Monday, December 30, 2013

Reflection iii

More Hegel: "A State is a realization of Spirit, such that in it the self-conscious being of Spirit--the freedom of the Will--is realized as Law." Sounds like a bunch of nonsense! I think I watched a lecture on Aristotle the other day that talked about regime in these terms. Like the totality of culture, what's suggested by the language and reinforced by the institutions it authorizes. Like--I suppose in terms of Bhartihari--what the vernacular realizes. Sometimes I wonder why we still wander around saying, "Jesus!"

I suppose if I zoom too far out then everything gets a bland, objective character. Is the objective bland? I'm still wondering what freedom means. I did a little bit of research into Kierkegaard and find that he was a sharp critic of Hegel. The commentaries that I listened to and read talked about Kierkegaard's criticism in terms of a distaste for an all-encompassing system that removes mystery. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this. It seems Hegel is building a super-structure in which to fit all peoples, customs, cultures and histories. The whole gist of the thing seems patronizing in a sense that other cultures are "progressing" toward what he--I presume--appraises as a superior mode.

I want to hear what Kierkegaard has to say about the person of Jesus. There were several questions in my cursory examination of Hegel that came up about the spirituality of his theories. Just running around with the word "Spirit" has its own consequences. I guess we could translate it as Ghost. But what does freedom mean? It seems that Hegel is setting himself up--in Philosophy of History--to make an argument for a sort of middle path. Something that isn't a totally moralistic State, or a monotonous state, and something that isn't completely diverse. Something that aspires toward, or is inspired by, an ideally abstracted divine, but operates in the real with some authority. This is where I feel Jesus fits in.

I'm interested to see what he has to say about Buddhism as I trudge along. I think I've been led back into Christianity because I've had complex ethical questions. Reading a transliteration or a translation of Buddhist "ethics" or Hindu "spirituality" didn't do much to answer my questions about how to behave in the world, what is "right" or "true." I wonder if part of that is me not being able to participate in those narratives because I'm not in the language, in the culture, in the regime, in the flux of the national spectacle, in the tremor of the received religion...

I think for me Jesus is attractive as a mediator between those dual positions: the personal relationship between an essentially mysterious God and the real love, compassion, etc. that is our responsibility in the world. John 14:1-6:

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

No comments:

Post a Comment