Konsep dan Relasi Person dan Kehendak Bebas
Ada aneka pandangan terhadap person ini. Dalam tataran sejarah perkembangan filsafat terutama dalam perspektif metafisik person diartikan sebagai kesatuan substansial dari tubuh dan jiwa, sebagai dimensi psiko-fisik, sebagai dimensi ontologisnya. Dalam hal ini tubuh dilihat sebagai ekspresi derajad kemanusiaan, berhargam dan bernilai, tidak pernah menjadi atau direduksi ke dalam nilai pasar yang dapat diperjualbelikan. Asumsi yang demikian bertitik tolak dari pandangan bahwa person secara total dan esensial identik dengan tubuhnya. Akan tetapi ada anggapan bahwa tubuh itu juga merupakan materi, kuburan dan penjara bagi sesuatu yang tidak dapat mati. Tetapi dalam pandangan modern, tubuh adalah prinsip material dari individuasi dan dilihat dalam kerangka fungsi instrumentalnya. Manusia lantas tidak menjadi tubuh tetapi menjadi objek harta milik.
Pengertian Hegel terhadap person dan seluruh penjelasannya rupanya merupakan sontoh paham modern tetang pribadi itu sendiri. Ia misalnya mendefinisikan kepribadian sebagai kapasitas untuk membuat suatu abstraksi dari semua penentuan dan kondisi-kondisi yang mempengaruhi pemikiran sebagaimana adanya yang terjadi pada kehendak. Tubuh dalam hal ini dilihat sebagai kondisi eksternal. Selanjutnya person dapat dan harus memiliki tubuhnya sendiri. Oleh karena itu direduksikan ke dalam eksistensi fenomenal. Tubuh lalu menjadi milik person, adalah cermin dan instrument aktivitas kebebasannya. Person kemudian menjadi tuan bagi dirinya.
Pada level roh subjektif, adanya person didahului oleh jiwa, oleh kesadaran atau kesadaran diri, dan pada akhirnya adalah moment kehendak bebas. Pada tingkat roh objektif, relasi antara person dengan tubuhyna diletakkkan dalam dialektika kemajuan yang menunjukkan bagaimana person dalam aktivitasnya secara konstant dan perlu dibatasi pada bidang alamiah sebagaimana itu berbeda dari bentuk-bentuk hidup sosial dan politis. Dalam bidang hukum tubuh itu perlu secara “artifisial” dikaitkan dengan suatu tindakan partikular kehendak yang ditempatkan dalam konteks pengakuan hukum. Pada level ini, person tidak dapat mengabstrasikan dari level alamiah dan presuposisi fisik. Tubuh mesti diakui sebagai sesuatu yang konstitutif bagi kepribadian yang bebas. Konsep person merupakan tempat lahir bagi subjektivitas, kebebasan abstrak dan dilihat sebagai kapasitas tertinggi dari semua abstraksi semua isi bahkan dari apa yang adalah milik kita. Hegel lantas berpendapat bahwa idea kebebasan perlu direalisasi ke dalam dunia objektif. Dalam hal ini tubuh kemudian menjadi yang paling pertama dan segera merupakan alasan subjektif tentang dunia objektif. Pada sisi lain tubuh adalah mediasi dan merupakan unsur pembangun dari kondisi intersubjektif. Dengan demikian tubuh person dilihat sebagai “being-for-other” dari kepribadian. Hal ini mewakili aneka proposisi “pengakuan”.
Daram Philosophy of Right tubuh diletakkan dalam kaitannya dengan kepribadian. Meskipun secara logis person mengatasi tubuh, hal tersebut hanyalah suatu identifikasi antara person dan tubuh yang membenarkan dialektika dari roh objektif. Pada tataran ini, tubuh diletakkan sejajar dengan person dan karena itu menjaminnya pada suatu tingkat status ontologis yang mengatasi semua hal alamiah. Yang alamiah sebagaimana penentuan-penentuan alamiah tubuh adalah apa yang meletakkan kemungkinan membatasi tindakan bebas person sebagai subjek “hukum” dan meletakkan dasar relasi intersubjektif antara person-person. Hasil gerakan logis ini adalah perwakilan dari tubuh sebagai objek kepemilikan atau menjadi person dan kemudia adalah subjek hukum itu sendiri. Berangkat dari sinilah, Hegel kemudian menjelaskan transisi dari kepemilikan kepada kontrak. Klaim bahwa person itu memiliki tubuh dalam harta milik mengantar seseorang kepada pengakuan bahwa tubuh adalah subjek hukum. Hal ini secara mutual berada dalam konteks kontrak. Sebab di dalam kontrak inilah masing-masing person saling menghargai.
Konsep filsafat hukum juga berkaitan dengan person. Problem dari filsafat hukum berhubungan dengan tema subjektifitas yang dapat berkembang dalam bentuk-bentuk berbeda dan figur-figur aktualitas roh. Di sini pengertian kehendak menjadi penting. Hegel, dalam uraian awalnya pada konsep roh subjektif menerangkan momen terakhir dari roh subjektif adalah kehendak bebas. Akan tetapi pada momen ini, kehendak tidak sungguh-sungguh bebas di dalam subjek yang terbatas karena kebebasa adalh aktualisasi diri dan perwujudan diri dari konsep dalam element eksistensi. Oleh karena itu, agar berada dalam kebebasan objetifnya, kehendak mesti mengambil bentuk sukesifnya. Moment pertama adalah person. Hegel menerangkan pula pemikirnanya untuk mengidetifikasi person itu. ada dua metode yang ditawarkannya. Pertama, karena filsafat pengetahuan tentang hukum memiliki idea tetang hukum sebagai objek, metode tersebut harus mengikuti perkembangan momen dari penentuan “konsep hukum” dan aktualisasinya. Kedua, penjelasan filsafat mesti menghadirkan figur konkret yang setiap waktu berkoresponden dengan moment-moment berbeda dari konsep yang adalah universalitas, partikularitas, dan individualitas. Hegel mengidentifikasi permulaan pengetahuan hukum dengan tugas pengembangan struktur-struktur kehendak menurut tiga moment konsep. Sekarang konsep kehendak adalah kebebasan. Kebebasan adalah substansi kehendak. Kehendak ditentukan oleh kebebasan utuk menemukan suatu Dasein dalam mana ia mewujudkan dirinya. Kehendak bebas ini merupakan bentuk pertama dari kebebasan yang mengaktualkan dirinya. Dalam konteks Abstract Right, kehendak bebas adalah moment pertama dari konsep-konsep momen individualitasnya. Dalam partikularitasnya, kehendak diperhitungkan ke depan dengan segera memberi dunia pertama dari kebebasan yang aktual di mana ia menyatakan tujuan dan maksud-maksudnya. Person merupakan idea yang secara total menentukan kondisi-kondisi empiris.
