Hegel ,Judaism &Islam
Dr. Abdul Lathief
Hegel is one of my favorites and I consider him as one of the great masters of the ages.But what confuses and surprises me is his criticism and knowledge of other philosophers(especially Spinoza 's Substance) and the major religions like Hinduism,Judaism,Islam and even Christianity except perhaps Protestant Christianity.
"But even religion,
as it grows and expands, lets other aspects of the Idea of humanity grow and
expand also (§§ 566 seqq.). As it left therefore behind, in its first
immediate, and so also one-sided phase, Religion may, or rather must,
appear in its existence degraded to sensuous externality, and thus in the sequel
become an influence to oppress liberty of spirit and to deprave political life.
Still the principle has in it the infinite 'elasticity' of the 'absolute'
form', so as to overcome this depraving of the form-determination (and the
content by these means), and to bring about the reconciliation of the spirit in
itself. Thus ultimately, in the Protestant conscience the principles of
the religious and of the ethical conscience come to be one and the same: the
free spirit learning to see itself in its reasonableness and truth. In the
Protestant state, the constitution and the code, as well as their several
applications, embody the principle and the development of the moral
life, which proceeds and can only proceed from the truth of religion, when
reinstated in its original principle and in that way as such first become
actual". -(Encyclopedia-Philosophy of Mind-$552)
I will concentrate in this article on his criticism of Judaism and Islam.
"I refrain from
accumulating further examples of the religious and poetic conceptions which it
is customary to call pantheistic. Of the philosophies to which that name is
given, the Eleatic, or Spinozist, it has been remarked earlier (§ 50, note)
that so far are they from identifying God with the world and making him finite,
that in these systems this 'everything' has no truth, and that we should rather
call them monotheistic, or, in relation to the popular idea of the world,
acosmical. They are most accurately called systems which apprehend the Absolute
only as substance. Of the oriental, especially the Mohammedan, modes of
envisaging God, we may rather say that they represent the Absolute as the
utterly universal genus which dwells in the species or existences, but dwells
so potently that these existences have no actual reality. The fault of all
these modes of thought and systems is that they stop short of defining
substance as subject and as mind".(Encyclopedia -Philosophy of
Mind-$573)
"If we consider God
as the Essence only, and nothing more, we know Him only as the universal and
irresistible Power; in other words, as the Lord. Now the fear of the Lord is,
doubtless, the beginning, bait only the beginning, of wisdom. To look at
God in this light, as the Lord, and the Lord alone, is especially
characteristic of Judaism and also of Mohammedanism. The defect of
these religions lies in their scant recognition of the finite, which, be it as
natural things or as finite phases of mind, it is characteristic of the heathen
and (as they also for that reason are) polytheistic religions to maintain
intact". (Encyclopedia-Logic-$112)
"It is true that God is necessity, or, as we may also put it, that he is the absolute Thing: he is however no less the absolute Person. That he is the absolute Person however is a point which the philosophy of Spinoza never reached: and on that side it falls short of the true notion of God which forms the content of religious consciousness in Christianity. Spinoza was by descent a Jew; and it is upon the whole the Oriental way of seeing things, according to which the nature of the finite world seems frail and transient, that has found its intellectual expression in his system. This Oriental view of the unity of substance certainly gives the basis for all real further development. Still it is not the final idea".(Encyclopedia-Logic-$151)
"The charge will be
seen to be unfounded if we remember that his system, instead of denying God,
rather recognises that he alone really is. Nor can it be maintained that the
God of Spinoza, although he is described as alone true, is not the true God,
and therefore as good as no God. If that were a just charge, it would
only prove that all other systems, where speculation has not gone beyond a
subordinate stage of the idea - that the Jews and Mohammedans who know God only
as the Lord - and that even the many Christians for whom God is merely
the most high, unknowable, and transcendent being, are as much atheists as
Spinoza"(ibid-$151)
When Hegel says Jewish , Islamic,and Spinoza's God is Essence or its Sub category Substance first we have to look into Hegel's notion of Essence and Substance.
Hegel himself says in Science of Logic that the"content of Logic is the exposition of God as he is in himself before the creation of nature and a finite mind" . In Encyclopedia in the development of the Absolute as Absolute Idea Essence is only at the second category and Substance is only its subcategory.(I.Being II.Essence:a-Possibility b-Contingency c-Real possibility(Necessity):-1-relationship of Substantiality 2-relationship of Causality 3-Reciprocity. III: Notion.1-Subjective Notion 2-Object 3-Idea-a-Life b-Cognition(i-knowledge(thinking) ii-will) c-Absolute Idea.
From the above it is clear that according to Hegel Jewish,Islamic and Spinoza,s God is not even developed in to the stage of Causality or Reciprocity, so of course far from the Category Notion.
"The Notion is the principle of freedom, the power of
substance self-realised"(logic$160).
So according to Hegel, Jewish ,Islamic and Spinoza's God is neither a Living (life) God,nor a Knowing or Willing God or in short a not Self realised God but only a Substance so never contain the Notion of Absolute Idea.
I will write about Hegel's criticism of Spinoza and his Substance &Hinduism in a later article.I think any one with basic ideas of Jewish religious texts like written Torah(old testament),Oral Torah or Talmud will be able to see the apparent contradiction between the criticism of Hegel and the concept of God in these Holy texts.
I will concentrate only on the Islamic concept of God.
According to Islam and Holy Quran and the Sufi doctrine of Emanation based on Islamic teachings God has both Eternal and Temporal aspect.
Eternal aspect has bothTransendental and Immanent elements which other similar mystical systems like Kabbala ,Pythogrism,Neoplatonism, Buddism etc describe as three Logi or upper Triad,or three eternal planes. So this Eternal aspect has two (or three) planes.
The first plane is what Sufi’s call the Essence.This Essence has two aspects.One is the state of pure essence ,the unknowable essence.Here this essence is not the same as the essence of Hegel but denotes the self conscious being in itself without reference to attributes(other categories). Mystics use Being to denote the Absolute in this plane because there is no category to express this plane in knowledge.This Being is not same as the pure being of Hegel which is the beginning or first category but refers to Essence which knows itself or self conscious Being.This is Spencer's The Unknown and Unknowable,and Spinoza's Unknowable Substance with infinite essential attributes out of which only two attributes(thought &extension) is knowable.In Hegel’s system this corresponds to the Absolute Idea as Subject without reference to any other categories.
Below is one Quranic verse denoting the first aspect of this plane.
