What is the root of the issue of misunderstanding Hegel so badly, both among atheists and theists. They both seem to read Hegel incorrectly. I’m assuming it’s just by relying on secondary literature, but the outline presented here sounds like Maximus the Confessor and other fathers of the church, this essentially Christian orthodoxy systematically presented for a modern mind.
This would be a great conversation, especially given Spinoza’s evident influence on Hegel and the former’s alleged readings of Ibn Sina (founder of the contingency argument), whom he has much overlap with in regards to their respective metaphysical models.
33:24 And that religion is precisely Islam. When analyzing the historical trajectory of monotheism within the Abrahamic tradition, one can fit Islam better as the sublation of Judaism and Christianity. Judaism introduced at first the One God, being transcendent but particular; as seen with early anthroporphisations and the chosen commmunity. This made the tradition sometimes lose meaningful connection with God through His Grace and Mercy, a lost of immanence and a link between man and God. Thus, Christianity re-introduced the strong and direct link with God through the incarnation and the Christian understanding of Jesus peace be upon him. Now away from particular transcendence of Judaism, we descend into particular immanence with the trinity; it is the division of divinity with regard to an immanent aspect - the subject - as opposed to the division of divinity with regard to a transcendent aspect - the object (like in Judaism). Thus, we are in the exact same position Hegel was in when answering to Kant - The Greeks developed cosmos-based ontology, the moderns negated it through subject based ontology and Hegel sublated it with Absolute ontology or ontotheology, like Heideigger calls it. Islam thus does the same thing with regard to the previous Abrahamic traditions; it keeps both real transcendence and real immanence through a dialectical understanding. It is very similar to Hegel's Being and Nothing analysis: There is an Islamic saying that God is so Immanent that He becomes transcendent, so present that He is hidden. God is also so transcendent that He becomes immanent, so Infinite and abstracted from finite that He becomes manifested in every finitude. True union with God is the recognition of finitude in its greatest aspect; through its own negation. Acceptance of Being and acting with accordance to the inclusive principle instead of the Western exclusive principle of Logos; this is true pre-suppositionlessness. Through this sublation of subjectivity and objectivity, God is both The Most High and the Most Loving, there is no loss of subject-oriented links such as Love or Freedom neither object-oriented links such as Power or Necessity. This dialectical sublation of the prior Abrahamic faiths explicitly manifests itself in Islamic esoterism, arguably the most prominent mystic tradition in the three Abrahamic faiths; Sufism: "When my Beloved appears, With what eye do I see Him? With His eye, not with mine, For none sees Him except Himself." -Ibn Arabi This is why Islam rejects art as a medium as it sees it attributes links to the signified through its reproductive signifier (reproduction of nature visually) and prefers language for it being abstract particular to which man attributes conscious meaning. The only starting point of the dialectic is the Absolute Universal; the Idea, the Infinite, in its entirety. This is the difference between the Word in Islam (the Scripture) and the Word in Christianity (Jesus peace be upon him and thus subject-based incarnation). The Quran is a back and forth dialectical progression of concepts, the constant reminder of God's Mercy versus God's Justice, God's Highness versus His Closeness. This is also why the Muslim consciousness gains not just an abstract understanding of God, like some Christians would claim, but also a concrete one; God is with you wherever you are and knows your consciousness and He wants to enter into relation with His servant. "Why then (are you helpless) when it ( the soul of a dying person at the moment of death) reaches the throat, While you are looking on, And We are nearer to him (the dying human) than you are, but you do not see." (Quran 56:83-85) Note that this message, Absolute monotheism, is present from the very start in both prior Abrahamic faiths, yet it is not fully brought to an understanding. Only after the historical contradictions developing can the meaning be understood.