Langkah pertama untuk mengenal bahwa dalam bidang hukum kehendak bebas memiliki eksistensi dalam figus yuridis person. Langkah lainnga adalah dalam dan melalui diriyna sebagai milik dirinya. Relasi ini justru adalah dasar bagi konsep kepemilikan. Konsep person oleh Hegel merupakan perintah hukum (par 36) ini dikatakan Hegel dalam dua klausa yakni pertama jadilah pribadimu sendiri. Hal ini diarahkan kepada masing-masing individu yang bebas. Kedua adalah hormatilah yang lain sebagai person. Yang dimaksudkan Hegel untuk setiap pribadi sebagai person. Yang dimaksud oleh Hegel di sini adalah pentingnya relasi dengan person lain dengan cara “being-for-other” yakni melalui dirinya dan objek kepemilikan. Di sini Hegel mengutip konsep Kant tentang kategori imperatif dalam bidang hukum. Agar dapat dimengerti dua bidang perintah itu, person “harus” menyediakan bagi dirinya suatu “bagian eksternal” dari kebebasannya. Ini akan mendapat bentuknya dalam dasein. Karena inisial keabstrakkannya, dasein dikualifikasikan sebagai “eksternal” untuk kehendak bebas dan oleh karena itu, dapat dipisahkan dan berbeda darinya (par.41). “bidang kebebasan” yang adalah hasil eksteriorisasinya adalah penentuan “kepemilikan”. Person bagi Hegel adalah pemilik harta mulik itu. Kepemiliknan, bagi Hegel, lantas merupakan suatu yang esensial bagi status yuridis dari person; bahwa seorang person tidak memiliki harta milik adalah suatu yang contradictio in adjecto. Eksterioritas itu tmapak dalam barang-barang atau hal-hal yang menjadi kekayaan person agar ia menjadi benar-benar bebas sebagai person. Eksistensi ini kemudian dapat menjadi “yang lain” yang tunggal. “Lain” di sini menjadi mungkin karena pemisahan dari dirinya. Dalam hal ini, Hegel memaksudkan suatu alienasi pribadi seseorang atau person terhadap harta miliknya.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Modern Philosophy | Konsep dan Relasi antara Kebebasan, Person dan Kepemilikan Menurut Hegel (2)
Modern Philosophy | Konsep dan Relasi antara Kebebasan, Person dan Kepemilikan Menurut Hegel (1)
Pemikiran Hegel yang tertuang dalam karyanya Philosophy of Right merupakan pintu masuk ke dalam pemikirannya tentang filsafat politik. Di dalamnya Hegel membahas tema-tema pemikiran politiknya yang meliputi permasalahan tentang hukum, moralitas dan kesusilaan. Di dalam tema kesusilaan, ia membahas pula dialektika yang terjadi di dlaam keluarga, masyarakat dan negara. Berkaitan dengan ini, salah satu yang menjadi pokok pembicaraannya dalam hukum abstrak adalah konsepnya tentang hak milik atau kepemilikan. Bagaimana kepemilikan itu berkaitan dengan kehendak, kebebasan dan hukum yang merupakan persoalan yang tidak bisa lepas dari pemikirannya. Justifikasi kepemilikan ini ternyata juga berhubungan dengan konsep tentang person dan kepribadian. Tulisan berikut ini akan memaparkan justifikasi Hegel terhadap kepemilikan itu.
Kerangka utama sistem filsafat Hegel
Kerangka filsafat Hegel dikategorikan ke
dalam tiga bagian berikut ini. Pertama yakni filsafat logika, kedua yakni filsafat alam dan filsafat roh. Ketiganya merupakan momen-momen dalam keseluruhan proses perjalanan roh/ide/kehendak menuju pada kepenuhan dan kesadarannya yang absolut. Untuk mencapai pada kesadaran diri yang sepenuhnya, roh tersebut niscaya perlu mengejawantahkan dirinya secara dialektis dalam berbagai realitas material. Tema filsafat politik merupakan momen dalam tahap perkembangan filsafat roh, tepatnya dalam tahap perkembangan roh objektif. Perkembangan roh objetktif ini terjadi dalam tiga tahap pula yakni hukum abstrak, moralitas dan kesusilaan. Roh/ide/kehendak yang berkembang itu akan mencapai kepenuhannya dalam tahap kesusilaan, yang mana di dalam tahap ini, roh akan melalui tiga fase perkembangan yakni keluarga, masyarakat sipil dan negara. Dalam negara inilah rasionalitas dan kebebasan inidividu menjadi mungkin dan tercapai; dalam negara pula, kebebasan individu menyatu dengan totalitas kebebasan yang absolut.
Hal yang tidak terpisahkan dari penjelasan dan uraian Hegel tentang kepemilikan tidak terlepas dari konsepnya tentang kehendak bebas. Hampir seluruh filsafatnya bertitik tolak atau berdasarkan paham kebebasan ini. Dari sinilah ia merumuskan filsafatnya sebagai sejarah ynag berkembang ke arah kemerdekaan. Hal ini bagi Hegel tampak dalam tradisi Kristiani yang terjadi dalam komunitas jemaat perdana. Di dalam komunitas ini, paham subjektifitas itu sangat diperhatikan dan dijunjung tinggi. Manusia, dalam konsep ini dipandang sebagai persona yang bebas. Paham manusia yang bebas ini pula berkembang dan kemudian diteruskan dalam kenyataan sosial. Kenyataan tersebut bagi Hegel ditemukan dan tampak dalam revolusi Perancis yang dibawa oleh Napoleon Bonaparte.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism
While it might seem odd at first to include atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism in a series on religion, these three systems of thought should be addressed here. Religion is sometimes defined as whatever about which a man is deeply concerned,1 and it is to such concerns that we now turn. Everyone, even the nontheist, attempts to make sense of and explain the reality around him While those who believe in some form of God attribute this world's existence in some way to that God (or gods); the atheist, agnostic, and skeptic form an alternative naturalistic explanation for this world.
Since our space is limited, we usually will refer to the three views as one, recognizing the great overlap among them. Where their distinctions are important we will point them out. After defining the three terms we will review briefly the history of the nontheistic (apart from God) movement. Then we will discuss five kinds of objections which represent most of the arguments brought by nonbelievers against a belief in God. These five objections include problems in the areas of language, knowledge, moral concepts, scientific method, and logic. Since this is to be a survey of nontheistic religions, and not a presentation of Christianity, we will not present systematic proofs for the existence of God, but we will present short theistic resolutions to the five problems mentioned. We have included the names of the major philosophers whose writings would be helpful in understanding these areas of belief.