"Nothing
is like Him" -(Ch-XLII-verse-9)
The second aspect of this Essence is viewing this essence as Absolute in its Unity.The Essence with attributes or Qualities.This Sufis call the state of potentialities with 4 attribtes.Being(potential life,potential self),Knowledge,Love(potential will,desire) and Power. This is the plane before creation.This is Plotinus's God with Being,Knowledge and Power.This is Hegel's Notion in and for Itself. Absolute as Absolute Idea with all other Categories as its contents.Many mystical system make these two separate planes with pure essence as first plane and essence with attributes second plane.
Below some Quranic verses denoting this aspect.
"With
Him are the keys of the Unknown which only He knows"-(Ch-Al-Anam-verse-59)
"You
know what is in my mind but I do not know what is in Your
mind-(Ch-Maidah-v-116)
"God knows everything"-(Ch-Tauba-v-75)
"God is ever Living
and Supporting"-(Ch- 2-ver-253)
"He does what He
Wills"-(Ch-11-ver-107)
"And
you shall not will except as God Wills"-(Dahr-v-31)
"Had
He Willed ,He would have made you all one communiy,but He wants to try you in
what He has given you"-(Ch- Maidah-v-48)
"Say
:He God is One -He does not beget -and He is not begotten.-and there is no
equal to Him"-(Ch-112)
The second plane is the Absolute in his both Transcendent and Immanent aspect.This is the stage at which the Absolute becomes both Universal and Particular.This is intimately connected with creation so this stage develops through Nature and Mind.This Sufis call the Unique and describe as the Absolute with seven mothers of attributes.Life,Knowledge,Will,Power,Hearing,Sight and Speech.This is similar to Hegel's Absolute Idea as Absolute Mind developing through Nature and finite Mind.
The third plane is that of temporal or Manifestation,as Nature and finite mind.
Below is some Quaranic verses denoting the second plane.
"And it is He who Hears and Sees"-(Ch-XLII-9)
"My
servant cannot approach Me with something which would please Me more than that which I have imposed upon him.And when my servant approach me without ceasing
by his surrogative works until I love him; and when I love him I am the hearing
by which he hears,the sight by which he sees ,his tongue with which he
speaks,the hand with which he takes and the foot with which he
walks"-(Words of Prophet)
Lastly I will quote the commentary of some of
these Quranic verses by the Sufi Ibn-Arabi-Spain(1164-1240)from his great
classic Fusus al hikam ,who is known as the Greatest Master among Sufi circles
and who lived more than 500 years before Hegel..
"Nothing
is like Him ,and it is He who Hears and Sees"-(Ch-XLII-9)
Commentary-Do not then ,know Him only one side
,and remain ignorant of Him on the other;do not affirm Him here ,while denying
Him there,unless you do affirm Him under the aspect in which He Himself affirms
Himself ,and you do deny Him equally under the aspect that He himself
denies,according to the Quranic verse which synthesises the negation and
affirmation towards God: "Nothing is like Him ,and it is He who Hears and
Sees". In the first part of this verse ,God denies (every quality with
respect to Him)and in the second part He affirms (His Being)in respect of the quality
which englobes all living beings gifted with hearing or vision.
"Say :He, God is
One -He does not beget-and He is not begotten-and there is no equal to
Him"(.-Ch-CXII)
Commentary-"Say :He, God is One" -in
his essence -God is Absolute-the independent upon which everything
depends,-"He does not beget" -neither in His aseity,nor in His
relation towards us-"and He is not begotten"(in the same
respect)-"and there is no equal to Him"-in this respect.It is that which
is His own quality .By his word "say: He is One" ...He abstracts his
essence from all multiplicity:on the other hand ,this manifests itself by
virtue of the well known Divine attributes.It is we who beget and are begotten
and it is we who depend on Him-May he be
exalted-! so we are similar one to another,where as the Unique ,the
Transcendent ,is independent with regard to these attributes as He is
independent of us.. The Unity of God which reveals itself in respect of the
Divine Names, postulating our existence is the Unity of the Multiple ,and the
Unity of God by which He is independent of us and of the Names ,is Essential Unity ;the one and the other
are contained in the Name the One (al-ahad)-
Commentary:-When one thing is
penetrated by something else,the first is contained by the second.;for the
penetrating hides itself in the penetrated,so that the latter is apparent and
the former,the interior, is latent;the penetrating is also like the food of the
penetrated,in the manner that water spreads itself in wool and makes it more
heavier and voluminous.If it is the Divinity that appears ,and the creature is
found hidden there,this latter is assimilated into all the Names of God, into
His Hearing,into His Seeing, into all His attributes and His modes of knowledge; in turn,if it is the creature who is apparent and the
Divinity is immanent to him and is found hidden within,God is the Hearing of
the created beings,his Sight,his hand,his foot and all his faculties as is said
in the divine word surely transmitted ;(My servant cannot approach Me with
something which would please Me more than that which I have imposed upon
him.And when My servant approach Me without ceasing by his surrogative works
until I love him; and when I love him I am the Hearing by which he hears,the
Sight by which he sees ,his tongue with which he Speaks,the hand with which he
takes and the foot with which he walks).
Commentary:-For the Essence loves perfection
;but,the knowledge that God has of Himself in so far as He is independent of
all worlds ,refers only to Himself ;so that knowledge be perfect in all degrees
,it is necessary that knowledge of the ephemeral ,knowledge which results
precisely from these determinations ,-meaning the determinations of the world
in so far as they exist -is realised equally.The Divine perfection (or the
infinity)expresses itself then,in that it manifests relative knowledge as well
as eternal knowledge ,so that the Divine dignity of Knowledge be perfect under
the one and the other aspect (although relative knowledge adds nothing to
Absolute Knowledge.)
In the same manner the Being perfects
itself .For the Being is in one way eternal and in another way non eternal or
to become.The eternal Being is the Being of God in Himself;the non-eternal
being is the Divine Being (reflecting Himself) in the 'forms' of the immutable
world (that is to say in the archetypes);it is that which one means by
'become'(or happening) because the Being is manifested there from one part to
the other .He manifests Himself ,then,to Himself in the forms of the world,so
that the Being be perfect (in every aspect although the relative can add
nothing to the eternal).
The movement of the world ,then is born of the love of perfection(or of infinity).
As to Hegel's criticism that Jewish and Islamic
God only evokes fear I think it is enough to say only that in all the 114 chapters of the
Quran each and every chapter begins with the words: "In the name of God,Most
Compassionate,Most Merciful".
As a matter of fact Hegel himself says
Religious Truth is Eternal,fixed,fundamental and unchancgeable.But the problem
is when ever Hegel speaks of Religions he only mean Christianity and when ever
he speaks of God as Truth he only means the Christian God.
