn't carry the weight of the Absolute—but in the previous one, He does.

It lines up perfectly in terms of meaning.

Whenever you run into mentions of "the Absolute" in texts like this, you don't strictly *have* to link it to God, but honestly, why wouldn't you? It’s totally doable. Now, I'm not saying there's some direct mathematical equation where Absolute = God, but let's be real—there's definitely a connection there.
Bob did a much better job of breaking down what someone might mean by "Hegel under God," though he wasn't the only one trying, and look, that doesn't mean his take is perfect or without its own messy issues.

James Lee77 said:Nah. I’m just saying Hegel definitely knew about the fate of Aristotle from Stagira, whose unpublished lectures basically turned into one of the absolute pillars of philosophy—you know, metaphysics. So, I guess it’s pretty likely he wouldn't be surprised if his own lecture notes—covering everything from his philosophy of religion to his aesthetics, history, and the Encyclopedia—were seen as a core part of his whole philosophical project. Honestly, that’s pretty much how everyone else views Hegel, except maybe you.

My bad, I didn't slip up because I forgot about those famous lectures on the history of philosophy that were published after he died, but more because the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Science was actually printed while Hegel was still alive. Here’s a bit from the start of that book, which Hegel had released in three editions during his lifetime:

She does indeed have her objects initially in common with religion. Both have truth as their object truth, and in the highest sense—in that God is the truth and he alone is the truth.

Sie hat zwar ihre Gegenstände zunächst mit der Religion gemeinschaftlich. Beide haben die Wahrheit zu ihrem Gegenstande, und zwar im höchsten Sinne – in dem, daß Gott die Wahrheit und er allein die Wahrheit ist.

Anyway, I guess people can interpret that however they want.

gentlerider7 As steelridge58 puts it:
If my memory serves me right, Hegel actually viewed the Prussian monarchy as the true pinnacle of progress regarding the consciousness of freedom, rather than the radicalism of revolutionary France. He wasn't some anti-revolutionary hack, either; he actually supported the core ideas behind the revolution, he just couldn't stomach the sheer terror that followed.

Honestly, I think you’re overestimating me here—I’m definitely not better than Deleuze.

Hegel didn't actually know what he was doing. If you want to make sense of him, you have to interpret him, and I’ve got a bit of a metaphorical formula for you. You know that term Deleuze uses when talking about how to read a philosopher—anal interpretation? Basically, you’re just screwing them. Deleuze claims that, unlike other readers, he performs an anal penetration of the philosopher because it leads to a kind of sinless conception. It's how you birth a monster. Well, I’m attempting the one thing Deleuze overlooked: I’m trying to screw Hegel with Lacan to produce a monstrous version of Hegel. To me, that's exactly where that radical dimension of subjectivity lies—the part I think Heidegger completely missed.

Žižek
(From: Joseph Carew: Ontological Catastrophe: Žižek and the Paradoxical Metaphysics of German Idealism. Copyright held by the author, Ann Arbor, 2014.)

Amanda Jackson5 said:

gentlerider7 As steelridge58 puts it:
If my memory serves me right, Hegel actually viewed the Prussian monarchy as the true pinnacle of progress regarding the consciousness of freedom, rather than the radicalism of revolutionary France. He wasn't some anti-revolutionary hack, either; he actually supported the core ideas behind the revolution, he just couldn't stomach the sheer terror that followed.

Honestly, I think you’re overestimating me here—I’m definitely not better than Deleuze.

Hegel didn't actually know what he was doing. If you want to make sense of him, you have to interpret him, and I’ve got a bit of a metaphorical formula for you. You know that term Deleuze uses when talking about how to read a philosopher—anal interpretation? Basically, you’re just screwing them. Deleuze claims that, unlike other readers, he performs an anal penetration of the philosopher because it leads to a kind of sinless conception. It's how you birth a monster. Well, I’m attempting the one thing Deleuze overlooked: I’m trying to screw Hegel with Lacan to produce a monstrous version of Hegel. To me, that's exactly where that radical dimension of subjectivity lies—the part I think Heidegger completely missed.

Žižek
(From: Joseph Carew: Ontological Catastrophe: Žižek and the Paradoxical Metaphysics of German Idealism. Copyright held by the author, Ann Arbor, 2014.)

Please. At least I’m out here dropping actual direct quotes or facts that are legit. You can try to spin them however you want—you know, the whole "Oh, Hegel didn't mean that" or "He actually said this instead of that" routine—but the stuff is right there on the page; nobody just made it up out of thin air, you know?