Definitions
Atheism
The word atheism comes from the Greek prefix a (no or non-) and the noun theos (god or God). An atheist is one who believes that there exists positive evidence that there is no God. To the atheist, all of existence can be explained naturally rather than supernaturally. An atheist is convinced that all religious belief, evidence, and faith are false.
Popular authors and philosophy professors William and Mabel Sahakian explain it as follows:
Unlike Agnostics, the Atheist takes a definite stand, arguing that proof regarding God's existence or nonexistence is available, but that the evidence favors the assumption of nonexistence (William and Mabel Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966, p. 100).
Bishop Charles Gore summarizes atheistic belief as presupposing
that we see in the world of which we form a part no signs of anything corresponding to the mind or spirit or purposes which indisputably exist in man – no signs of a universal spirit or reason with which we can hold communion, nothing but blind and unconscious force (Charles Gore, The Reconstruction of Belief, London: John Murray, 1926, pp. 45,46).
Historically, atheism sometimes refers to a rejection of only particular gods or a particular God. Hans Schwarz informs us that :
When the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, for instance, declared that the sun was an incandescent stone somewhat larger than the Peloponesus, he was accused of impiety or atheism and forced to leave his hometown Athens (Hans Schwarz, The Search for God, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1975, p. 16).
Plato in his Laws X (c. 352-350 B C ) defined two basic kinds of atheists: those who are sincerely convinced God (or gods) does not exist; and those who assert that there is no place for God (or gods) in this world. The first kind of atheist is considered moral and upright while the second kind is seen as an anarchistic (without law) threat to society.2 Socrates may have been put to death for being this second kind of atheist. Again, Schwarz notes,
...when Socrates was indicted for "impiety" in 399 B.C. on grounds that he had corrupted the young and neglected the gods during worship ceremonies ordered by the city and had introduced religious novelties, he was sentenced to death and was condemned to drink the hemlock within twenty-four hours. But Socrates' position and that of other atheists was far from being atheistic in the modern sense (ibid., p. 17).
Agnosticism
Agnosticism comes from the Greek prefix a- (no or non-) and the noun gnosis (knowledge, usually by experience). An agnostic is one who believes there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God or gods. Agnostics criticize the theist and the atheist for their dogmatism and their presumption of such knowledge.
William and Mabel Sahakian say that agnosticism "refers to a neutralist view on the question of the existence of God; it is the view of the person who elects to remain in a state of suspended judgment" (Sahakian and Sahakian, Ideas, p. 100}.
The Runes Dictionary of Phi1osophy defines agnosticism as:
l. (epist.} that theory of knowledge which asserts that it is impossible for man to attain knowledge of a certain subject-matter. 2. (theol.) that theory of religious knowledge which asserts that it is impossible for man to attain knowledge of God (Dagobert D. Runes, ed, Dictionary of Philosophy, Totowa, NJ. Littlefield, Adams 8. Company, 1960, 1962, p.&).
This is complemented by Peter Angeles' Dictionary of Phi1osophy, which defines agnosticism as:
1. The belief (a) that we cannot have knowledge of God and (b) that it is impossible to prove that God exists or does not exist. 2. Sometimes used to refer to the suspension of judgment ..about some types of knowledge such as about the soul, immortality, spirits, heaven, hell, extraterrestrial life (Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, New York: Harper S Row, Publishers, 1981, p. 20).
There are two types of agnostics. One type says there is insufficient evidence but leaves open the possibility of sometime obtaining enough evidence to know with certainty. The second type is convinced that it is objectively impossible for anyone to ever know with certainty the existence or non-existence of God or gods.
William and Mabel Sahakian add this distinction to their definition of agnosticism (see above):
One group of Agnostics assumes that it merely lacks the facts necessary to form a judgment and defers any conclusion pending the acquisition of such facts; another group assumes a more dogmatic position, contending that facts are not available because it is impossible now (and will continue to be impossible) to obtain these facts – a view exemplified in Immanuel Kant's attacks upon the traditional arguments for the existence of God (Sahakian and Sahakian, Ideas, p. 100)
Christian authors Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg also point out the distinction between the two kinds of agnostics:
One form of agnosticism claims that we do not know if God exists; the other insists that we cannot know. The first we'll call "soft" and the second "hard" agnosticism We are not here concerned about "soft" agnosticism, since it does not eliminate in principle the possibility of knowing whether God exists. It says in effect, "I do not know whether God exists but it is not impossible to know. I simply do not have enough evidence to make a rational decision on the question." We turn, then, to the "hard" form which claims that it is impossible to know whether God exists (Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 296)
Skepticism
Skepticism is derived from the Latin scepticus (inquiring, reflective, doubting). The Latin in turn comes from the Greek scepsis (inquiry, hesitation, doubt). The Greeks used the word to refer to a certain school of philosophical thought, the Skeptics3 (see History below), who taught that because real knowledge is unattainable, one should suspend judgment on matters of truth. This meaning is carried in Runes' Dictionary of Phi1osophy:
A proposition about a method of obtaining knowledge: that every hypothesis should be subjected to continual testing; that the only or the best or a reliable method of obtaining the knowledge of one or more of the above kinds is to doubt until something indubitable or as nearly indubitable as possible is found; that wherever evidence is indecisive, judgment should be suspended; that knowledge of all or certain kinds at some point rests on unproved postulates or assumptions (Runes, Philosophy, p. 278).
This is confirmed by B. A. G. Fuller's A History of Philosophy, where he reminds us that the "role of skepticism is to remind men that knowing with absolute certainty is impossible" (B. A G. Fuller, A History of Philosophy, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955, vol. II, p. 581).
Peter Angeles shows in his definition of skepticism that there is a range of belief within the system He writes that skepticism is:
l. A state of doubting. 2. A state of suspension of judgment. 3. A state of unbelief or nonbelief. Skepticism ranges from complete, total disbelief in everything, to a tentative doubt in a process of reaching certainty [Angeles, Philosophy, p. 258).
While skepticism is sometimes synonymous with certain definitions of agnosticism, other writers distinguish between skepticism and agnosticism as does Warren Young, who writes:
Skepticism carries the negative attitude a step farther than agnosticism, denying the possibility of human knowledge. Truth in an objective sense is unattainable by any means within man's reach (Warren Young, A Christian Approach to Philosophy, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954, p.61)
Keeping in mind Geisler and Feinberg's two kinds of agnosticism (see above under the definition of agnosticism), their comments on the differences between agnosticism and skepticism are important. They write,
The skeptic neither affirms nor denies God's existence. And in contrast to the (hard) agnostic, the skeptic does not say it is impossible to know. For (hard} agnosticism too is a form of dogmatism – negative dogmatism The skeptic claims to take a much more tentative attitude toward knowledge. He is not sure whether a man can or cannot know God. In fact, the complete skeptic is not sure of anything (Geisler and Fein-berg, Philosophy, p. 299).