I suppose I can only say it reiterates my statement. If what you say of Islam is so, then Islam is not really any different to Christianity. A few things I think in response are these: Regarding the trinity interpretation you present, I cannot quite agree. The trinity is not about a subjectivisation of God as opposed to objectification. The notion of avatars was already quite ancient, God embodied as being in the world. This was nothing new. What was new about the trinity was an absolute and complete mystery about a claim that God is absolutely one as three, a claim that no one could explain by understanding, and one so ridiculous that Christianity itself split upon accepting or denying interpretations of it. In the trinity's mystery neither the unity nor the difference of God could be privileged, for it was understood to state that somehow the unity as unity was three and the three as three were one. The trinity, therefore, is not a concept of radical immanence against radical transcendence. The splits that happened over this lead to resolutions of the understanding where the absolute unity of God was put above the difference, and some where the difference was altogether cancelled. As I understand it (which is not much), Islam does not hold that God has any council of themself as Son/Father/Holy Spirit-there is only the Father. The issue of immanence and transcendence is about the nature of the incarnation, which again provided a mystery to understanding since it posited that God had fully incarnated as God as well as human. This led to splits in Christianity again over those who accepted the mystery and tried to explain it as much as they could, and those who denied the ridiculous claim and opted for choosing one or the other. Yet again here Islam denies the mystery and opts to claim Jesus was only a man just as Muhammad, a mere messenger. Regarding the rejection of sensuous representation of God, it is true that Islam did this, but so did Protestant Christianity, which Hegel was a believer of as a Lutheran. Even prior to Christianity, however, it was from the outset of Christianity with its founding fathers of the churches a doctrine that God was metaphysical and never to be understood as a being of the senses. I admit I must simply study Islam further to make what I have said about it more than a mere opinion, but my little exposure to Islam does not square with the claims that Islam is a logical advance over Christianity if I am honest. What assures Christianity's supremacy over all other religions for Hegel is indeed what makes Christianity appear as utterly insane to those who try to understand it: the logical and generally unintelligible contradictions of free will/salvation/damnation; the contradiction of the incarnation; the contradiction of the trinity.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Well, all the Abrahamic faiths are similar since they share the same essential message, only their position with regard to the dialectic is what differentiates them. The trinity is indeed a radical change from the previous monotheist doctrines, thus the real challenge is asking: why? Why did such changes occur philosophically, historically and dialectically? What I tried to do with the trinity is give rational and dialectical links to establish its essence in two ways: 1. The links it has with Judaism: what it negates and what it adds to it. 2. Its logical consequences. This is Hegel on Judaism (Lectures on the philosophy of religion): ''The first is a religion of separation in which God stands on one side as an abstract being outside us, thus a religion not positing the singularity of consciousness, with the result that what it perhaps calls •spirit', its so-called 'spirit', is but an empty name. This has been the religion of Judaism, and it is still that of Islam; and so also it is the religion of the present-day understanding'' Here we clearly see what Hegel thinks the two other monotheist faiths lack and what Christianity thus accomplishes; it goes beyond simple abstraction: ''In the Jewish religion, spirit is not yet comprehended and explicated, but only represented .in a general way. In the Christian religion, God is first spoken of as 'Father': the power, the abstract Universal, which is still veiled. In the second place, God, as object, is what cleaves or ruptures itself, posits another to itself. This second element is called the 'Son'. It is defined in such a way, however, that in this other to Godself God is just as immediately God's own self, envisioning and knowing Godself only in the other; and this self-possessing, self-knowing. Unity-possessing, being·present-to-self-in· the-other:, is the 'Spirit'. This means that the whole is the Spirit; neither the one nor the other alone is the Spirit. And God is defined as spirit; God is for the first time the true, the complete.'' Hegel's analysis here is accurate, Christianity solves the abstract-particular problem of monotheism through the divinity of Jesus peace be upon him. It is the sublation of both by positing the subject as the medium of the dialectic. It goes Abstract - Subject - Trinity. This end of the dialectic and the place of the middle term as the subject is shown very explicitly in modern philosophy and the Enlightenment, which has direct roots in Christianity. From this link, we can see there are still contradictions to be resolved, as the subject-oriented ontology leads to inherent material conditions (Marx) and philosophical problems (Nietzsche and the post-modernists). Now that we established Christianity's role, we can see Islam more clearly. What Christianity did with regard to the sublation of particular - universal through Jesus, peace be upon him, Islam did with regard to Being/the whole of Creation itself. Thus, if there is to be truly a final religion, it would be one where the medium is the absolute ''Other'' (in a moment of consciousness) of the first element of the dialectic. Islam thus presents the dialectic as : Infinite (first concept of God)- Being/finitude - God (as a new concept). Islam does not restrict Being in categories and render the subject as the prime middle term of the dialectic, the whole of Being is. Islam is not a simple regression to Judaic monotheism, like Hegel would think, it is thus true presuppositionless dialectics that takes both prior religions fully into account with regard to their telos, and sublates them. If there is a religion that is never understood by the West, including Hegel seeing the number of times his views on it changed throughout, the years, it is Islam. I would recommend ''The Niche of Lights'' By Al-Ghazali (scholastic) and ''Science of the Cosmos, Science of the soul'' by William Chittick (contemporary) as introductions to theology and mysticism in Islam.
