Hegel?

[JohnInMaine]

Howdy, everyone. This is my first post here. Glad to have found this site.

I'm a self-professed liberal Christian (for the most part), and I have been hanging out recently on a discussion site for a very conservative Christian group in my local area, using the admittedly provocative name "Liberal Christian". Despite the name, however, I am sincerely interested in dialog with the people on the board, but I seem to have made a bad first impression, at least with one particular person. (It doesn't seem to have been very hard, however!)

This person does a lot of the more provocative conservative posting, and he has twice now stated that he does not intend to waste any more of his time responding to me. (Yeah, he couldn't seem to resist getting drawn back in once.) But I think I'm beginning to understand his position. He seems fairly well-read, and several times has referred to the Hegelian dialectic. If I am reading him right, he seems to believe that because it is a secular path and therefore can never lead to "Truth" as Christians believe it, that it is therefore anti-Christian, and a waste of both of our time to engage in. He seems to believe that all Liberals accept this dialectic as a way (maybe the only way?) to truth, and are therefore deceived. (I've also detected this strain of anti-philosophy in books like "This Present Darkness", which I read once for a book club but thoroughly disliked on several levels.)

Anyway, I know enough of Hegel to know his idea of the dialectic (thesis - antithesis - synthesis, ad infinitum), but am not overly familiar with his writings. I was hoping that there may be people here, of any spiritual persuasion, who could speak to their intepretation of Hegel and the relationship of his philosophy to religous faith, either as Hegel may have seen it, or as you or others may interpret it.

My own general view, not specifically of Hegel but of philosophy in general since its break from its theological roots, is that it's not so much "anti-Christian" as it is "a-Christian", that is, not concerned with religious faith. I think most Christians (at least that I know) would agree that faith does not require rational proof in order to be believed. Since rational proof is one of philosophy's main concerns, faith is pretty much by definition something philosophy doesn't concern itself with. I don't think this means that it is anti-faith, it just speaks to a different kind of truth. Is this a waste of time, in the way that Paul implies that the Greeks debating endlessly in their public square are blind to the Truth he is bringing them?

Or is my correspondent just rationalizing his dislike of debate and cloaking it with theological correctness?

 

[nyjbarnes]

So I don't know who Hegel is...but the gist of the arguement is that you are looking to alternative paths to find a greather truth?

Here's the reality, when does this search for alternative truth end? At what point do you saw, I have immersed myself in enough wrong paths, I can now see the right one for what it is?

My brother, when confronted about why he has the Koran in his house, rationalized that it provided him greater understanding....

UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT? You have the Bible, you have a church fellowship hopefully, you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you don't need more than that.

My personal opinion is, the more intellegence you have, the more of a buffer there is between you and God. Smart people have a tendency to "overthink" The reality is the Bible says that only a child can enter the kingdom of God, denoting a mindset.

JMHO.

 

[JohnInMaine]

Well, it's not that I'm looking for a "greater" truth. I understand that the truth of Christ is not going to be arrived at through rational philosophy -- foolishness to the Greeks and all that. Or even that I "need" more truth than that provided by my faith. But at the same time, I'm curious about the world around me, and that includes what others believe. Not only non-Christians, but other Christians with whom I differ in some political and social beliefs. So I'm not only interested in talking about my own beliefs, but also in hearing what others' are.

By the way, I also have recently purchased a Koran. Not because I'm searching for "more truth" in it, but I think given the current political turmoil in the Middle East, I want to be more educated about their religion, straight from the source text. (May I say, from the camel's mouth? ) A co-worker, who is a more conservative Christian than I, one day said he believed that Islam was inherently violent and dangerous, and that there were verses in the Koran which proved that. Of course, he didn't recall which ones they were. So I took that as sort of a challenge, as I know there are peaceful Muslims who would take exception to that viewpoint. But I digress.