"But as regards the
comparison between the history of Religion and that of Philosophy as to inner
content, there is not in the latter as there is in Religion a fixed and
fundamental truth which, as unchangeable, is apart from history. The content of
Christianity, which is Truth, has, however, remained unaltered as such, and has
therefore little history or as good as none. Hence in Religion, on account of
its very nature as Christianity, the conflict referred to disappears. The
errors and additions constitute no difficulty. They are transitory and
altogether historical in character"-(lectures on history of
philosophy-introduction-A-Notion of the history of philosophy)
I conclude this article from the same Grand Master Ibn Arabi.In contrast to the above narrow and rigid reasoning and understanding see the knowledge of the Great Master Ibn Arabi and what he says about God and Truth and the Virtue of Tolerance.
“According
to a certain point of view ,the pronoun,in the sentence:"Is there any
thing which does not exalt His praise?" refers to the thing itself,that is
to say the creature praises by that which it is.This is analogous to that which
we were saying of the believer ,meaning that he praises the Divinity which
conforms to his own belief and connects himself to it in this way ;but,all acts
returns to their author,so that the believer praises himself ,as the work
praises its artist ,all perfection and all lack that it manifests falling back
on its author.In the same way ,the Divinity (as such,which)conforms to the belief
is created by he who concentrates on It,and It is his own work.In praising that
which he believes ,the believer praises his own soul,it is because of that that
he condemns other beliefs than his own.;if he was just ,he would not do
it;only, he who is fixed on a certain particular adoration is necessarily
ignorant(of the intrinsic truths of other beliefs),in the same way that his
belief in God implies a negation of the
other forms of belief.If he understood the sense of the word of Junaid
:"The colour of water is the colour of its receptacle" he would admit
the validity of all beliefs,and he would recognise God in every form and every object of faith.
The End
APPENDIX
1-JOHN BARDIS
POST-YAHOO HEGEL GROUPS
According
to Hegel all true religions have the same content but different forms.
So what is this content?
I believe the content of true religion for Hegel is, first, that God is triune,
and, second, that God has the form of a man. So, obviously, the form of
Christianity is best suited to this content.
This content is seemingly not to be found in Islam. But this content is
certainly to be found in the work of Ibn 'Arabi. For many Muslims Ibn 'Arabi is
regarded as a heretic and a crypto-Christian. For others, including Dr. Lathief,
he is regarded as the Great Sheik.
One very good book about Ibn 'Arabi is SUFISM AND TAOISM by
Toshihiko Izutsu. As
a small step in a large subject, the following comes from pages 236ff of that
book:
"All prophets, in Ibn 'Arabi's view, are embodiments of the idea of the Perfect
place. What is particularly important about Muhammad is that he had been a
cosmic being before he was raised as an individual prophet at a certain moment
of human history in the capacity of God's Messenger to the Arabs. Ibn 'Arabi
bases this conception on a well-known Tradition in which Muhammad describes
himself as a being of a cosmic nature by saying: 'I was a prophet even while
Adam was between clay and water'.
"Ontologically, Muhammad as a cosmic being who existed from eternity
corresponds
to, or represents, the level of the permanent archetypes; that is, the level of
Being 'which is neither existent nor non-existent', the intermediary stage
(barzakh) between the absolute Absolute and the world which is the outer
self-manifestation of the Absolute. This intermediary stage is divine in so far
as it is identified with the Divine Consciousness, but it is, at the same time,
essentially creaturely or human in that it has significance only as it is
related to the created world. The intermediary stage in this latter aspect,
i.e., considered in its human aspect, is the Reality of Muhammad. And it is
also
the Perfect Man on the cosmic level.
"Thus understood, the Reality of Muhammad is not exactly the permanent
archetypes themselves. Rather, it is the unifying principle of all archetypes,
the active principle on which depends the very existence of the archetypes.
Considered from the side of the Absolute, the Reality of Muhammad is the
creative activity itself of the Absolute, or God 'conceived as the
self-revealing Principle of the universe'. It is the Absolute in the first
stage
of its eternal self-manifestation, i.e., the Absolute as the universal
Consciousness."
"Thus the Prophet Muhammad on the cosmic level corresponds almost exactly
to the
Plotinian First Intellect."
"Basing himself on a Tradition: 'the first thing which God created was my
Light', Ibn 'Arabi calls the Reality of Muhammad also the 'Light of Muhammad'.
This Light had been existent even before all the creatures came into existence.
It is, in this sense, 'eternal' and 'non-temporal'.
"Since the Light was that which God created before anything else and that
from
which he created everything else, it was the very basis of the creation of the
world. And it was 'Light' because it was nothing else than the First Intellect,
i.e., the Divine Consciousness, by which God manifested Himself to Himself in
the state of the Absolute Unity. And the Light is in its personal aspect the
Reality of Muhammad."
"Muhammad, as the Logos..."
John
MY REPLY(YAHOO GROUPS NOT POSTED)
>This
content is seemingly not to be found in Islam
yes
,true this content is not explicitly in islam.But as hegel says if all religious
truth are funemental and eternal and unchangeable the same content must be
there in all religions,the only differnce being in its esoteric or exoteric
sense.there are many verse in quran and sayings of prophet indicating the
triune nature of god.when i shall have formed him(adam),and i shall have
breathed my spirit into him(quran-15,v-29)"God created adam in His own
form"(saying of prophet).sufi mysticism ,other religions like jewish
mysticism and hinduism and neoplatonis also contain this triune nature of
the absolute.in fact in hinduism which has a history of BC 1000 or beyond
explicitly contain this form as the incarnations of god in differnt ages like
Sri Rama,Sri Krishna,etc.
now
about this triune nature of absolute.All the mystcal and religious systems
before Ibn arabi has this triune nature .it is ibn arabi who made the basic
dual nature of absolute for the first time according to my knowledge.
";for
all existence is imagination in imagination (that is to say 'subjective' or
microcosmic imagination in an 'objective' collective or macrocosmic
imagination) ;whereas the veritable Being is God alone and exclusively ,in
respect of His Essence and of His essential determination ,not in respect of
His Names ,for His Names have a double significance ;on one hand they contain a
unique significance ,that is to say the essential determination of God ,who is
the 'named',and on the other hand their significance make it so that each Name distinguishes itself from
the others ,the Forgiving from the Apparent , the Apparent from the Interior
,and so on ;but ,what then is the connection between one Name and another?for
you will have understood that each Name
is the essential determination of every other ; in so far as one name is the
essential determination of the other ,it is God ,and in so far as it differs
,it is the 'imaginary' God, as we have exposed.Exalted may He be who is proved
only by Himself and who exists only by His own unchangeable Essence !There is
in existence only that which denotes Unity ;and there is in imagination only
that which denotes multiplicity.So ,whoever belongs to multiplicity,is in the
world,with the Divine Names and with the names of the world ;and whoever
belongs to Unity ,is with God in respect of His Essence 'independent of the worlds'.If
the Esence is 'independent of the worlds' it means that God must be essentially
independent of 'nominal relations',for the Names do not denote the Essence only
,they denote at the same time other realities ,of which they define
the manifestation."