The main end of the different texts of Hegel is to prove that Jesus, God and man in One, is the centre of history. So his general aim is theology and not philosophy. Establishing Jesus as the centre of history, he never appears using the biblical text as a source material. He uses the nature of reality (philosophy) and nature of knowledge growth (epistemology) to prove his aim. Hegelian projects are an attempt of a theologian, to prove the centrality of Jesus in history by using philosophy. All his works are to establish that In Jesus, God (universal) and Man (particular) is combined as a single reality. -Dr K M Francis
What is the root of the issue of misunderstanding Hegel so badly, both among atheists and theists. They both seem to read Hegel incorrectly. I’m assuming it’s just by relying on secondary literature, but the outline presented here sounds like Maximus the Confessor and other fathers of the church, this essentially Christian orthodoxy systematically presented for a modern mind.
The ontological argument is the boldest and most interesting one.
Very interesting video.
Consider Islamic Philosophy. Hegel is close to Islamic Philosophy. We'd love to discuss it further with you!
This would be a great conversation, especially given Spinoza’s evident influence on Hegel and the former’s alleged readings of Ibn Sina (founder of the contingency argument), whom he has much overlap with in regards to their respective metaphysical models.
@@ryanmchristison The readings are not alleged. There's solid evidence there (and published research) 😅
@@IslamicPhilosophers I say “alleged” because I have not read on the matter myself and was vaguely remembering something you said! 😂
@@ryanmchristison Yes. It's an established fact actually.
Thank you for this!
33:24 And that religion is precisely Islam. When analyzing the historical trajectory of monotheism within the Abrahamic tradition, one can fit Islam better as the sublation of Judaism and Christianity. Judaism introduced at first the One God, being transcendent but particular; as seen with early anthroporphisations and the chosen commmunity. This made the tradition sometimes lose meaningful connection with God through His Grace and Mercy, a lost of immanence and a link between man and God. Thus, Christianity re-introduced the strong and direct link with God through the incarnation and the Christian understanding of Jesus peace be upon him. Now away from particular transcendence of Judaism, we descend into particular immanence with the trinity; it is the division of divinity with regard to an immanent aspect - the subject - as opposed to the division of divinity with regard to a transcendent aspect - the object (like in Judaism). Thus, we are in the exact same position Hegel was in when answering to Kant - The Greeks developed cosmos-based ontology, the moderns negated it through subject based ontology and Hegel sublated it with Absolute ontology or ontotheology, like Heideigger calls it. Islam thus does the same thing with regard to the previous Abrahamic traditions; it keeps both real transcendence and real immanence through a dialectical understanding. It is very similar to Hegel's Being and Nothing analysis:
There is an Islamic saying that God is so Immanent that He becomes transcendent, so present that He is hidden. God is also so transcendent that He becomes immanent, so Infinite and abstracted from finite that He becomes manifested in every finitude. True union with God is the recognition of finitude in its greatest aspect; through its own negation. Acceptance of Being and acting with accordance to the inclusive principle instead of the Western exclusive principle of Logos; this is true pre-suppositionlessness. Through this sublation of subjectivity and objectivity, God is both The Most High and the Most Loving, there is no loss of subject-oriented links such as Love or Freedom neither object-oriented links such as Power or Necessity. This dialectical sublation of the prior Abrahamic faiths explicitly manifests itself in Islamic esoterism, arguably the most prominent mystic tradition in the three Abrahamic faiths; Sufism:
"When my Beloved appears,
With what eye do I see Him?
