B.A.G. Fuller observed of Nietzsche that "the Nazi-Fascist movement has publicly adopted him as its official philosopher..." which was not surprising
since certain of his ideas can be so construed as to lend themselves to the support and justification of the Nazi-Fascist ideology. For instance, his glorification of the Will for Power as the sum and substance of the universe; his praise of strength and virility as the essence of human virtue; his insistence on the decadent character of the Christian cult of meekness and weakness and upon its destructive influence on western culture; his appeal for the regeneration of western society by liberating the Will for Power from its bondage to Christian "slave-morality"; and his prophecy of the coming of the Superman [Overman] in whom the Will for Power will be given free play: -- all these can easily be turned into grist for the Nazi-Fascist mill.
But it can also be argued that such grist can be obtained only by lifting passages and portions of Nietzsche's teaching from the general context of his thought, and ignoring others, and by perverting the general character and trend of his philosophy in the interests of wishful thinking and to suit special needs. For he can be quoted in condemnation of such fundamental Nazi-Fascist tenets as anti-Semitism, the superiority of any one race over all others, and the dominance of the individual by the state. Furthermore, Nietzsche's concept of the Will for power is metaphysical and ethical rather than physical and political in its nature and implications, bound up as it is in his view that the Real is a complex of energies, activities and tensions.
Superior brute force is not what characterizes the superior man; superior moral force is what counts, according to Fuller's reading of Nietzsche.z1
Similarly, Walter Kaufmann in his seminal Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichristz2, argued persuasively that Nietzsche's true aims had been subverted by his proto-Nazi sister, Elisabeth, once she got control of her disabled brother's manuscripts.
Kaufmann had a penetrating intellect, and his forensic work on Nietzsche and Hegelz3 was remarkable, helping me to understand something about those two Germans.
Kaufmann rejected his parents' Lutheranism at about 11 years old and converted to Judaism, only to learn later that all his grandparents were Jewish. He came to America ca. 1939 and served in the U.S. armed forces during World War II. No word on what happened to his parents. They would have been expelled from their church under Nazi edict and may well have ended up in a slave labor and/or death camp.
It's interesting that Kaufmann very strongly identified with Kierkegaard (= "Churchyard" in Danish), whose eccentric approaches to writing and philosophical topics he greatly appreciated -- this despite the fact that he rejected Kierkegaard's ardent Christianity and found fault with the Dane's denunciations of Hegel, of whom, said Kaufmann, Kierkegaard had no first-hand knowledge. Kaufmann admired Kierkegaard despite Kierkegaard's insistence that the philosophers were obstructing the path to the necessity of becoming a true Christian (not simply a nominal member of "Christendom").
Nietzsche had an adversarial relationship with Christianity. Hegel adopted his own form of Christianity, becoming an adversary of on the one hand disbelieving rationalists and on the other hand of faith-driven pietists. I doubt Hegel had a personal relationship with Christ. Hegel believed that a special function of the human mind, Reason (as opposed to Understanding) could, in Hegel's thinking, apprehend the mind of God through a dialectical process -- as opposed to direct revelation by the Holy Spirit.
I caution here that I am no expert on Nietzsche or Hegel. I rely on what others say about Hegel's highly abstruse writings, the absorption of which, it seems to me, would require too much effort on my part for a result that would not be all that worthy.
There was once, according to J.N. Findlay, a group of people who could read Hegel's The Phenomenology of the Spirit with "ease and pleasure" but that day is long past, requiring interpretative efforts to assist the student in discerning what the man was really saying.z4
Findlay argues that though Hegel was no theist, neither was he a humanist who had enthroned man in God's place.
Similarly, Walter Kaufmann in his seminal Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichristz2, argued persuasively that Nietzsche's true aims had been subverted by his proto-Nazi sister, Elisabeth, once she got control of her disabled brother's manuscripts.
Kaufmann had a penetrating intellect, and his forensic work on Nietzsche and Hegelz3 was remarkable, helping me to understand something about those two Germans.
Kaufmann rejected his parents' Lutheranism at about 11 years old and converted to Judaism, only to learn later that all his grandparents were Jewish. He came to America ca. 1939 and served in the U.S. armed forces during World War II. No word on what happened to his parents. They would have been expelled from their church under Nazi edict and may well have ended up in a slave labor and/or death camp.