Because of the overlap of definitions for atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, it is at times difficult and even unnecessary to distinguish one's usage of the terms. What is most important to remember is that most nonreligious people, while they may label themselves with one of the three terms, usually have no clear understanding of how their own views fit one category but not the others. A person may be regarded as an atheist but, in actual practice, fall under the common definition of an agnostic. Another person may be regarded as a skeptic but admit to the possibility of change to accept some universal truths. If someone questions everything, the title "skeptic" can be applied. But since certainty might be found someday it would be appropriate to be seen as an agnostic. However, if at this time that person does not believe in God, is "atheist" the proper term'. While the three terms are useful to us (as in reading other philosophy works), the terms are relatively unimportant in most personal encounters. If we can establish what someone believes about knowledge, about obtaining knowledge, and about the ultimate meaning of existence, then we can deal with that person on the level at which he is comfortable. In such a situation, the label of atheist, agnostic, or skeptic is unimportant.
History
As we look at brief histories of atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism, we will reverse our order of discussion to reflect the chronological development of these three areas of philosophical thought. There have been skeptics, atheists, and agnostics throughout the history of mankind, and we will treat skepticism first, then atheism, and finally agnosticism
Skepticism
The Greek schools of Skepticism began around 365 B.C. The first skeptic philosopher of note was Pyrrho of Elis (365-275 B.C.). The Pyrrhonic School held that skepticism was so pervasive that even their theory of skepticism was not certain. Skepticism was adopted as a way to avoid mental and emotional distress caused by conflicting data.
... the central idea of the early Skeptics was to avoid mental insecurity or doubt by abstaining from judgment on issues; suspension of judgment (epoche) became the fundamental theory of Skepticism. The policy of withholding judgment applied not only to metaphysical and logical questions, but also to value judgments pertaining to right conduct, the good, and the desirable....
The Skeptics, who were called the doubters, suspenders of judgment, and inquirers, based their philosophy on the premise that since we can know nothing of ultimate reality, then such basic things are matters of indifference to us, and they must be treated as inconsequential (William Sahakian, History of Philosophy, New York: Harper 8. Row, Publishers, 1968, pp. 48,49).
A second school of Skepticism is called Academic Skepticism, or the Middle Academy. Its leaders were Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolia (315-241 B.C ), Carneades of Cyrene (214-129 B.C.), and Clitomachus (187-109 B.C.). The basic premise of Academic Skepticism is summarized well by Sahakian:
The Academic Skeptics set forth the fundamental premise that they could know only one thing, namely, that nothing is knowable (ibid., pp. 49,50).
The Academics spent most of their efforts attacking the teachings of the Stoics,4 and their presentation of Skepticism was often done in direct contrast to Stoicism. Arcesilaus stated that, while one could not know, even about ethics, one could judge probability and that, in fact, one should order his life by probability. He was followed by Carneades, who postulated three degrees of probability.
l. In the first place, we have mere probability, where we act with little or no observation of similar situations to help us, and where the chances therefore are about fifty-fifty, but seem worth taking in view of what we shall gain if we win.
2. Secondly, we have undisputed probability, where empirical observation shows us that other people have repeatedly taken the same chances successfully and to their advantage, and have never lost. Here the face-value of the probable truth and reliability of an impression is backed up by all the other impressions and notions related to it.
3. Finally, we may be able to act upon chances that not only look worth taking on a fifty-fifty basis and are uncontradicted and backed up by the experiences of other people, but have been thoroughly investigated and found to have solid reasons for taking them. In other words, we may be able to discover a "system" for life's gamble that mathematically, so to speak, ought to work. Then, says Carneades, we have a basis for action that is probable, undisputed, and tested (Fuller, Philosophy, pp. 277,278}.
Clitomachus (sometimes spelled Cleitomachus) was the third leader. He attacked the three degrees of probability, opting for a more uniform system of Skepticism
Sensationalistic Skepticism was the last of the classical schools of Skepticism. Its two most prominent leaders were Aenesidemus of Gnossus (first century B.C.) and Sextus Empiricus (200 A.D.). Aenesidemus exposed what he felt were fallacious tests for truth: sensation and confirmed opinion. He felt that these were subjective tests and could not be trusted. However, he had no objective tests for truth and instead was a confirmed skeptic, viewing life and existence as uncertain but livable on the basis of custom and probability. Sextus Empiricus was a doctor, from the empiricist school of doctors, and he put forth the maxim that life should be ordered by observation, or empiricism. Loyal to skepticism, Sextus promoted the study of Socrates' remark, "All that I know is that I know nothing." Sextus set forth his skepticism as follows:
The arche, or motive, for skepticism was the hope of reaching ataraxia, the state of "unperturbedness." .. Sextus Empiricus' skepticism had three stages: antithesis, epode (suspension of judgment), and ataraxia. The first stage involved a presentation of contradictory claims about the same subject. These claims were so constructed that they were in opposition to one another, and appeared equally probable or improbable.... The second state is epode, or the suspension of judgment. Instead of either asserting or denying any one claim about the subject at hand, one must embrace all mutually inconsistent claims and withhold judgment on each of them The final stage is ataraxia, a state of unperturbedness, happiness, and peace of mind. When that occurs one is freed from dogmatism. He can live peacefully and un-dogmatically in the world, following his natural inclinations and the laws or customs of society (Geisler and Feinberg, Philosophy, pp. 85, 86).
Skepticism died out for the most part during the ascendancy of Christianity. It did not become a noticeable philosophical movement again until the post-Reformation period of western European thought with Bishop John Wilkins (1614-1672) and Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680). They are sometimes called "mitigated skeptics." While clinging tenaciously to one area of skepticism, they compromised by not embracing skepticism as the answer to all knowledge problems in all fields. They distinguished between two types of knowledge. The first type, which they agreed was unreliable, was called "in-fallibly certain knowledge." Nothing, in other words, could be known infallibly and certainly. However, the second type of knowledge, by which one could order life, was called "indubitably certain knowledge." This was knowledge that one had no reason, experience, evidence, or report by which to doubt its veracity. Using this knowledge, Wilkins and Glanvill developed their own system of determining truth within the limits of "reasonable doubt."
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) wrote at the same time as Wilkins and Glanvill, although he is not considered to be a "mitigated skeptic." As a Christian theist, he used skepticism as a tool to prove the existence of God. Rather than seeing skepticism as an end in itself, he saw it as the way to begin to show the undeniability of the existence of God.