 

[JohnInMaine]

From the Dictionary of Philosophy, by Peter A. Angeles, 1981, Harper & Row, New York:

dialectic (Hegel). 1. The process whereby a thought or an existing thing leads to or changes into its opposite (or contradictory) and thereby a new synthesis (unity) is arrived at. 2. The process of change in thought and the universe where a higher level of knowledge (truth) and of existence (unity) is reached by means of the necessary opposition of contradictories. 3. The process of necessary change involving a triad (three elements) consisting of (a) an existing thing or thought (thesis), (b) its opposite or contradictory (ANTITHESIS) and (c) the unity (SYNTHESIS) resulting from their interaction and which then becomes the basis (thesis) of another dialectical movement. Sometimes referred to as triadic dialectic. Hegel's dialectic is developmental and evolutionary in character and its end point is complete perfection. See LOGIC, DIALECTICAL; MATERIALISM; DIALECTICAL (MARX-ENGELS).

Well, I should have looked that up again sooner. That's certainly a very materialistic and presumptive take on it. So what I'm taking exception to, I guess, is the assumption that all Liberals subscribe to this completely, including that bit about the end point being complete perfection. I'm thinking, can he (my correspondent on the other board) give me a little credit here for independent thought?

 

[Nexus`]

My personal opinion is, the more intellegence you have, the more of a buffer there is between you and God. Smart people have a tendency to "overthink" The reality is the Bible says that only a child can enter the kingdom of God, denoting a mindset.

So basically, what you're saying is that you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

Boy, you're every Atheist's dream.

 

[Brimshack]

JohninMaine, I don't see anything "presumptive" or "materialistic" in Angeles' ac**** of Hegel. It says to see Dialectical materialism, because that Marxist theory was derived in from Hegelian dialectics. But in doing so, Marx quite consciously viewed himself as reversing the conscious spirituality of Hegelianism. Of course that spirituality/matierliams argument has terms quite different from those of polemic debates between atheists and Christians. So, I really don't see a clear line of relevance between the two debates.

It seems to me quite unfair, even dishonest, to attribute Hegelian dalectics to you, when you haven't advocated them, and then critique the dialectics. I don't think you need to know anything about Hegel to respond to that. Just insist that he respond to your actual points or invite him to make good on his promise to leave you alone. If that is his debate tactic, then you won't miss anything by his decision to ignore you. It might be kind of fun to keep correcting him, but that sounds like the most your going to get out of that discussion. I wouldn't humor such blatant attempts to sidetrack the discussion.

 

[Risen Tree]

Hegel! The father of the dialectic!

OK I have always had a question about this. Does not the dialectic refute itself? After all, if every theory has an antithesis, must not the theory of the dialectic fall under the same rule? And if so, what model serves as a proper antithesis of the dialectic?

 

[seebs]

I would disagree strongly that faith is not a suitable topic for philosophy. Philosophy cannot restrict itself to full proofs; there are simply too many things which must be accepted without proof. Philosophy is the realm of epistemology, for one thing; the study of what "knowing" is is not a field where you can make too many presuppositions about ways of knowing.

 

[JohnInMaine]

Thanks for all your great responses! Here's mine to them:

My personal opinion is, the more intellegence you have, the more of a buffer there is between you and God. Smart people have a tendency to "overthink" The reality is the Bible says that only a child can enter the kingdom of God, denoting a mindset.

I could agree with this, but I don't think the poster is saying you have to be stupid to be a Christian. My path to faith is a bit different from a lot of peoples'. I've always leaned toward being intellectual, and my point of reaffirming my Christian faith came when I realized that not only could Christianity not be "proved" by philosophy (a fairly basic conclusion), but more importantly, it didn't have to be. Most importantly, faith is not anti-intellectual just because it's not provable. So I could let myself have faith without repudiating my intellect. But, I also agree with the poster that it would be easier if I didn't have this darn brain to contend with all the time. Not that I would want it another way, but that's how it is.

I don't see anything "presumptive" or "materialistic" in Angeles' ac**** of Hegel

the study of what "knowing" is is not a field where you can make too many presuppositions about ways of knowing.