As for Wallace, look, I'm not usually the type to hide behind an authority figure just to win a point, but the guy is a literal philosophy professor who wrote two books on Hegel, so it's a pretty safe bet he actually knows his stuff (and honestly, I'd go a step further and assume he knows way more than anyone else in this thread).

James Lee77 said:My bad, I didn't slip up because I forgot about those famous lectures on the history of philosophy that were published after he died, but more because the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Science was actually printed while Hegel was still alive. Here’s a bit from the start of that book, which Hegel had released in three editions during his lifetime:

Anyway, I guess people can interpret that however they want.

Sure, let me just interpret it my way: Hegel said God is the truth and he alone is the truth, so I'll just toss out everything else he ever wrote about truth, abandon atheism, and become a devout believer overnight because now I finally "get" what truth is. In this version of reality, the entire Science of Logic is basically just a massive textbook about God and nothing else, since God is the ultimate truth.

By the way, the Encyclopedia was actually being fleshed out with student lecture notes after he passed away, so you get all these different versions and editions floating around. There are short paragraphs he actually penned, but most of the text sitting under those paragraphs is just those various sets of student notes.

gentlerider7 said:If I’m remembering correctly, he also thought the Prussian monarchy was the absolute peak of that whole "freedom consciousness" thing instead of Jacobin France—and look, Hegel actually backed the revolutionary spirit, he just couldn't stomach the terror part.

I read somewhere that before 1796, he was totally hyped about the ideals of the French Revolution. But later on, he got disillusioned and pivoted toward reactionary state absolutism. For instance, when Napoleon marched into Jena, he wrote this about him:

"I saw the Emperor—this world soul; it truly is a magnificent feeling to witness such a person who, concentrated right here in one spot while sitting on his horse, spreads himself across the globe and dominates it."

https://www.the-philosophy.com/napoleon-quotes

Amanda Jackson5 said:Well, he put his thoughts out there for the world to see. Anyone can pick up the book and read it.

Reading, listening, watching, absorbing a source... it's all just interpretation.

If we can actually grasp that, our level of tolerance naturally rises—because my interpretation doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute truth of the source. Ask Hegel, though I suspect we won't get much of an answer... since even he didn't have one.

Even Christianity is an interpretation. That’s why Christianity emphasizes love as the essential tool for "translation," and tolerance is really just another way of describing love.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I read somewhere that before 1796, he was totally hyped about the ideals of the French Revolution. But later on, he got disillusioned and pivoted toward reactionary state absolutism. For instance, when Napoleon marched into Jena, he wrote this about him:

"I saw the Emperor—this world soul; it truly is a magnificent feeling to witness such a person who, concentrated right here in one spot while sitting on his horse, spreads himself across the globe and dominates it."

https://www.the-philosophy.com/napoleon-quotes

If you ask me, his heart was really set on a constitutional monarchy from the jump.

You can't just be tolerant of everyone—it’s impossible. How are you supposed to show tolerance to people who spend their lives preaching death, misery, and slavery?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Reading, listening, watching, absorbing a source... it's all just interpretation.

If we can actually grasp that, our level of tolerance naturally rises—because my interpretation doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute truth of the source. Ask Hegel, though I suspect we won't get much of an answer... since even he didn't have one.

Even Christianity is an interpretation. That’s why Christianity emphasizes love as the essential tool for "translation," and tolerance is really just another way of describing love.

Yeah, sure, let's call it an anal interpretation (check out post #111)

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Reading, listening, watching, absorbing a source... it's all just interpretation.

If we can actually grasp that, our level of tolerance naturally rises—because my interpretation doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute truth of the source. Ask Hegel, though I suspect we won't get much of an answer... since even he didn't have one.

Even Christianity is an interpretation. That’s why Christianity emphasizes love as the essential tool for "translation," and tolerance is really just another way of describing love.

It’s the same thing Wallace mentioned in that quote over in the Hegel thread—it's not about blindly accepting everyone and everything, but more about the fact that if we view someone else as our enemy, we aren't actually free because we're letting that negation define us. In the real world, nobody is just a pure mouthpiece for hate and slavery and nothing else; half the time, behind those kinds of nasty statements, there isn't even some grand, evil scheme—it's usually just plain old stupidity.

gentlerider7 said:If you ask me, his heart was really set on a constitutional monarchy from the jump.

Personally, I’d argue he was actually looking for a god who serves as the absolute and solitary truth.