For Descartes, skepticism was not the conclusion of some argument, but the method whereby all doubt could be overcome. Descartes claimed that it is possible to arrive at indubitable knowledge through the rigorous and systematic application of doubt to one's beliefs (ibid., p. 91) .
From the time of Descartes, the majority of such thinkers have been atheists or agnostics. We will treat some of these skeptical thinkers more thoroughly in the historical sections on atheism and agnosticism. However, we will mention them briefly here.
David Hume (1711-1776) is known as a metaphysical5 skeptic. He believed that it was impossible to have any accurate knowledge about anything metaphysical. He pointed out that standards of probability for beliefs go beyond our immediate experience and must be accepted with some measure of faith.
Nicholas Horvath in his book, Philosophy, explains that: Hume claimed that only sense-knowledge based on experience is possible. Ideas are mere copies of sense impressions. Impressions and ideas constitute the human intellect. Ideas are not entirely unconnected; there is a bond of union between them and one calls up another. This phenomenon is called association of ideas.
Neither material nor spiritual substances exist in reality; their ideas are purely imaginative concepts, being nothing other than a constant association of impressions. Likewise there is nothing in man's experience that justifies a notion of necessary connection or causation; cause and effect designate merely a regular succession of ideas. Since the principle of causality is mere expectation due to custom, no facts outside consciousness are known to man.
Granted the negation of substance, the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul are only hypothetical. Freedom of will is an illusion; virtue is that which pleases, and vice is that which displeases (Nicholas A. Horvath, Phi1osophy, Woodbury, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1974, pp. 88,89).
More recently, A. J. Ayer (1910-1970), a limited skeptic, taught that any talk about metaphysics is meaningless. In addition, Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important of all the so-called "irrational" skeptics, asserted that there is no meaning, no knowledge that is objectively true, and no objective value. The entire history of skepticism has the same basic theme. It suspends judgment about truth. At various times skeptics have said that even their statement of skepticism is doubtful. At other times they have said that the one non-skeptical statement is the same statement, that skepticism is doubtful.
Atheism
Although the term atheism as a reference to the belief that God (or gods) does (do) not exist dates from the late sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli (d 1527) had already promoted a social ethic which did not depend on belief in, or the existence of, a supreme God. In his satirical essay, The Prince, he taught that the ruler ought to rule wisely and justly in order to secure his position and to satisfy his ego, rather than to satisfy some divine mandate. Machiavelli was one of the first to champion the then novel idea that "the end justifies the means." He argued that a ruler should not burden his subjects too much, not because it would be morally wrong to do so, but because it would not be expedient, for his oppressed subjects would then be more likely to revolt, depose him, and perhaps even kill him for his cruelty. Although Machiavelli cannot be termed an actual atheist, his system for successful governorship does not depend on, or presuppose, any divine order to this world.
Ideas from many philosophers, not all of whom were actually atheists, helped shape the atheistic philosophy of today.
During the enlightenment of the eighteenth century, Baron P H. T. d'Holbach referred to an atheist as
a man who destroys the dreams and chimerical beings that are dangerous to the human race so that men can be brought back to nature, to experience, and to reason (Enclyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, et. al. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1978, Macropaedia, II, p. 2,59).
As a brief and circumscribed overview of the history of atheism, we will review some of the contributions to modern atheism made by Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, Nietzsche, Jaspers, and Sartre. Ideas from philosophers such as Bayle, Spinoza, Fichte, and Hume, although not mentioned here, also contributed to the development of modern atheistic thought.
Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) was the man whose writings became an inspiration for the modern atheistic movement. He was one of the first prominent philosophers to advance the idea that God6 was dependent upon the world at least as much as the world was dependent upon God. He said that without the world God is not God. In some way, God needed His creation. This was the first step in saying that, since God was not sufficient in Himself, He was then unnecessary and ultimately imaginary.
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) was an early prominent atheistic philosopher. He denied all supernaturalism and attributed all talk about God to talk about nature. Man, he said, is dependent not on God, but on nature. Feuerbach promoted what is sometimes referred to as the wish-fulfillment idea of God He postulated that the idea of God arose as a result of men desiring to have some sort of supernatural Being as an explanation for their own existence and the events they observed around them This wish, or desire, was the seed from which the God-myth grew. Feuerbach thought this hypothesis proved that God actually did not exist.
Hegel and Feuerbach strongly influenced Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his collaborator, Frederich Engels (1820-1895). Marx, an avowed atheist, preached that religion is the opiate of the people and the enemy of all progress. Part of the task of the great proletariat revolution is the destruction of all religion.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was an early contemporary of Marx and Engels. He believed that God was an irrelevant superstition. As a result, Comte divided human development into three main stages:
"the Theological, or fictitious," "the Metaphysical, or ab-stract" and the Scientific, or positive." In the first the human mind looks for first causes and "supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings." The second is a transitional stage where the mind searches for "abstract forces" behind phenomena. But in the third and ultimate stage man's mind applies itself to the scientific study of the laws according to which things work. God and the supernatural are left behind as irrelevant superstition (Colin Brown, Phi1osophy and the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 241, 142).
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is often called the Father of the Death of God School. He laid the cornerstone for later nihilists by teaching that since God does not exist, man must devise his own way of life.
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1971} were two prominent existentialist thinkers who discussed the ambiguous (and therefore meaningless) nature of religious transcendence. In addition, Heidegger stressed that one's salvation lay in his own independence as an individual separated from every other individual, including, of course, any sort of God.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1981} was the most popular proponent of existentialism. He argued that man not only creates his own destiny, but that each man has only himself as the sole justification for his existence. There is no ultimate, objective, eternal meaning to life. An individual simply exists without reference to others.
A good example of atheistic perspective is contained in the Humanist Manifesto (1933). It was composed and signed by leading secular humanists who declared, in part, that "Humanism is faith in the supreme value and selfperfectability of human personality " Although there have been many other important thinkers in the history of atheism, these are representative of the most influential contributors shaping modern atheistic thought. Other modern atheistic thinkers are discussed in some of the references mentioned in the bibliography.
Agnosticism
Although agnosticism is a very broad field, we have chosen to limit our historical discussion of it to three of the most influential philosophers in its recent expressions. As we stated before, there is some overlap among atheism, agnosticism and skepticism, and many of the philosophers important in the development of one are also important to the others.
David Hume (1711-1776}, known for promoting metaphysical skepticism, showed the close marriage between skepticism and agnosticism. As a British Empiricist, he declared that the probabilistic standards for beliefs go beyond our immediate experience. We act on faith, then, not on knowledge. We do not know for sure: we are agnostic. However, we still act, having chosen to trust faith while at the same time being prepared for faith to let us down. Belief is not to be confused with ultimate truth, which is unknowable.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), although a theist, developed Hume's skepticism into metaphysical agnosticism. He believed it was impossible to know reality and consequently impossible to know metaphysical reality.