"The
Unity of God which reveals itself in respect of the Divine Names, postulating
our existence is the unity of the multiple ,and the Unity of God by which He is
independent of us and of the Names ,is
essential Unity ;the one and the other are contained in the Name the One (al-ahad).(fusus)
later i think only hegel made this dual nature of the absolute.hegel
say about the triune nature of god only in reference to religious mind. but as philosophic mind there is only Absolute idea and
absolute mind.
now
this second plane as god with respect to divine names or as absolute mind all
other religious,mystical,and philosophical system treat as the third plane
because the first plane essentail unity(absolute idea) is divided into
two planes. one the essence or absolute idea viewd from the angle of pure
essence or Absolute subject without reference to the attributes or other
categories or contents and the second essence viewed from the angle of
essence with essential attributes or absolute idea as absolute subject
with all the other categories as its contents, its own other ,I's
Mine.
Now this is the only
similarity between Ibn Arabi and Hegel .the unbridgeable gulf between Hegel and
ibn arabi or for that matter all other religious and mystical systems and othe
idealistic philosophers is that unlike hegel, Ibn arabi and all of them
attribute an element of unknowability to the first plane,the essence or
absolute idea.this is similar to spencer's unknown and unknowable,kant's thing
in itself(ding an sich) or spinoza's substance(substance with infinite
,innumarable essential attributes out of which only two(thought and extension)
knowable to we earthlings).
Now let as have a look at
hegel's thought and it's categories.Hegel says that logic is the form of
absolute before the development of nature and finite mind and they are the
logical forms of the categories .now all these categories are developed from
thought in the state of self consious human being.now take the self
consiousness of hegel or any other man or our own self consiousness.now every
self consiousness is as hegel says I as a thinker.now the only possible way of
knowledge of the categories is to consider this thinker as pure thought or
in other words before the development of thought as thinker.now when if think
about this thought without the I element or without the knowledge element
in its immedacy it is being.now how we know it is being or the begining and how
we know its contents .i am not saying that kant is ridht in saying the
categories are vwithout content in themselves or al the contents are derived
from experience.hegel is also right in saying that categories are not only
subjective as kant says but also objective.categories like space and time and
cause are not only in the subjective mind but also in the objects themselves as
logical forms,because there reality is also thought.what i am saying is
knowedge of all these categories is only possible after experience whether
external experience or internal experience like freedom,duty etc.i am saying we
are knowing or remembering these categories only after we have the experience
of them as logical forms in nature and finite mind.this is not only
applicable to categories of nature but categories like will,freedom,duty etc
because we have prior experience of them in the individual or society.i think
this is what plato says all knowledge is reminicence.
JOHN BARDIS POST
TO RALPH
But, certainly, Ralph, you could be wrong about all
that. Men aren't bound to
the particular
in the same way that cats and dogs are.
There's been a fair amount of scholarship that has come out on
Ibn Arabi in the
past fifteen
years, and it is interesting.
But here is something from the Ibn Arabi scholar, William
Chittick, that
suggests that what you
say would be true if you were talking about birds or chipmunks,
but certainly
not about humans:
"In the diverse creatures of the cosmos other than man the
traces of God's
names and
attributes are externalized as the specific and unique
characteristics of each
thing. Every
creature in the universe 'knows' God in a specific,
differentiated, and
determined way, defined
by the attributes that the thing displays, or by the 'word' that
it embodies;
each thing gives
news of God and displays His signs through occupying its
specific niche in the
never-repeated
speech of God that is the universe.
"Man alone is given the potential to know God in a global,
synthetic manner,
because man
alone is created in the image not of one or of several specific
names, but in
the image
of the all-comprehensive name Allah.
"Knowledge of things as they actually are can only come
through knowing them as
disclosures of the Real. It is only this sort of knowledge that
allows man to
see
that everything in this world is accursed if he does not see it
as displaying
the Real,
and that he himself is accursed to the extent that he does not
know that things
do
in fact display the Real.
"As Ibn Arabi said, 'The greatest
sin is what brings about the death of the
heart.
It dies only by not knowing God. This is what is named
"ignorance".'"
I can't imagine that Hegel would disagree with any of that.
Concerning the book about the Jews, I was interested to know if
Hegel had any
Jewish students.
John
MY REPLY TO MR.JOHN(NOT POSTED HEGEL GROUPS)
First I will quote from the
well known contemporary Sufi Idries Shah to show that the reality of Mohammed
has no special connection with prophet Mohammed.
"For ibn arabi,as for
all Sufis ,Mohammed represents the perfected man.at the same time ,it is
necessary to know what is meant by Mohammed in this context.Ibn arabi is more
explicit than most in this point.there are two versions of Mohammed-the man who
lived in Mecca and medina,and the eternal Muhammad.it is the latter one of whom
he speaks.this Mohammed is identified with all the prophets including
Jesus.this idea has caused people with a Christian background to claim that ibn
arabi or the Sufis or both were secret Christians.the Sufi claim is that all
the individuals who have performed certain functions are in a sense one.this
oneness they call in its origin haqiqat -el -mohammedia ,the reality of
Mohammed".
."....Mohammed for
instance means the praised one....He is given names and in every age has a name
which is appropriate to the guise in which he appears in that age...When he is
seen as Mohammed ,he is Mohammed,but when he is seen
in another form,he is called by the name of that form."
"This is not a
reincarnation theory ,however much it may resemble one.the essential reality
which activates the man Mohammed or anything else has to be given a name in
conformity with the environment".(the Sufis-chapter-ibn arabi-Idries Shah)
The stage of the reality of
Mohammed is neither permanent archetypes nor first intellect.in Sufism there
are seven planes.three divine eternal planes,three worldly temporal planes and
the seven the plane of perfect man who contain both these planes.Divine planes
are ahadiyath(unknowable essence) wahdath(unity) and wahidiyath(uniqy,unity in
plurality).Ahadiyath roughly corresponds to absolute idea as absolute subject
with out reference to the contents or other categories and wahdath corresponds
to absolute idea with its other categories as its contents and wahidiyath
corresponds to absolute mind.Permanent archetypes are the stage of wahidiyat or
absolute mind. but reality of Muhammad Sufis
identifies with the second plane or wahdath or absolute idea with all its
categories as mine.This is the logos of philo and plotinus.so this is not
created light or created first consciousness.Ibn Arabi explain this stage as
God descending himself to the plane of knowledge.