Maybe I had been making presuppositions which I didn't put into my original post, and was reading those presuppositions into Angeles' definition. I am sure that my correspondent on the other board believes that the only Truth worth knowing is the truth that you believe by faith. That is a different kind of truth than the truth you arrive it through philosophy (my assumption). When the definition says the dialectic's "end point is complete perfection", I take that to mean that Hegel believes perfect knowledge is (theorectically) attainable through the dialectic process. But if religious truth is not knowable through the intellect, then does that mean Hegel believed that religious truth was outside the realm of "complete perfection", thus didn't matter, thus my terms "presumptive" and "materialist" (meaning concerned only with the material realm). I know I'm jumping to a lot of conclusions here.

Perhaps I should re-examine my assumption that application of the dialectic is not appropriate in the realm of religious truth. After all, even religious beliefs change over time. Is not Christianity itself the synthesis of Jesus' antithetical views towards the traditional Jewish thesis?

Does not the dialectic refute itself? After all, if every theory has an antithesis, must not the theory of the dialectic fall under the same rule? And if so, what model serves as a proper antithesis of the dialectic?

Whoa! Good point. Could faith itself be the antithesis of the dialectic -- You know "just because you do", without having to subject it to a dialectical process? (That would seem to be my opponent's position.) But then his and my conversation would be a further application of the dialectic to its own antithesis! Ain't recursion cool?

But maybe that doesn't really get us anywhere. Are we confusing form and content? You could say that the dialectic is the form, not the content. Of course as soon as you talk about it, you are making it the content, but then if you apply it to any proposed antithesis, it's back to functioning as the form as well as one of its inputs. So maybe, yes, you can think of it as content, but it's trival to do so.

This is fun!

 

[nyjbarnes]

So basically, what you're saying is that you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

Boy, you're every Atheist's dream.

Who says that children are stupid? I have two and they are very smart.

 

[Brimshack]

Rising Tree, I am inclined to agree with you. If taken as a statement of principle, then yes the dialectic could also be taken to give rise to a new antithesis and so on. (One could for example take Marx to be his antithesis......) I often wonder, however, if ourr mechanical application of this tripartite model is really what Hegel had in mind. It' awfully pat, and one needn't really embrace the whole notion as a formal certainty after all. It is sufficient to suggest that such a process commonly occures, or at least that assertions are prone to generate their own opposition. There must be some insight here that is worth more than a mechanical formula.

 

[Risen Tree]

Rising Tree, I am inclined to agree with you. If taken as a statement of principle, then yes the dialectic could also be taken to give rise to a new antithesis and so on. (One could for example take Marx to be his antithesis......) I often wonder, however, if ourr mechanical application of this tripartite model is really what Hegel had in mind. It' awfully pat, and one needn't really embrace the whole notion as a formal certainty after all. It is sufficient to suggest that such a process commonly occures, or at least that assertions are prone to generate their own opposition. There must be some insight here that is worth more than a mechanical formula.

Yeah. Maybe it's a process, not a cure-all.

There is one thing that can be done, though: introduce the variant that includes the superthesis, the cure-all theory that sums up all reality and has no antithesis. But we still run into a problem here. The only way for the dialectic to dodge the self-contradiction bullet is to make it that superthesis. Doing so renders the entire dialectic process meaningless: If we know the outcome of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis cycle, why waste time on it? Far better to shortcut to the finish line where we know what is already there. But this produces yet another contradiction: negating the dialectic in order to prove it. Again, the theory fails.

 

[gig]

Hi...my first post here,

Is Hegelian logic valid? If the notion of synthesis breaks down just once, doesn't that invalidate the whole theory? Jesus ... as portrayed in the Bible and in the Qur'an ... can't be synthesized (in truth anyway--anything's possible in a thesis).

We should honor God with our minds. I'm a Christian, and studying the Qur'an has only deepened my appreciation for the Bible. In my life, anyway, being challenged about my beliefs--especially when being brought to the depths of doubt--has only served to help me search for truth and ultimately arrive at what I believe. Theology should live, should breathe, and so it must be challenged to be strengthened (IMHO).

I'm sufficiently off-topic to quit.

best to all,
Gig