Colin Brown credits T. H. Huxley (1825-1895) with the term agnostic.
The word agnosticism is of much more recent coinage. It is generally ascribed to T. H. Huxley, the Victorian scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, who devised it to describe his own state of mind. He used it, not to deny God altogether, but to express doubt as to whether knowledge could be attained, and to protest ignorance on 'a great many things that the-ists and the-ites about me professed to be familiar with' (ibid., p. 132) .
Hume, Kant and Huxley represent a short history of contemporary agnosticism, which is distinguished by its assertion that one cannot know. Other prominent agnostics include Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Hegel: Konsep dan Relasi Person dan Kehendak Bebas
Ada aneka pandangan terhadap Hegel. Dalam tataran sejarah perkembangan filsafat terutama dalam perspektif metafisik person diartikan sebagai kesatuan substansial dari tubuh dan jiwa, sebagai dimensi psiko-fisik, sebagai dimensi ontologisnya. Dalam hal ini tubuh dilihat sebagai ekspresi derajad kemanusiaan, berhargam dan bernilai, tidak pernah menjadi atau direduksi ke dalam nilai pasar yang dapat diperjualbelikan. Asumsi yang demikian bertitik tolak dari pandangan bahwa person secara total dan esensial identik dengan tubuhnya. Akan tetapi ada anggapan bahwa tubuh itu juga merupakan materi, kuburan dan penjara bagi sesuatu yang tidak dapat mati. Tetapi dalam pandangan modern, tubuh adalah prinsip material dari individuasi dan dilihat dalam kerangka fungsi instrumentalnya. Manusia lantas tidak menjadi tubuh tetapi menjadi objek harta milik.
Pengertian Hegel terhadap person dan seluruh penjelasannya rupanya merupakan sontoh paham modern tetang pribadi itu sendiri. Ia misalnya mendefinisikan kepribadian sebagai kapasitas untuk membuat suatu abstraksi dari semua penentuan dan kondisi-kondisi yang mempengaruhi pemikiran sebagaimana adanya yang terjadi pada kehendak. Tubuh dalam hal ini dilihat sebagai kondisi eksternal. Selanjutnya person dapat dan harus memiliki tubuhnya sendiri. Oleh karena itu direduksikan ke dalam eksistensi fenomenal. Tubuh lalu menjadi milik person, adalah cermin dan instrument aktivitas kebebasannya. Person kemudian menjadi tuan bagi dirinya.
Pada level roh subjektif, adanya person didahului oleh jiwa, oleh kesadaran atau kesadaran diri, dan pada akhirnya adalah moment kehendak bebas. Pada tingkat roh objektif, relasi antara person dengan tubuhyna diletakkkan dalam dialektika kemajuan yang menunjukkan bagaimana person dalam aktivitasnya secara konstant dan perlu dibatasi pada bidang alamiah sebagaimana itu berbeda dari bentuk-bentuk hidup sosial dan politis. Dalam bidang hukum tubuh itu perlu secara “artifisial” dikaitkan dengan suatu tindakan partikular kehendak yang ditempatkan dalam konteks pengakuan hukum. Pada level ini, person tidak dapat mengabstrasikan dari level alamiah dan presuposisi fisik. Tubuh mesti diakui sebagai sesuatu yang konstitutif bagi kepribadian yang bebas. Konsep person merupakan tempat lahir bagi subjektivitas, kebebasan abstrak dan dilihat sebagai kapasitas tertinggi dari semua abstraksi semua isi bahkan dari apa yang adalah milik kita. Hegel lantas berpendapat bahwa idea kebebasan perlu direalisasi ke dalam dunia objektif. Dalam hal ini tubuh kemudian menjadi yang paling pertama dan segera merupakan alasan subjektif tentang dunia objektif. Pada sisi lain tubuh adalah mediasi dan merupakan unsur pembangun dari kondisi intersubjektif. Dengan demikian tubuh person dilihat sebagai “being-for-other” dari kepribadian. Hal ini mewakili aneka proposisi “pengakuan”.
Daram Philosophy of Right tubuh diletakkan dalam kaitannya dengan kepribadian. Meskipun secara logis person mengatasi tubuh, hal tersebut hanyalah suatu identifikasi antara person dan tubuh yang membenarkan dialektika dari roh objektif.
Pada tataran ini, tubuh diletakkan sejajar dengan person dan karena itu menjaminnya pada suatu tingkat status ontologis yang mengatasi semua hal alamiah. Yang alamiah sebagaimana penentuan-penentuan alamiah tubuh adalah apa yang meletakkan kemungkinan membatasi tindakan bebas person sebagai subjek “hukum” dan meletakkan dasar relasi intersubjektif antara person-person. Hasil gerakan logis ini adalah perwakilan dari tubuh sebagai objek kepemilikan atau menjadi person dan kemudia adalah subjek hukum itu sendiri. Berangkat dari sinilah, Hegel kemudian menjelaskan transisi dari kepemilikan kepada kontrak. Klaim bahwa person itu memiliki tubuh dalam harta milik mengantar seseorang kepada pengakuan bahwa tubuh adalah subjek hukum. Hal ini secara mutual berada dalam konteks kontrak. Sebab di dalam kontrak inilah masing-masing person saling menghargai.
Konsep filsafat hukum juga berkaitan dengan person. Problem dari filsafat hukum berhubungan dengan tema subjektifitas yang dapat berkembang dalam bentuk-bentuk berbeda dan figur-figur aktualitas roh. Di sini pengertian kehendak menjadi penting. Hegel, dalam uraian awalnya pada konsep roh subjektif menerangkan momen terakhir dari roh subjektif adalah kehendak bebas. Akan tetapi pada momen ini, kehendak tidak sungguh-sungguh bebas di dalam subjek yang terbatas karena kebebasa adalh aktualisasi diri dan perwujudan diri dari konsep dalam element eksistensi. Oleh karena itu, agar berada dalam kebebasan objetifnya, kehendak mesti mengambil bentuk sukesifnya. Moment pertama adalah person. Hegel menerangkan pula pemikirnanya untuk mengidetifikasi person itu. ada dua metode yang ditawarkannya. Pertama, karena filsafat pengetahuan tentang hukum memiliki idea tetang hukum sebagai objek, metode tersebut harus mengikuti perkembangan momen dari penentuan “konsep hukum” dan aktualisasinya. Kedua, penjelasan filsafat mesti menghadirkan figur konkret yang setiap waktu berkoresponden dengan moment-moment berbeda dari konsep yang adalah universalitas, partikularitas, dan individualitas. Hegel mengidentifikasi permulaan pengetahuan hukum dengan tugas pengembangan struktur-struktur kehendak menurut tiga moment konsep. Sekarang konsep kehendak adalah kebebasan. Kebebasan adalah substansi kehendak. Kehendak ditentukan oleh kebebasan utuk menemukan suatu Dasein dalam mana ia mewujudkan dirinya. Kehendak bebas ini merupakan bentuk pertama dari kebebasan yang mengaktualkan dirinya. Dalam konteks Abstract Right, kehendak bebas adalah moment pertama dari konsep-konsep momen individualitasnya. Dalam partikularitasnya, kehendak diperhitungkan ke depan dengan segera memberi dunia pertama dari kebebasan yang aktual di mana ia menyatakan tujuan dan maksud-maksudnya. Person merupakan idea yang secara total menentukan kondisi-kondisi empiris.