The worldly planes are
spiritual world,similitudinary world(images) and
material world.This is the world of creation or manifestation.first intellect
comes only in the stage of spiritual world.
Most of the ibn arabi
studies are based on his futuhat.but his magnum opus is fusus al hikam.There
are mind blowing ideas in fusus which is not found any where else like
"the
messengers only receive this knowledge (divine knowledge) because they are also
saints ,and solely from the tabernacle of the seal of saints".
"the
seal of saints imbibes at the same source(origin) as that from which the angel
imbibed ,who inspired the messenger of god."
"the
seal of the messenger is connected, then ,in respect of his
saintliness,to the seal of the saints.
as for the seal of the
saints,he is the saint,the heir,who imbibes in the origin,the one who
contemplates all ranks"
"it is from the seal of
saints own spirit that his knowledge(divine knowledge) flows to each
spirit,even though each may not be conscious of it while it exists in corporeal
form".
As far as I know fusus al hikam is not available on the net.I have
made copious extractions from fusus and it is available at my web site as Book
of Gems.(it also contain quotes from shankara and Hegel's
encyclopedia).http://lathief1.tripod.com
regards
lathief
JOHN
BARDIS REPLY E-MAIL
Thank you, Lathief, for those quotes.
If Hegel were alive today he would, undoubtedly, be very
interested in the
thought of ibn arabi.
Sufism, Kabala and Christian theology are very different things,
and yet there
is the sense that they are all looking at
the same thing but from slightly
different perspectives. And certainly there
was also historical influence
between the three.
One doctrine they all share, and which is also important to Hegel,
is the
doctrine that man is the image and likeness of
God.
Here is something about that from William Chittick's book, THE
SUFI PATH
OF KNOWLEDGE; IBN AL-ARABI'S METAPHYSICS OF IMAGINATION (page 27):
"It was said earlier that in 'ethics' or assuming the
character traits of God -
which, precisely, is the Sufi path -
equilibrium is everything. The divine
names must be actualized in the proper
relationships, the names of beauty
preceding those of wrath, generosity dominating
over justice, humility
taking precedence over magnificence, and so
on. The perfect equilibrium
of the names is actualized by the perfect
assumption of every trait in the
form of which human beings were created. In
a word, perfect equilibrium
is to be the outward form of the name
'Allah', the Divine Presence. The
person who achieves such a realization is
known as perfect man."
John
2-POST BY
SHARLOO75-YAHOO GROUPS
Mr, Lathief- I found your observations poetic and
interesting=I
notice you do not quote Hegel"s Lectures On The Philosophy
of
Religion"Volume 2 Determinate Religion =I n this volume
Hegel
writes extensively on various religions and these are his mature
work on the subject .==Best wishes Bob
MY REPLY
Dear Mr. John & Mr.Bob,
I have quoted mainly from encyclopedia because I only intended
to
show the basic notions of Hegel about other religions.I think
detailed analysis of this notion does not change the notion.As
to
Hegel's "philosophy of religion are his mature work"
as long as the
basic notion does not change,and as the encyclopedia( mainly
logic&philosophy of mind) are the one he revised regularly
till his
death I think the view expressed in them are also his unchanged
notion of religions.
Dear Mr.John,
I wrote a reply to your earlier letter.I don't know why it is
not
posted.As I could not find your post on religion and I am not a
member of main Hegel list if possible please post it in this
forum
or send it to me.
regards
lathief
3-STEPHEN COWLEY-HEGEL DIALOGNET
Dear Dr Lathief,
Some brief replies:
Stephen Cowley
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:24 PM
Subject: [hegel-dialognet] Hegel ,Judaism &Islam
L: "Dear Members,
Hegel ,Judaism &Islam
Dr Abdul Lathief
Hegel is one of my favorites and I consider him as one of the great masters
of the ages.But what confuses and surprises me is his criticism and
knowledge of other philosophers(especially Spinoza 's Substance) and the
major religions like Hinduism,Judaism,Islam and even Christianity except
perhaps Protestant Christianity."
Reply: I think Hegel's knowledge of Spinoza was good. You may know that he
helped bring out an edition of Spinoza in
demonstrates close knowledge of the text. Certainly though, his
knowledge
of other philosophers - e.g. Scholastic philosophy, was second hand,
despite
his lecturing on them in his History of Philosophy lectures.
His knowledge of other religions was certainly limited. Generally though, I
would expect a philosopher to have a critical attitude to religion. I see
nothing out of order in that in principle.
L: "When Hegel says Jewish , Islamic,and
Spinoza's God is Essence or its Sub
category Substance first we have to look into Hegel's notion of Essence and
Substance."
Reply: I think it might be better to take his overall aim in relation to
Spinoza, namely, "to conceive the absolute as subject as well as
substance"
(Phenomenology, Preface). I am also not quite comfortable about your
conflating Hegel's views of three such different (and in the case of the
religions, internally diverse) trends of thought in this way.
L: "Hegel himself says in Science of Logic that the"content of
Logic is the
exposition of God as he is in himself before the creation of nature and a
finite mind" . In Encyclopedia in the
development of the Absolute as
Absolute Idea Essence is only at the second category and Substance is only
its subcategory.(I.Being II.Essence:a-Possibility
b-Contingency c-Real
possibility(Necessity):-1-relationship of Substantiality 2-relationship of
Causality 3-Reciprocity. III: Notion.1-Subjective Notion 2-Object
3-Idea-a-Life b-Cognition(i-knowledge(thinking)
ii-will) c-Absolute Idea.
From the above it is clear that according to Hegel Jewish,Islamic
and
Spinoza,s God is not even developed in to the stage of Causality or
Reciprocity, so of course far from the Category Notion."
"The Notion is the principle of freedom, the power of substance
self-realised"(logic$160).
So according to Hegel, Jewish ,Islamic and
Spinoza's God is neither a Living
(life) God,nor a Knowing or Willing God or in short a not Self realised God
but only a Substance so never contain the Notion of Absolute Idea.
Reply: He is attributing substantiality as the dominant thought, at least
in the case of Spinoza, but that is not say there may not be hints or
suggestions of higher thoughts. Also, to the extent that Hegel is actually
saying this (which I doubt), he is obviously
guilty of stereotyping. If he
had had aa closer knowledge of the texts involved,
I am sure he would have
acknowedged this.