It's interesting that Kaufmann very strongly identified with Kierkegaard (= "Churchyard" in Danish), whose eccentric approaches to writing and philosophical topics he greatly appreciated -- this despite the fact that he rejected Kierkegaard's ardent Christianity and found fault with the Dane's denunciations of Hegel, of whom, said Kaufmann, Kierkegaard had no first-hand knowledge. Kaufmann admired Kierkegaard despite Kierkegaard's insistence that the philosophers were obstructing the path to the necessity of becoming a true Christian (not simply a nominal member of "Christendom").
Nietzsche had an adversarial relationship with Christianity. Hegel adopted his own form of Christianity, becoming an adversary of on the one hand disbelieving rationalists and on the other hand of faith-driven pietists. I doubt Hegel had a personal relationship with Christ. Hegel believed that a special function of the human mind, Reason (as opposed to Understanding) could, in Hegel's thinking, apprehend the mind of God through a dialectical process -- as opposed to direct revelation by the Holy Spirit.
I caution here that I am no expert on Nietzsche or Hegel. I rely on what others say about Hegel's highly abstruse writings, the absorption of which, it seems to me, would require too much effort on my part for a result that would not be all that worthy.
There was once, according to J.N. Findlay, a group of people who could read Hegel's The Phenomenology of the Spirit with "ease and pleasure" but that day is long past, requiring interpretative efforts to assist the student in discerning what the man was really saying.z4
Findlay argues that though Hegel was no theist, neither was he a humanist who had enthroned man in God's place.
Though Hegel has veiled his treatment of Religion in much orthodox-sounding language, its outcome is quite clear. Theism in all its forms is an imaginative distortion of final truth. The God outside of us who saves us by His grace, is a misleading pictorial expression for saving forces intrinsic to self-conscious Spirit, wherever this may be present. And the religious approach must be transcended (even if after a fashion preserved) in the final illumination. At the same time it would be wrong to regard Hegel as some sort of humanist: he has not dethroned God in order to put Man, whether as an individual or group of individuals, in His place. The self-conscious Spirit which plays the part of God in his system is not the complex, existent person, but the impersonal, reasonable element in him, which, by a necessary process, more and more "takes over" the individual, and becomes manifest and conscious in him. Hegel's religion, like that of Aristotle, consists of "straining every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us."
I must say that I don't hear the Master's voice in this quotation.
Findlay adds,
Findlay adds,
As a method, the dialectic is plainly one for rearward gazing admiration, and not for contemporary use. Through the grandiose sweep of its failure it, however, makes plain the profound affinity of notions too often and too lightly thought to be unrelated, and their constant connection with certain central ideals of intelligibility which are rightly held to spring from man's spiritual nature.z4
At some point, I suppose, I would like to talk more about Hegel's dialectical method of merging contrasting concepts into a "higher" one. At this point, I'll say: A neat trick, that doesn't always work.
And I add: Modern set theory would have spared Herr Hegel much haggle.
I hope to read Hegel's lectures on religion soon.
Though I can see that there are at some points strong parallels between Hegelian philosophy and traditional theology, I would be much more comfortable had he extensively quoted New Testament scripture in his works. I suppose I will have to take that as a note to myself: that I should not neglect Paul and the other writers when doing philosophico-theological commentary.
Since writing the previous paragraphs, I have delved into Hegel's lectures on religion -- and did the same as I have with his other works: stopped dead, aware that Hegel's line of thought is incommensurate with mine, meaning the more I read the more exasperated I become. I did notice however that his later theology/philosophy strove to show itself properly Christian at a time when he was under fire for being an atheist.
In any case, I found it worthwhile reading various commentaries. I wanted to know what it was that drew men's minds toward his philosophy. For those who were drawn by The Phenomenology of the Spirit, I would venture that they were impressed by the idea that Lutheranism, along with other Christian manifestations, was a front -- candy for the masses -- for the secret doctrine known only to a select few philosophers. The idea that one could find a (dialectical) logical, and thus scientific, version of the force behind reality must have had much appeal. Hegel larded his later work with commentary on scientific matters. Though much of that science is outdated, Hegel's defenders say, "No matter. It is the principle that counts." Perhaps. Yet, if much of the science is wrong (through no fault of his), then why should we expect the philosophical system to be all that accurate?