Langkah pertama untuk mengenal bahwa dalam bidang hukum kehendak bebas memiliki eksistensi dalam figus yuridis person. Langkah lainnga adalah dalam dan melalui diriyna sebagai milik dirinya. Relasi ini justru adalah dasar bagi konsep kepemilikan. Konsep person oleh Hegel merupakan perintah hukum (par 36) ini dikatakan Hegel dalam dua klausa yakni pertama jadilah pribadimu sendiri. Hal ini diarahkan kepada masing-masing individu yang bebas. Kedua adalah hormatilah yang lain sebagai person. Yang dimaksudkan Hegel untuk setiap pribadi sebagai person. Yang dimaksud oleh Hegel di sini adalah pentingnya relasi dengan person lain dengan cara “being-for-other” yakni melalui dirinya dan objek kepemilikan. Di sini Hegel mengutip konsep Kant tentang kategori imperatif dalam bidang hukum. Agar dapat dimengerti dua bidang perintah itu, person “harus” menyediakan bagi dirinya suatu “bagian eksternal” dari kebebasannya. Ini akan mendapat bentuknya dalam dasein. Karena inisial keabstrakkannya, dasein dikualifikasikan sebagai “eksternal” untuk kehendak bebas dan oleh karena itu, dapat dipisahkan dan berbeda darinya (par.41). “bidang kebebasan” yang adalah hasil eksteriorisasinya adalah penentuan “kepemilikan”. Person bagi Hegel adalah pemilik harta milik itu. Kepemiliknan, bagi Hegel, lantas merupakan suatu yang esensial bagi status yuridis dari person; bahwa seorang person tidak memiliki harta milik adalah suatu yang contradictio in adjecto. Eksterioritas itu tmapak dalam barang-barang atau hal-hal yang menjadi kekayaan person agar ia menjadi benar-benar bebas sebagai person. Eksistensi ini kemudian dapat menjadi “yang lain” yang tunggal. “Lain” di sini menjadi mungkin karena pemisahan dari dirinya. Dalam hal ini, Hegel memaksudkan suatu alienasi pribadi seseorang atau person terhadap harta miliknya.
Hegel: Kerangka utama sistem filsafatnya
Kerangka filsafat Hegel dikategorikan ke dalam tiga bagian berikut ini. Pertama yakni filsafat logika, kedua yakni filsafat alam dan filsafat roh. Ketiganya merupakan momen-momen dalam keseluruhan proses perjalanan roh/ide/kehendak menuju pada kepenuhan dan kesadarannya yang absolut. Untuk mencapai pada kesadaran diri yang sepenuhnya, roh tersebut niscaya perlu mengejawantahkan dirinya secara dialektis dalam berbagai realitas material. Tema filsafat politik merupakan momen dalam tahap perkembangan filsafat roh, tepatnya dalam tahap perkembangan roh objektif. Perkembangan roh objektif ini terjadi dalam tiga tahap pula yakni hukum abstrak, moralitas dan kesusilaan. Roh/ide/kehendak yang berkembang itu akan mencapai kepenuhannya dalam tahap kesusilaan, yang mana di dalam tahap ini, roh akan melalui tiga fase perkembangan yakni keluarga, masyarakat sipil dan negara. Dalam negara inilah rasionalitas dan kebebasan inidividu menjadi mungkin dan tercapai; dalam negara pula, kebebasan individu menyatu dengan totalitas kebebasan yang absolut.
Hal yang tidak terpisahkan dari penjelasan dan uraian Hegel tentang kepemilikan tidak terlepas dari konsepnya tentang kehendak bebas. Hampir seluruh filsafatnya bertitik tolak atau berdasarkan paham kebebasan ini. Dari sinilah ia merumuskan filsafatnya sebagai sejarah ynag berkembang ke arah kemerdekaan. Hal ini bagi Hegel tampak dalam tradisi Kristiani yang terjadi dalam komunitas jemaat perdana. Di dalam komunitas ini, paham subjektifitas itu sangat diperhatikan dan dijunjung tinggi. Manusia, dalam konsep ini dipandang sebagai persona yang bebas. Paham manusia yang bebas ini pula berkembang dan kemudian diteruskan dalam kenyataan sosial. Kenyataan tersebut bagi Hegel ditemukan dan tampak dalam revolusi Perancis yang dibawa oleh Napoleon Bonaparte.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Hegel: Influence
At the time of Hegel’s death, he was the most prominent philosopher in Germany. His views were widely taught, and his students were highly regarded. His followers soon divided into right-wing and left-wing Hegelians. Theologically and politically the right-wing Hegelians offered a conservative interpretation of his work. They emphasized the compatibility between Hegel’s philosophy and Christianity. Politically, they were orthodox. The left-wing Hegelians eventually moved to an atheistic position. In politics, many of them became revolutionaries. This historically important left-wing group included Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer (1809–92), Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx. Engels and Marx were particularly influenced by Hegel’s idea that history moves dialectically, but they replaced Hegel’s philosophical idealism with materialism.
Hegel’s metaphysical idealism had a strong impact on 19th-century and early 20th-century British philosophy, notably that of Francis Herbert Bradley, and on such American philosophers as Josiah Royce, and on Italian philosophy through Benedetto Croce. Hegel also influenced EXISTENTIALISM, through the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. PHENOMENOLOGY, has been influenced by Hegel’s ideas on consciousness. The extensive and diverse impact of Hegel’s ideas on subsequent philosophy is evidence of the remarkable range and the extraordinary depth of his thought.
