Listen for the words people use when speaking of their religion and you'll understand how that religious lens colors their world.
Red flags:
anything dealing in absolutes:truth, manifestation, revelation, unquestionable, infallible, unchanging
anything pointing to the "power" one gets from God: judgement, Hell, Satan, damnation, conversion
any language that marginalizes others and their god-realization: non-believer, infidel etc.
Coldplay
Third-Eye Blind
(the opposite connotation of red) flags:
love
patience
humility
acceptance
tolerance
Be well.
But it is the heart that only God can see. The heart behind the language is the true love.---Sissy
ReplyDeleteOne of the most prominent philosophers of the 19th Century was G. W. F. Hegel. Discarding an absolute notion of truth, he saw today’s “truth” merely as a passing “bloom” in an evolving process of new “blooms”. Ideas and truth advance, he believed, only as ideas come into conflict. This occurs when a counter idea (the antithesis) arises to challenge the status quo (the thesis). It was this “conflict” or “crisis” which brought about the “higher idea” (the synthesis).
ReplyDeleteMarx and Darwin applied this notion to the social and biological realm. Marx and Communism stood on a pillar of revolution. The “higher social order” could only arise from the “crisis” of conflict—the proletariat arising to battle the bourgeoisie. Darwin and Neo-Darwinian theory see the higher biological order arising only from a life and death struggle—as favorably mutated forms win the battle for survival over the less fortunate ones.
I hear many Christians propagate a form of this “Hegelian” thought by stating: “Well, you know that real growth only comes out of a crisis.”
I challenge that.---From thetruthproject.com
To the first comment I would reply that the words betray, or reveal depending on your point of view, the true heart. My original point exactly. Oppression, marginalization, or disrespect, even when done with a (misguided) eye on the truth or with "love," is not godly, but is a typical, highly "non-special" manifestation of humanity.
ReplyDeleteOf the Hegel discussion, I've made no secret of my contempt for the Focus on the Family cartel. The author of the blog you've quoted is Del Tackett who, as a carrier of a Doctoral degree (even from a non-accredited institution) should know better than to throw out Hegel references to any audience without appropriate citations to direct his readers to the original sources which confirm his understanding. Perhaps he is arrogant in the knowledge of his audiences penchant for accepting whatever FOTF tells them. This same arrogance broke the Roman Catholic church's dominance of Europe in the Middle Ages and did much to usher in the Reformation.
For a better understanding of Hegel I'd refer you to the online bibliography at http://www.hegel.org/links.html, or a beginner's book on Hegel such as http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Hegel-Beginners-Lloyd-Spencer/dp/1874166447/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260930909&sr=8-1.
My understanding of Hegel's Dialectic was not that the "only" source of growth was from crisis, as Tackett says, but that greater understanding comes out of dialogue. (Dictionary.com gives the etymology of dialectic as originating in the Greek "dialektik" or the art of argumentation.) The concept rests on the idea that, however disparate the understandings, the parties to the discussion share sufficient words, definitions and points of reference to be able to fully explain their distinct interpretations. The goal is not necessarily victory in argument, but an on-going interplay whereby new insights are gained by all, and the collective understanding benefits. I believe this should be readily accessible in any Hegel primer, or on Wikipedia as a last-resort.
So, Tackett irresponsibly references Hegel without any proof of his statements; we're supposed to take him at his word as a man of God. That's not ever good enough for me. I try hard only to ask that none of us let others do our research for us. Read, understand, cross-reference. Do not take my or anyone else's word for it. Whatever conclusion at which you arrive from your own primary sources...well, we can always apply the Hegel Dialectic and see what insights can be gained.
Tackett goes on to briefly demonize Marx and Communism. It should be noted that Leninism and Stalinism are distinctly different from Marxism, and certainly are perversions of the Communist Manifesto. Lenin and Stalin, Pol Pot in Viet Nam, Mao in China, and countless others are a testament to the human weakness for power, not to the failure of Marxism. Evangelical Christians love to hate Communism, calling it anti-Christian because, as a proponent of a classless society, Communism gives no special credence to any understanding of God. Of course, from an evangelical point of view, any philosophy that does not extoll the virtues of Christianity/Islam (both are evangelical religions) to the detriment of other religions is evil.
To wrap up, back on Tackett and FOTF; as one who does not accept with infallibility the truths of the Bible, the admonitions of scripture that God calls all paths and things into coincidence does not carry as much weight with me as it would a Biblical literalist.
Finally, regarding Hegel, I think there are a few readers of this blog who are well-versed on Hegel. We'll see if they join in.
That was me, not Megan. Stupid computer.
ReplyDeleteTHanks, I'll check that link out! For sure, not to believe all, but think all!--Sissy
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that sounded more like Megan.
ReplyDeleteSlavoj Zizek has some really good readings of Hegel--mainly, I think, because he reads him through Lacan (and vice versa) which is always a pretty neat trick.
I won't even bother trying to 'splain it--it makes my brain ache.
Anyway, for the best brain ache, and the book in which Zizek outlines his main Hegelian/Lacanian dialectic, see "The Ideology of the Sublime."
His newest book is called "The Parallax View"--also good.
Keep it up, Tobias.