With His eye, not with mine,
For none sees Him except Himself."
-Ibn Arabi
This is why Islam rejects art as a medium as it sees it attributes links to the signified through its reproductive signifier (reproduction of nature visually) and prefers language for it being abstract particular to which man attributes conscious meaning. The only starting point of the dialectic is the Absolute Universal; the Idea, the Infinite, in its entirety. This is the difference between the Word in Islam (the Scripture) and the Word in Christianity (Jesus peace be upon him and thus subject-based incarnation). The Quran is a back and forth dialectical progression of concepts, the constant reminder of God's Mercy versus God's Justice, God's Highness versus His Closeness. This is also why the Muslim consciousness gains not just an abstract understanding of God, like some Christians would claim, but also a concrete one; God is with you wherever you are and knows your consciousness and He wants to enter into relation with His servant.
"Why then (are you helpless) when it ( the soul of a dying person at the moment of death) reaches the throat,
While you are looking on,
And We are nearer to him (the dying human) than you are, but you do not see."
(Quran 56:83-85)
Note that this message, Absolute monotheism, is present from the very start in both prior Abrahamic faiths, yet it is not fully brought to an understanding. Only after the historical contradictions developing can the meaning be understood.
I suppose I can only say it reiterates my statement. If what you say of Islam is so, then Islam is not really any different to Christianity. A few things I think in response are these:
Regarding the trinity interpretation you present, I cannot quite agree. The trinity is not about a subjectivisation of God as opposed to objectification. The notion of avatars was already quite ancient, God embodied as being in the world. This was nothing new. What was new about the trinity was an absolute and complete mystery about a claim that God is absolutely one as three, a claim that no one could explain by understanding, and one so ridiculous that Christianity itself split upon accepting or denying interpretations of it. In the trinity's mystery neither the unity nor the difference of God could be privileged, for it was understood to state that somehow the unity as unity was three and the three as three were one. The trinity, therefore, is not a concept of radical immanence against radical transcendence. The splits that happened over this lead to resolutions of the understanding where the absolute unity of God was put above the difference, and some where the difference was altogether cancelled. As I understand it (which is not much), Islam does not hold that God has any council of themself as Son/Father/Holy Spirit-there is only the Father.
The issue of immanence and transcendence is about the nature of the incarnation, which again provided a mystery to understanding since it posited that God had fully incarnated as God as well as human. This led to splits in Christianity again over those who accepted the mystery and tried to explain it as much as they could, and those who denied the ridiculous claim and opted for choosing one or the other. Yet again here Islam denies the mystery and opts to claim Jesus was only a man just as Muhammad, a mere messenger.
Regarding the rejection of sensuous representation of God, it is true that Islam did this, but so did Protestant Christianity, which Hegel was a believer of as a Lutheran. Even prior to Christianity, however, it was from the outset of Christianity with its founding fathers of the churches a doctrine that God was metaphysical and never to be understood as a being of the senses.
I admit I must simply study Islam further to make what I have said about it more than a mere opinion, but my little exposure to Islam does not square with the claims that Islam is a logical advance over Christianity if I am honest. What assures Christianity's supremacy over all other religions for Hegel is indeed what makes Christianity appear as utterly insane to those who try to understand it: the logical and generally unintelligible contradictions of free will/salvation/damnation; the contradiction of the incarnation; the contradiction of the trinity.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Well, all the Abrahamic faiths are similar since they share the same essential message, only their position with regard to the dialectic is what differentiates them.