Self-Knowledge of the Absolute, Philosophy of History, Ethics and Politics
Self-Knowledge of the Absolute
The goal of the dialectical cosmic process can be most clearly understood at the level of reason. As finite reason progresses in understanding, the Absolute progresses toward full self-knowledge. Indeed, the Absolute comes to know itself through the human mind’s increased understanding of reality, or the Absolute. Hegel analyzed this human progression in understanding in terms of three levels: art, religion, and philosophy. Art grasps the Absolute in material forms, interpreting the rational through the sensible forms of beauty. Art is conceptually superseded by religion, which grasps the Absolute by means of images and symbols. The highest religion for Hegel is Christianity, for in Christianity the truth that the Absolute manifests itself in the finite is symbolically reflected in the incarnation. Philosophy, however, is conceptually supreme, because it grasps the Absolute rationally. Once this has been achieved, the Absolute has arrived at full self-consciousness, and the cosmic drama reaches its end and goal. Only at this point did Hegel identify the Absolute with God. “God is God,” Hegel argued, “only in so far as he knows himself.”
Philosophy of History
In the process of analyzing the nature of Absolute Spirit, Hegel made significant contributions in a variety of philosophical fields, including the philosophy of history and social ethics. With respect to history, his two key explanatory categories are reason and freedom. “The only Thought,” maintained Hegel, “which Philosophy brings. . . to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the world, that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process.” As a rational process, history is a record of the development of human freedom, for human history is a progression from less freedom to greater freedom.
Ethics and Politics
Hegel’s social and political views emerge most clearly in his discussion of morality (Moralität) and social ethics (Sittlichkeit). At the level of morality, right and wrong is a matter of individual conscience. One must, however, move beyond this to the level of social ethics, for duty, according to Hegel, is not essentially the product of individual judgment. Individuals are complete only in the midst of social relationships; thus, the only context in which duty can truly exist is a social one. Hegel considered membership in the state one of the individual’s highest duties. Ideally, the state is the manifestation of the general will, which is the highest expression of the ethical spirit. Obedience to this general will is the act of a free and rational individual. Hegel emerges as a conservative, but he should not be interpreted as sanctioning totalitarianism, for he also argued that the abridgment of freedom by any actual state is morally unacceptable.
Philosophical Aims-Dialectic
Philosophical Aims
Hegel’s aim was to set forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it would encompass the ideas of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in terms of which both the past and future could be philosophically understood. Such an aim would require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole. This reality, or the total developmental process of everything that is, he referred to as the ABSOLUTE, (q.v.), or Absolute Spirit. According to Hegel, the task of philosophy is to chart the development of Absolute Spirit. This involves (1) making clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute; (2) demonstrating the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and human history; and (3) explicating the teleological nature of the Absolute, that is, showing the end or purpose toward which the Absolute is directed.
Dialectic
Concerning the rational structure of the Absolute, Hegel, following the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, argued that “what is rational is real and what is real is rational.” This must be understood in terms of Hegel’s further claim that the Absolute must ultimately be regarded as pure Thought, or Spirit, or Mind, in the process of self-development (see IDEALISM,). The logic that governs this developmental process is DIALECTIC, (q.v.). The dialectical method involves the notion that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel’s thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Although Hegel tended to avoid these terms, they are helpful in understanding his concept of the dialectic. The thesis, then, might be an idea or a historical movement. Such an idea or movement contains within itself incompleteness that gives rise to opposition, or an antithesis, a conflicting idea or movement. As a result of the conflict a third point of view arises, a synthesis, which overcomes the conflict by reconciling at a higher level the truth contained in both the thesis and antithesis. This synthesis becomes a new thesis that generates another antithesis, giving rise to a new synthesis, and in such a fashion the process of intellectual or historical development is continually generated. Hegel thought that Absolute Spirit itself (which is to say, the sum total of reality) develops in this dialectical fashion toward an ultimate end or goal.
For Hegel, therefore, reality is understood as the Absolute unfolding dialectically in a process of self-development. As the Absolute undergoes this development, it manifests itself both in nature and in human history. Nature is Absolute Thought or Being objectifying itself in material form. Finite minds and human history are the process of the Absolute manifesting itself in that which is most kin to itself, namely, spirit or consciousness. In The Phenomenology of Mind Hegel traced the stages of this manifestation from the simplest level of consciousness, through self-consciousness, to the advent of reason.
Biography
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich HEGEL (1770–1831), German idealist philosopher, who became one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century. Hegel was born in Stuttgart on Aug. 27, 1770, the son of a revenue officer with the civil service. He was brought up in an atmosphere of Protestant PIETISM, (q.v.) and became thoroughly acquainted with the Greek and Roman classics while studying at the Stuttgart gymnasium (preparatory school). Encouraged by his father to become a clergyman, Hegel entered the seminary at the University of Tübingen in 1788. There he developed friendships with the poet Friedrich Hölderlin and the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling. Having completed a course of study in philosophy and theology and having decided not to enter the ministry, Hegel became (1793) a private tutor in Berne, Switzerland. In 1797 he assumed a similar position in Frankfurt. Two years later his father died, leaving a financial legacy that was sufficient to free him from tutoring.
In 1801 Hegel went to the University of Jena, where he studied, wrote, and eventually became a lecturer. At Jena he completed The Phenomenology of Mind (1807; trans. 1910), one of his most important works. He remained at Jena until October 1806, when the city was taken by the French and he was forced to flee. Having exhausted the legacy left him by his father, Hegel became editor of the Bamberger Zeitung in Bavaria. He disliked journalism, however, and moved to Nuremberg, where he served for eight years as headmaster of a gymnasium.
During the Nuremberg years Hegel met and married Marie von Tucher (1791?–1855). Three children were born to the Hegels, a daughter, who died soon after birth, and two sons, Karl (1813–1901) and Immanuel (1814–91). Before his marriage, Hegel had fathered an illegitimate son, Ludwig (1807–31), who eventually came to live with the Hegels. While at Nuremberg, Hegel published over a period of several years The Science of Logic (1812, 1813, 1816; trans. 1929). In 1816 Hegel accepted a professorship in philosophy at the University of Heidelberg. Soon after, he published in summary form a systematic statement of his entire philosophy entitled Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline (1817; trans. 1959). In 1818 Hegel was invited to teach at the University of Berlin, where he was to remain. He died in Berlin on Nov. 14, 1831, during a cholera epidemic.
The last full-length work published by Hegel was The Philosophy of Right (1821; trans. 1896), although several sets of his lecture notes, supplemented by students’ notes, were published after his death. Published lectures include The Philosophy of Fine Art (1835–38; trans. 1920), Lectures on the History of Philosophy (1833–36; trans. 1892–96), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1832; trans. 1895), and Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1837; trans. 1858).
Strongly influenced by Greek ideas, Hegel also read the works of the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the French writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, and the German philosophers Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Schelling. Although he often disagreed with these philosophers, their influence is evident in his writings.
Posts
