December 2002


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
John Landon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:26:19 EST
text/plain (5 kB) , text/html (6 kB)

Subj:   Re: [hegel] Re: [hegel-dialognet] Hegel and Christianity    
Date:   12/16/2002 10:45:25 AM Eastern Standard Time    
From:   <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>  
Reply-to:   <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>   
To: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>, <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>  
Sent from the Internet (Details)    

My remarks were perhaps too harsh.  I simply think Hegelians and Kantians 
should both be humble and respectfully carry out their 'quarrel' in tandem, 
even as  New Age and other religious initiatives surge and burn out for 
reasons German Philosophy points to in part. 
Kant and Hegel can hardly compete with the New Age gurus if they don't even 
have a clue to Buddhist style enlightenment. But note the underwhelming 
Kantian, "What is Enlightenment". History has a funny riddle and these 
eastern religions, if explotative, will suffer a catch-22. 
Nonetheless, it might be wiser to lose the first round here. You can't win 
anyway, especially now that Marxism is on the wane. 

I just reviewed Ken Wilbur's The Marriage of Sense and Soul. This man is 
better than most New Agers. He knows he has a Kant Hegel problem, but he is 
in a hurry. His tactic is to pick on Fichte, 'why didn't this guy meditate?" 
Then without hardly mentioning Hegel, he uses Hegel's critique of Kant to 
escape from Kant and Hegel both, and charges of metaphysics. He is homefree 
at that point, and we will have the New Age metaphysics of Godman, as 
Hegelian dirt is shoveled over Kant. 
See my point?   

Go see that old movie of Kipling's book, The Man Who Would Be King. A small 
village in the Himalayas confuses two adventurers with avatars, and the tale 
The narrator ends up a blind beggar in Calcutta. At least the 
Kantians/Hegelians are one step ahead of the gurus in being older and wiser. 

So there you have the right approach of the Kant-Hegel two-headed monster. Be 

humble and watch these silly new age adventurers burn themselves out. That's 
The point of Hegel here is that he is really the first "New Age' movement, 
with a difference, he accepts the gains of freedom. So you see the real point 

of Hegel, and the strange design of the modern is to protect these modern 
gains, in a fragile environment of western cultures where the Gurus will soon 

be ultra reactionaries peddling their wares. Don't believe, look at someone 
like Gurdjieff.  They want to repackage Hegel and some dialectic reshuffling 
the deck without the bad part about the 'masters and slaves', and the messy 
details of democracy. These gurus have to be 'masters' and begrudge the 
modern world its democracy.  Of course the whole thing has become too polite 
for that at this point, but behind the scenes that's the correct dynamics, 
clearly visible in the whole game. 

So I hardly think then that the purpose of Hegel is to produce a new world 
religion! His function, next to Kant, is defensive, in relation to the 
Lutherian 'revolt'. In fact, I think Hegel was well aware of "New Age" 
movements with his mysterious strain of 'Rosicrucianism', pointed to by Magee 

in his book. 

So as in the movie, all parties end as 'blind beggars', the man who would be 

In a message dated 12/15/2002 10:47:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Thanks for your interesting post, let me reflect on it a bit. 
> I am a bit miffed here, and don't feel like much discussion since I am 
> barred 
> from any reply at Hegel@...  Some religion, eh? Unsub the skeptics. 
> I should say at once I take a Kantian stance here, which is not popular 
> among 
> Hegelians! 
> If Kant left religion in a 'mess', it probably deserved it, and the last 
> thing the world needs is another dogmatism about metaphysical questions, 
> the 
> 'noumenon resolved'. 
> I find Hegel fascinating, but the chances of his philosophy making a 
> comeback 
> as religion is nil at this point, Petro's remarks being close the 'mad 
> fanatic', shall we fear an Hegelian Jihad taking over the planet? 
> There was some discussion before about Indian religion. Has noone heard of 
> the New Age movement? Most people would laugh at the thought of an Hegelian 

> religion at this point. World religion is taking a radically different 
> turn. 
> The whole point was that Marx actually repackaged Hegel to do that 
> new religion number. ! I don't see Hegel's Christianity-so-called as 
> relevant 
> at this point. Not relevant, but hugely interesting simply as philosophic 
> history. 
> Surely, Christianity is weakening drastically in every generation, and the 
> issues here will seem irrelevant very soon.  
> In any case, like Kant or not, he is the protection of those who don't want 

> to be exploited by a new metaphysics. So all talk of religion will from now 

> on revolve around this Kantian question. I have no intention of being duped 

> by Hegel, and would demand in a Kantian fashion something objective, and 
> snort at the claims of dialectic. 
> I find the discussion odd, don't these guys know the Spinoza connection? 
> Hegel simply wouldn't pass the pope's censors with a good sniff test. 
> That's actually Hegel's strength, that he picks up on the relevant issue 
> that 
> Spinoza first dealt with. 

John Landon
Website for
World History and the Eonic Effect