L: "I will write about Hegel's criticism of Spinoza and his Substance
&Hinduism in a later article.I think any one with basic ideas of Jewish
religious texts like written Torah(old testament),Oral Torah or Talmud will
be able to see the apparent contradiction between the criticism of Hegel
and the concept of God in these Holy texts."
Reply: These are such different subjects that I would make separate
articles of them. I suspect that in speaking of Judaism, Hegel is thinking
mainly, from a Lutheran perspective, of the books of the Old Testament. I
certainly agree with you if you are suggesting that he does not do justice
to these. In the Phenomenology for example, he skips strainght from Greek
Religion to Christianity, neglecting the Jewish context of Jesus' thought.
L: "I will concentrate only on the Islamic concept of God.
According to Islam and Holy Quran and the Sufi doctrine of Emanation based
on Islamic teachings God has both Eternal and Temporal aspect.
Eternal aspect has both Transendental and Immanent elements which other
similar mystical systems like Kabbala ,Pythogrism,Neoplatonism, Buddism etc
describe as three Logi or upper Triad,or three eternal planes. So this
Eternal aspect has two (or three) planes.
[...]
Below is one Quranic verse denoting the first aspect of this plane.
"Nothing is like Him" -(Ch-XLII-verse-9)
The second aspect of this Essence is viewing this essence as Absolute in
its
Unity.
[...]The third plane is that of temporal or Manifestation,as
Nature and
finite mind.
Below is some Quaranic verses denoting the second
plane.
"And it is He who Hears and Sees"-(Ch-XLII-9)[...]
Lastly I will quote the commentary of some of these Quranic verses by the
Sufi Ibn-Arabi-Spain(1164-1240)from his great classic Fusus al hikam ,who
is
known as the Greatest Master among Sufi circles and who lived more than 500
years before Hegel..
"Nothing is like Him ,and it is He who Hears and
Sees"-(Ch-XLII-9)
Commentary-Do not then ,know Him only one side ,and remain ignorant of Him
on the other;do not affirm Him here ,while denying Him there,unless you do
affirm Him under the aspect in which He Himself affirms Himself ,and you do
deny Him equally under the aspect that He himself denies,according to the
Quranic verse which synthesizes the negation and affirmation towards God:
"Nothing is like Him ,and it is He who Hears and Sees". In the
first part of
this verse ,God denies (every quality with respect
to Him)and in the second
part He affirms (His Being)in respect of the quality which englobes all
living beings gifted with hearing or vision.
Reply: The words of Quran 42:9 in my edition are "[...] Nothing can be
compared with him. He alone sees and hears all." This sounds like the
idea
of a transcendental God to whom Subjectivity is ascribed. It is interesting
that an explication of the Quran can be made to reveal something like the
Trinitarian structure Hegel finds in the Gospels, and to which Hegel is
also
attracted on grounds of pure philosophical argumentation. The only quibble
I have with this (From a broadly Hegelian perspective) is that the form of
the argument is "positive" - that is, based on an acceptance of
the idea of
Revelation. Hegel I believe, criticises this in
his early essay 'On the
Positivity of the Christian Religion'. It denies the autonomy of the
individual reader in responding to the text, or at least, this is not plain
in every word he utters, as is the case in Plato's Dialogues for example.
[...]
L: " As to Hegel's criticism that Jewish and Islamic God only evokes
fear I
think it is enough to say only that in all the 114 chapters of the Quran
each and every chapter begins with the words: "In the name of God,Most
Compassionate,Most Merciful".
As a matter of fact Hegel himself says Religious Truth is
Eternal,fixed,fundamental and unchangeable.But the problem is when ever
Hegel speaks of Religions he only mean Christianity and when ever he speaks
of God as Truth he only means the Christian God."
Reply: I agree that Hegel is drawing a rough contrast that doesn't really
stand up to a close reading of the Quran or the Old Testament. Equally
though, the image of a God evoking "only fear" is a passing
remark in Hegel.
I think fear has a place in Hegel though - he quotes somewhere, for example,
the well known saying that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
Wisdom"
(Proverbs), but goes on to say that it is only the beginning. You are
incorrect in saying that he only refers to Christianity when he speaks of
Religion. A great deal of the Lectures on the Philosophy
of Religion are
concerned with non-Christian religions. It is also appropriate to remember
that Hegel was addressing a predominantly Chriatian audience, so it was
inevitable that he would address the problems of Christianity at length.
L: [quoting Hegel] "But as regards the comparison between the history
of
Religion and that of Philosophy as to inner content, there is not in the
latter as there is in Religion a fixed and fundamental truth which, as
unchangeable, is apart from history. The content of Christianity, which is
Truth, has, however, remained unaltered as such, and has therefore little
history or as good as none. Hence in Religion, on account of its very
nature
as Christianity, the conflict referred to disappears. The errors and
additions constitute no difficulty. They are transitory and altogether
historical in character"-(lectures on history of
philosophy-introduction-A-Notion of the history of philosophy). I conclude
this article from the same Grand Master Ibn Arabi.In contrast to the above
narrow and rigid reasoning and understanding see the knowledge of the Great
Master Ibn Arabi and what he says about God and Truth and the Virtue of
Tolerance. [...]"
Reply: On a skim through of the introduction, I haven't found this exact
quote, but I don't read Hegel's words here as "narrow and rigid"
or indeed
"intolerant". He is trying to say that as a religious form,
Christianity
has not developed greatly, as its essence was present (as told in the
Gospels, presumably) from the start. Nothing is implied about other
religions, which as he elsewhere says, are identical in content with
philosophy.
All the best
Stephen Cowley
MY REPLY
(post to hegel dialog-net on 8-mar-2004)
Dear
Mr.Stephen Cowley,
>I am also not quite comfortable about your
> conflating Hegel's views of three such different (and in the case of the
> religions, internally diverse) trends of thought in this way.
They are different only for those who have not studied deeply these
religions.The triune form of the absolute is contained both in Jewish
mysticism and Hinduism both existed long before the time of Jesus.You may be
aware that in Hinduism even at 1000 BC the absolute mind aspect of these
triune form is represented very explicitly as the avatars (incarnation) of the
absolute in different ages like Sir Rama,Sri Krishna
etc.