Well, that's another good reason for me to avoid spending too much time with Hegel.
I should add that I suspect another reason for the draw on the minds of reputable thinkers is simple fascination. The bad kind of fascination, I hasten to add. That is to say, one is entranced by a mysterious, alluring object, only to find that there is nothing there worth one's time. Bertrand Russell remarks somewhere that trying to master Hegel hardly seemed worth all the bother.
I realize I am doing rather a lot of carping for someone who declines to read Hegel through. Yet, I have read excerpts, and these excerpts are enough to convince me that Hegel left a lifework of straw. I don't like being quite so rude about another's efforts, especially as I did not walk a mile in his shoes. But my purpose is to forewarn others away. In my opinion, it is unlikely that this line of thinking can be of much help to the soul seeking God. Certainly Hegel's work contributes virtually nothing to Marxism, other than a propagandistic patina.
Though much of Hegel's theorizing strikes me as plain rubbish, I concede that many of the observations he makes while trying to state a case are quite interesting. But that is insufficient reason to recommend him.
Done with Hegel.
Probably.
And I add: Modern set theory would have spared Herr Hegel much haggle.
I hope to read Hegel's lectures on religion soon.
Though I can see that there are at some points strong parallels between Hegelian philosophy and traditional theology, I would be much more comfortable had he extensively quoted New Testament scripture in his works. I suppose I will have to take that as a note to myself: that I should not neglect Paul and the other writers when doing philosophico-theological commentary.
Since writing the previous paragraphs, I have delved into Hegel's lectures on religion -- and did the same as I have with his other works: stopped dead, aware that Hegel's line of thought is incommensurate with mine, meaning the more I read the more exasperated I become. I did notice however that his later theology/philosophy strove to show itself properly Christian at a time when he was under fire for being an atheist.
In any case, I found it worthwhile reading various commentaries. I wanted to know what it was that drew men's minds toward his philosophy. For those who were drawn by The Phenomenology of the Spirit, I would venture that they were impressed by the idea that Lutheranism, along with other Christian manifestations, was a front -- candy for the masses -- for the secret doctrine known only to a select few philosophers. The idea that one could find a (dialectical) logical, and thus scientific, version of the force behind reality must have had much appeal. Hegel larded his later work with commentary on scientific matters. Though much of that science is outdated, Hegel's defenders say, "No matter. It is the principle that counts." Perhaps. Yet, if much of the science is wrong (through no fault of his), then why should we expect the philosophical system to be all that accurate?
Well, that's another good reason for me to avoid spending too much time with Hegel.
I should add that I suspect another reason for the draw on the minds of reputable thinkers is simple fascination. The bad kind of fascination, I hasten to add. That is to say, one is entranced by a mysterious, alluring object, only to find that there is nothing there worth one's time. Bertrand Russell remarks somewhere that trying to master Hegel hardly seemed worth all the bother.
I realize I am doing rather a lot of carping for someone who declines to read Hegel through. Yet, I have read excerpts, and these excerpts are enough to convince me that Hegel left a lifework of straw. I don't like being quite so rude about another's efforts, especially as I did not walk a mile in his shoes. But my purpose is to forewarn others away. In my opinion, it is unlikely that this line of thinking can be of much help to the soul seeking God. Certainly Hegel's work contributes virtually nothing to Marxism, other than a propagandistic patina.
Though much of Hegel's theorizing strikes me as plain rubbish, I concede that many of the observations he makes while trying to state a case are quite interesting. But that is insufficient reason to recommend him.
Done with Hegel.
Probably.
z1. A History of Philosophy, Revised Edition by B.A.G. Fuller (Henry Holt, 1938, 1945).
z2. Princeton University Press 1950.
z3. Hegel, a Reinterpretation by Walter Kaufmann (Anchor Books Edition 1966).
z4. Hegel, a Re-examination by J.N. Findlay (Oxford 1958).
No comments:
Post a Comment