The trinity is indeed a radical change from the previous monotheist doctrines, thus the real challenge is asking: why? Why did such changes occur philosophically, historically and dialectically? What I tried to do with the trinity is give rational and dialectical links to establish its essence in two ways:
1. The links it has with Judaism: what it negates and what it adds to it.
2. Its logical consequences.
This is Hegel on Judaism (Lectures on the philosophy of religion):
''The first is a religion of separation in which God stands on one side as an abstract being outside us, thus a religion not positing the singularity of consciousness, with the result that what it perhaps calls •spirit', its so-called 'spirit', is but an empty name. This
has been the religion of Judaism, and it is still that of Islam; and so also it is the religion of the present-day understanding''
Here we clearly see what Hegel thinks the two other monotheist faiths lack and what Christianity thus accomplishes; it goes beyond simple abstraction:
''In the Jewish religion, spirit is not yet comprehended and explicated,
but only represented .in a general way. In the Christian religion, God is first
spoken of as 'Father': the power, the abstract Universal, which is still veiled.
In the second place, God, as object, is what cleaves or ruptures itself, posits
another to itself. This second element is called the 'Son'. It is defined in such
a way, however, that in this other to Godself God is just as immediately God's
own self, envisioning and knowing Godself only in the other; and this
self-possessing, self-knowing. Unity-possessing, being·present-to-self-in·
the-other:, is the 'Spirit'. This means that the whole is the Spirit; neither the
one nor the other alone is the Spirit. And God is defined as spirit; God is for
the first time the true, the complete.''
Hegel's analysis here is accurate, Christianity solves the abstract-particular problem of monotheism through the divinity of Jesus peace be upon him. It is the sublation of both by positing the subject as the medium of the dialectic. It goes Abstract - Subject - Trinity. This end of the dialectic and the place of the middle term as the subject is shown very explicitly in modern philosophy and the Enlightenment, which has direct roots in Christianity. From this link, we can see there are still contradictions to be resolved, as the subject-oriented ontology leads to inherent material conditions (Marx) and philosophical problems (Nietzsche and the post-modernists).
Now that we established Christianity's role, we can see Islam more clearly. What Christianity did with regard to the sublation of particular - universal through Jesus, peace be upon him, Islam did with regard to Being/the whole of Creation itself. Thus, if there is to be truly a final religion, it would be one where the medium is the absolute ''Other'' (in a moment of consciousness) of the first element of the dialectic.
Islam thus presents the dialectic as : Infinite (first concept of God)- Being/finitude - God (as a new concept).
Islam does not restrict Being in categories and render the subject as the prime middle term of the dialectic, the whole of Being is. Islam is not a simple regression to Judaic monotheism, like Hegel would think, it is thus true presuppositionless dialectics that takes both prior religions fully into account with regard to their telos, and sublates them.
If there is a religion that is never understood by the West, including Hegel seeing the number of times his views on it changed throughout, the years, it is Islam.
I would recommend ''The Niche of Lights'' By Al-Ghazali (scholastic) and ''Science of the Cosmos, Science of the soul'' by William Chittick (contemporary) as introductions to theology and mysticism in Islam.
Also, was that pyhronian a user called Jacques.o??
Not really sure it matters for the discussion.
@@RareSeldas why would it have to matter? I’m just asking as an irrelevant curiosity because I know the person.
@@TheSurpremeLogician fair enough I suppose, what got you interested in Hegel though?
@@RareSeldas Marx and Zizek. I’m particularly interested in how POS and SoL function to address the Problem of the Criterion.
Sounds like Hegel was the OG Hesher trippin way too hard on whatever was available at the time .
Those are his tampons
“Jesus is the point where god and man touch”
The main end of the different texts of Hegel is to prove that Jesus, God and man in One, is the centre of history. So his general aim is theology and not philosophy. Establishing Jesus as the centre of history,
he never appears using the biblical text as a source material. He uses the nature of reality (philosophy) and nature of knowledge growth (epistemology) to prove his aim. Hegelian projects are an attempt of a theologian, to prove the centrality of Jesus in history by using philosophy. All his works are to establish that In Jesus, God (universal) and Man
(particular) is combined as a single reality.
-Dr K M Francis