>He is attributing substantiality as the dominant thought, at least
> in the case of Spinoza, but that is not say there may not be hints or
> suggestions of higher thoughts.
you
are stretching it too far Mr.Stephen.the category of substance can not be
stretched to include categories like life,self consciousness,will
etc.if we do that it cannot be then called Hegelian essence or substance
but it becomes the category notion.and that was exactly my point.the
substance of Spinoza is not the same as the substance category of Hegel.
when Spinoza says the substance has infinite essential attributes
out of which only two main attributes, thought(corresponds to Hegel's major
category notion) and extension(corresponds to Hegel's major category being)is
knowable to we human it is apparent that this substance is the absolute idea of
Hegel with all its categories plus including an element of unknowability.
>
Reply: I think Hegel's knowledge of Spinoza was good. You may know
that
he
> helped bring out an edition of Spinoza in
> demonstrates close knowledge of the text
you
may be already read Hegel's criticism of Spinoza in science of
logic(Actuality-remark-the philosophy of Spinoza&Leibniz-$1179-$1185) and
chapter on Spinoza in history of philosophy.(part iii-modern
philosophy-section-2).I request you to scan these parts again. I will just
quote a small part from history of philosophy.May be Hegel want to show by that
edition how narrow Spinoza's ideas are.
"As
regards the philosophy of Spinoza, it is very simple, and on the whole easy to
comprehend; the difficulty which it presents is due partly to the limitations
of the method in which Spinoza presents his thoughts, and partly to his
narrow range of ideas, which causes him in an unsatisfactory way to pass over
important points of view and cardinal questions"(history of
philosophy-Spinoza)
I
will quotes some thing from Ethics to show what
Spinoza's substance is.
. By substance,
I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words,
that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception(Part I concerning God-Definition iii)
By
God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting
in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality(Part-1-defi-vi)
Substance
cannot be produced by anything external , it must,
therefore, be its own cause--that is, its essence necessarily involves
existence, or existence belongs to its nature(part-1-proposition-vii)
God,
or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses
eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.(part-1-propo-xi)
Hence
we drew the conclusion that extended substance is one of the infinite
attributes of God(part-1-prop-xv)
Further
(to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will which we attribute to
God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must
take these words in some significations quite different from those they usually
bear. For intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God, would
perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human intellect and will, in
fact, would have nothing in common with them but the name; there would be about
as much correspondence between the two as there is between the Dog, the
heavenly constellation, and a dog, an animal that barks. This I will prove as
follows: If intellect belongs to the divine nature, it cannot be in nature, as
ours is generally thought to be, posterior to, or simultaneous with the things
understood, inasmuch as God is prior to all things by reason of his causality . On the contrary, the truth and formal
essence of things is as it is, because it exists by representation as such in
the intellect of God; Wherefore the intellect of God,
in so far as it is conceived to constitute God's essence, is, in reality, the
cause of things, both of their essence and of their existence. This seems to
have been recognized by those who have asserted, that God's intellect, God's
will, and God's power, are one and the same. As, therefore, God's intellect
is the sole cause of things, namely, both of their essence and existence, it
must necessarily differ from them in respect to its essence, and in respect to
its existence-(part-1-prop vii)
The
existence of God and his essence are one and the same.(part-1-prop
xx)
Further,
all the philosophers whom I have read admit that God's intellect is entirely
actual, and not at all potential; as they also admit that God's intellect, and
God's will, and God's essence are identical, it follows that, if God had a different
actual intellect and a different will, his essence would also have been
different; and thus, as I concluded at first, if things had been brought into
being by God in a different way from that which has obtained, God's intellect
and--will, that is (as is admitted) his essence would perforce have been
different, which is absurd.-part1-xxxiii
God's
power is identical with his essence.(part-1-xxxiv)
Thought
is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.(part-2-prop
i)
Extension
is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.(part-2-prop-ii)
Before
going any further, I wish to recall to mind what has
been pointed out above-namely, that whatsoever can be perceived by the infinite
intellect as constituting the essence of substance, belongs altogether only to
one substance: consequently, substance thinking and substance extended are one
and the same substance, comprehended now through one attribute, now through the
other. So, also, a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the
same thing, though expressed in two ways. This truth seems to have been
dimly recognized by those Jews who maintained that God, God's intellect, and
the things understood by God are identical.(part-2-prop-vii)
>Equally
> though, the image of a God evoking "only fear" is a passing
remark in
Hegel.
> I think fear has a place in Hegel though - he quotes somewhere, for
example,
> the well known saying that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
Wisdom"
> (Proverbs), but goes on to say that it is only the beginning.
I
think you missed my quotes from Hegel.it is in my quote itself Hegel quotes
this proverb ,but only to criticize and to point out what he think the
defect of Judaism and Islam and to say indirectly the love of the lord is
only the character of Christianity and so it is the only defectless
religion. (I hope you don't have to be a Derrida or other postmodernists
of deconstruction to know the intentionality and the unwritten words of the
author.)
"If we consider God as the Essence only, and nothing more,
we know Him only as the universal and irresistible Power; in other words, as
the Lord.
Now the fear of the Lord is,
doubtless, the beginning, bait only the beginning, of wisdom.
To look at God in this light, as the Lord, and the Lord alone, is especially
characteristic of Judaism and also of Mohammedanism. The defect of these
religions lies in their scant recognition of the finite, which, be it as
natural things or as finite phases of mind, it is characteristic of the heathen
and (as they also for that reason are) polytheistic religions to maintain
intact". (Encyclopedia-Logic-$112)
>You are
> incorrect in saying that he only refers to Christianity when he speaks of
> Religion
>but I don't read Hegel's words here as "narrow and rigid" or
indeed
> "intolerant". He is trying to say that as a religious
form, Christianity
> has not developed greatly,
I
fear you have not understood Hegel here.what Hegel says is religious truth is fixed ,unchangeable and fundamental truth but philosophic
truth develops through history.and what I criticized is but this eternal and
fundamental truth he identifies only with Christianity(errors and addition in
Christianity is only man made so historical).So he is not saying,as you
think Christianity has not developed greatly.
