The existence of spirit, or truth as abstract, and its subsequent negation by its being made determinate is the one of the few things I've been able to identify as a consistent thread in Hegelian dialectic. The whole exercise has been very, very frustrating. I can't stand up and summarize this work in any kind of order, besides perhaps the three elements of religion he defines midway through the work. I am really in over my head. Way in. This does not bode well for my future understanding of modern (post Vatican II) theology, and I'm not getting any encouragement from anyone. "Why waste your time with this naturalist crap when you could be educating yourself on Newman or Thomas?!"
Oh yes. Naturalist. That brings up another thing. Jargon.
According to the dictionary on my Mac, the Oxford American Dictionary:
rationalism = The theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge
existentialism = A philosophical idea or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of will.
empiricism = The theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience
naturalism = a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
humanism = an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
personalism = a system of thought that maintains the primacy of the human or divine person on the basis that reality has meaning only through the conscious mind.
phenomenalism = the doctrine that human knowledge is confined to or founded on the realities or appearances presented to the senses.
Have I missed any?
4 comments:
what a way to start the year off... but then perhaps it is a showing of intellectual flabbiness...
or "showing off intellectual flabbiness", yes.
grr.
Oh, for heaven's sake, don't trust internet/dictionary definitions for anything - EVER. I was once forced into a debate with a horrid, pugnacious fellow who gathered very shred of philosophical knowledge he possessed from "e-philosopher.com". It was truly, deeply horrible. I shudder at the memory.
Yeah, I plead guilty to not-positively-supporting-the-Hegel-reading-endeavor. I mean, I admire you for having the stamina to uphold the inclination for so long . . . but many very skilled people have slaved away on his works for the entirety of their lives to no avail, and his last words were something to the effect of "nobody ever understood me". That being the case, since I care for you as a friend and I value your sanity, I still smilingly encourage you to read the Newman again.
:)
AAAAHHHH!
Must...not trust dictionary...defintions?!!
(fumbles beneath desk)
(dammit, where did those emergency pills go?)
Post a Comment