Little Known Early Hegel on Christ

From Copleston's History of Philosophy:

I agree with this, generally. What do you all think?

I agree. The primary principle in Jesus teaching was the primacy of love over law and of spirituality over external piety or materialism.

Which makes one wonder why orthodoxy (correct belief) came to dominant over orthopraxy (correct action). It also makes one wonder why the crucifixation as a sort of legal payment for the sins of the world, and a bodily resurrection instead of spiritual ascension became orthodoxy. How did the message, teaching and example of love become converted into a legalistic system of sin,payment (crucifixtion) and reward(resurrection and heaven)?

Nature can well be described as life posited for reflection or understanding. But the individual things, the organization of which is Nature, are transitory and perishing. Thought, therefore, which is itself a form of life, thinks the unity between things as an infinite, creative life which is free from the mortality which affects finite individuals. And this creative life, which is conceived of as bearing the manifold within itself and not as a mere conceptual abstraction, is called God.

I'm with Blake on this one. We get high on accusation, on setting ourselves up as righteous, which of course requires others to be sinners, fools, imbeciles, subhuman. Or we can even set ourselves up as great sinners, which is another version of the same vanity, hatred, contempt.
Religion is generally viewed as a bad thing because indeed religion most loudly manifests itself as self-righteousness, as a hatred of sex and science, and of course as greed.

"He who despises himself still respects himself as one who despises. " Nietzsche.

I agree. The primary principle in Jesus teaching was the primacy of love over law and of spirituality over external piety or materialism.

Which makes one wonder why orthodoxy (correct belief) came to dominant over orthopraxy (correct action). It also makes one wonder why the crucifixation as a sort of legal payment for the sins of the world, and a bodily resurrection instead of spiritual ascension became orthodoxy. How did the message, teaching and example of love become converted into a legalistic system of sin,payment (crucifixtion) and reward(resurrection and heaven)?

1. In the first place, it is not religion in general that we have before us, but positive religion, regarding which it is acknowledged that it is the gift of God, which rests on higher than human authority, and therefore appears to be outside the sphere of human reason, and to be elevated above it. The first hindrance in this connection is, that we should be called upon, before proceeding further, to verify the competence and capability of reason to deal with the truth and doctrine of a religion which is supposed to be withdrawn from the sphere of human reason. Rational or philosophical knowledge comes, however, and must of necessity come, into relation with positive religion. It has been said indeed, and is said still, that positive religion is "for itself," or stands on its own basis. We do not question its doctrines; we respect them, and hold them in honour; on the other side stands reason, thought, which seeks to grasp its object intellectually, and these two are supposed not to come into relation; reason is not to interfere with these doctrines. Formerly, it was imagined that the freedom of philosophical investigation could be guarded in this way. It was then said, that it was a thing by itself, which was not to do any harm to positive religion, and its result, moreover, also was subordinated to the teaching of positive religion. We do not wish, however, to place the present investigation on this footing. It is a false idea that these two, faith and free philosophical investigation, can subsist quietly side by side. There is no foundation for maintaining that faith in the content or essential element of positive religion can continue to exist, if reason has convinced itself of the opposite. The Church has, therefore, consistently and justly refused to allow that reason might stand in opposition to faith, and yet be placed under subjection to it. The human spirit in its inmost nature is not something so divided up that two contradictory elements might subsist together in it. If discord has arisen between intellectual insight and religion, and is not overcome in knowledge, it leads to despair, which comes in the place of reconciliation. This despair is reconciliation carried out in a one-sided manner. The one side is cast away, the other alone held fast; but a man cannot win true peace in this way. The one alternative is, for the divided spirit to reject the demands of the intellect and try to return to simple religious feeling. To this, however, the spirit can only attain by doing violence to itself, for the independence of consciousness demands satisfaction, and will not be thrust aside by force; and to renounce independent thought, is not within the power of the healthy mind. Religious feeling becomes yearning hypocrisy, and retains the moment of non-satisfaction. The other alternative is a one-sided attitude of indifference toward religion, which is either left unquestioned and let alone, or is ultimately attacked and opposed. That is the course followed by shallow spirits.
-Intro to Philosophy of Religion Hegel

I also like this. I feel that we must identify ourselves with the infinite life, and not with the necessarily mortal finite vessel. If we can really identify with it, we have no death to fear, except perhaps the death of the species.

We are spatial temporal creatures. In the spiriitual worldview there is general an eternal changeless nature to the universe as well which provides its underlying order and purpsoe.

For any spiritual view of reality, there is some higher realm of reality, The One, God, Brahman, the forms, eternal, changeless and on which the material and sensory aspect of reality are modeled. A realm of possiblity which is imperfectly brought into material actuality.

It some ways it always comes down to where the ideals, the forms, the mental experience resides in the scheme of reality.

For materialism of course matter is the primary ontology of reality. In this scheme all mental experience, all forms , all ideals are rare, fleeting and ultimately emergent features of a nature which is primairly lifeless, insentinent, accidental and random.

Well I think as finite, spatial, temporal limited beings we have to be satisfied with reflections or shadows of truth. I despise deconstructive postmodernism however with its notions that there is essentially no truth only competing concepts. I think as in science some theories or some concepts correspond better to reason and to experience and thus more likely represent a glimmer or ripple of truth.

Limited beings are we are, could not be expected to capture the essence or truth of the eternal source of being itself. The via negative (not this, not that, neti, neti) I do not think is as much a reflection of the One being nothing (per se) as of our inability to capture it in thought and language.

Well of course for Plato, for Plotinus, for many mystics and even scientific geniuses, these "Truths, the Forms, The Good, the One, God, The Eternal" are not just concepts but a higher and more "real" level of reality than the flux, the flow, the impermanent world of matter and of sense perception. This is really the divide between a world of spirit and a world of matter.

I prefer Platos (idealism and rationalism) to Aristotles (empiricism).

Quote:

The one alternative is, for the divided spirit to reject the demands of the intellect and try to return to simple religious feeling. To this, however, the spirit can only attain by doing violence to itself, for the independence of consciousness demands satisfaction, and will not be thrust aside by force; and to renounce independent thought, is not within the power of the healthy mind

I am interested in this passage. He provides two alternatives: the intellect on the one side, and 'simple religious feeling' on the other. Is there another option - neither 'intellect', not 'simple religious feeling'?