"But
as regards the comparison between the history of Religion and that of
Philosophy as to inner content, there is not in the latter as there is in
Religion a fixed and fundamental truth which, as unchangeable, is apart from
history. The content of Christianity, which is Truth, has, however, remained
unaltered as such, and has therefore little history or as good as none. Hence
in Religion, on account of its very nature as Christianity, the conflict referred
to disappears. The errors and additions constitute no difficulty. They are
transitory and altogether historical in character"-(lectures on history of
philosophy-introduction-A-Notion of the history of philosophy)
All
these things ,saying other religions like Judaism and Islam are defective and
only Christianity contain eternal and unchancheable truth may appear to those
who believe "Jesus is the only savior and all others are doomed"like
the words of St Paul the apostle and preacher or the words of our current self
proclaimed Hegelian scholars .It may even feel sweet like honey to their
tongue and music to their ears. but to others
whether atheists,agnostics,or even a mature theist or rational religious mind
it looks like "narrow and rigid "reasoning.
regards
lathief
MR.STEPHEN COWLEY’S POST
Dear Dr Lathief,
Some further replies:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [hegel-dialognet] Digest Number 143
Dear Mr.Stephen Cowley,
L "They [Spinoza, Islam, Hinduism] are different only for those who
have
not studied deeply these
religions.The triune form of the absolute is contained both in Jewish
mysticism and Hinduism both existed long before the time of Jesus.You may
be
aware that in Hinduism even at 1000 BC the absolute mind aspect of these
triune form is represented very explicitly as the avatars (incarnation) of
the absolute in different ages like Sir Rama,Sri Krishna etc.
Response: Obviously religions can be both the same and different, depending
on what precise comparison is being made. ONe can also not assume that
every "trinitarian" formulation indicates the same thought,
simply because
the number three is involved. However, I accept that know more about the
religious side than I do.
L: " you are stretching it too far Mr.Stephen.the category of
substance can
not be stretched to include categories like life,self consciousness,will
etc.if we do that it cannot be then called Hegelian essence or substance
but
it becomes the category notion.and that was exactly my point.the substance
of Spinoza is not the same as the substance category of Hegel.
when Spinoza says the substance has
infinite essential attributes out of
which only two main attributes, thought(corresponds to Hegel's major
category notion) and extension(corresponds to Hegel's major category
being)is knowable to we human it is apparent that this substance is the
absolute idea of Hegel with all its categories plus including an element of
unknowability."
Response: I agree with thus analysis of the relation between Hegel and
Spinoza.
L: "I will just quote a small part from history of philosophy.May be
Hegel
want to show by that edition how narrow Spinoza's ideas are."
"As regards the philosophy of Spinoza, it is very simple, and on the
whole
easy to comprehend; the difficulty which it presents is due partly to the
limitations of the method in which Spinoza presents his thoughts, and partly
to his narrow range of ideas, which causes him in an unsatisfactory way to
pass over important points of view and cardinal questions"(history of
philosophy-Spinoza)
Response: I think this is a reference to Spinoza's geometrical method,
which Hegel also criticises in the Preface to the Phenomenology.
L: "I will quotes some thing from Ethics to
show what Spinoza's substance
is.
"By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived
through
itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed
independently of any other conception (Part I concerning God-Definition iii)
[...]
Response: Hegel takes up this general line of argument - e.g. in his late
work on the Proofs of God's Existence.
L: "I think you missed my quotes from Hegel.it is in my quote itself
Hegel
quotes this proverb ["The fear of the Lord, etc"] ,but only to criticize and
to point out what he think the defect of Judaism and Islam and to say
indirectly the love of the lord is only the character of Christianity and
so
it is the only defectless religion. (I hope you don't have to be a Derrida
or other postmodernists of deconstruction to know the intentionality and
the
unwritten words of the author.)"
Response: I am not convinced that there is a direct parallel in Islam or
Judaism to the life of Christ, though the similarities are great. What so
you see as the parallel here? I'm afraid I might have problems with
"unwritten words". That could mean that we are simply reading our
own views
(or their opposite) into an author. We should perhaps stick to clear
inferences.
L: [quoting Hegel]: "If we consider God as the Essence only, and
nothing
more, we know Him only as the universal and irresistible Power; in other
words, as the Lord. Now the fear of the Lord is, doubtless, the beginning,
bait only the beginning, of wisdom. To look at God in this light, as the
Lord, and the Lord alone, is especially characteristic of Judaism and also
of Mohammedanism. The defect of these religions lies in their scant
recognition of the finite, which, be it as natural things or as finite
phases of mind, it is characteristic of the heathen and (as they also for
that reason are) polytheistic religions to maintain intact".
(Encyclopedia-Logic-$112)
Response: This seems to me on the whole an unfair comment on these two
religions (and on some polytheism), though I can also see the point he is
trying to make about balance, by attributing lack of it to two stalking
horses.
L: "I fear you have not understood Hegel here.what Hegel says is
religious
truth is fixed ,unchangeable and fundamental truth
but philosophic truth
develops through history.and what I criticized is but this eternal and
fundamental truth he identifies only with Christianity(errors and addition
in Christianity is only man made so historical).So he is not saying,as you
think Christianity has not developed greatly."
Response: Surely there is both development and some kind of constant
reference point against which change is measured and evaluated - in both
philosophy and religion.
L: "as regards the comparison between the history of Religion and that
of
Philosophy as to inner content, there is not in the latter as there is in
Religion a fixed and fundamental truth which, as unchangeable, is apart
from
history. The content of Christianity, which is Truth, has, however,
remained
unaltered as such, and has therefore little history or as good as none.
Hence in Religion, on account of its very nature as Christianity, the
conflict referred to disappears. The errors and additions constitute no
difficulty. They are transitory and altogether historical in
character"-(lectures on history of philosophy-introduction-A-Notion of
the
history of philosophy)"
Response: I think this passage needs to be read closely. Hegel says for
example that the content of Christianity is truth. He doe not say (nor do
his words imply) that the content of Judaism or Islam is not also truth. I
find the statement that there is no fundamental truth in philosophy
untypical of Hegel's views as a whole, and therefore hard to interpret in
isolation. I think he would qualify it if he were to maintain it at any
length.
L: "All these things ,saying other religions
like Judaism and Islam are
defective and only Christianity contain eternal and unchancheable truth may
appear to those who believe "Jesus is the only savior and all others
are
doomed"like the words of St Paul the apostle and preacher or the words
of
our current self proclaimed Hegelian scholars and apostles like Trojan
Paul,I mean imitations like Trojan horse.it may even feel sweet like honey
to their tongue and music to their ears. but to
others whether
atheists,agnostics,or even a mature theist or rational religious mind it
looks like "narrow and rigid "reasoning."
Response: I agree with your general point that we should compare religious
traditions.
I gather from your other e-mail that you have found alleged non-posting of
e-mails frustrating. I am not sure of the reason for this happening, though
I know from experience of other lists that it is greatly frustrating to put
effort into communicating one's thoughts and then find them scrubbed out
without explanation. Having said that, it would be
magnanimous on your
point to refrain from name calling until the matter can be cleared up in a
spirit of mutual understanding and common scholarly endevour. Perhaps
using
the Hegel-religion list would be a solution? Hegel-dialognet remains open
to all communications.
All the best
Stephen Cowley
.