Robert Wallace describes a little-known alternative divinity.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Hegels_God
Hegel’s God
-
ForgedinHell
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
- Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: Hegel’s God
What's the point?Philosophy Now wrote:Robert Wallace describes a little-known alternative divinity.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Hegels_God
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Hegel’s God
And yet you have Spinoza as your avatar?
-
ForgedinHell
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
- Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: Hegel’s God
What's the point of Hegel's god? Am I supposed to believe in it? Just learn about the idea so I can discuss it at dinner parties and impress my friends? Is it supposed to assist me in evaluating factual claims about history? About anything? What is the point about learning about a made-up fiction? I just asked a question.Arising_uk wrote:And yet you have Spinoza as your avatar?
What does my avatar have to do about anything? You know how hard it was to find a picture that could fit on this forum? My first choice was The Marlboro Man.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Hegel’s God
First Wallace sets up the usual tension between "a" being and "being infinite" that was already fully articulated and answered by Spinoza well over 100 years before Hegel. (and for which the only valid conclusion is that god is everything/nature.)Philosophy Now wrote:Robert Wallace describes a little-known alternative divinity.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Hegels_God
He then immediately shoots himself in the foot, on these grounds. In this he criticised his own first objection. If God is self determining, then he is by definition limited:
"What is God, then? God is the fullest reality, achieved through the self-determination of everything that’s capable of any kind or degree of self-determination. Thus God emerges out of beings of limited reality, including ourselves."
The rest is drivel and one has to wonder what is motivating a supposed Professor of Philosophy to cling to this nonsense? His god is not only fluffy - what was the word he sued - "squishy". but it is meandering, vague and diffuse; a concept with no use; a solution looking for a problem that does not exist.
The natural conclusion of this idea is atheism, and there is no mystery why Marx felt comfortable with this.