TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i
CERTIFICATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ii
DEDICATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.. .. .. .. .. .. .. iv
TABLE
OF CONTENT .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vii
GENERAL INTRODUCTION .. .. .. .. .. .. x
CHAPTER ONE
1.0.
IDEALISM AND ITS MEANING .. .. .. .. 1
1.1. KINDS OF IDEALISM .. .. .. .. .. .. 5
1.1.1. SUBJECTIVE IDEALISM .. .. .. .. .. 5
1.1.2.
OBJECTIVE IDEALISM .. .. .. .. .. 6
CHAPTER
TWO
2.0.
THE FOUNDATION
OF HEGELIAN IDEALISM .. .. 9
2.1
THE
IDEALIST LINEAGE: HIS PRECURSORS .. .. 10
2.2. HEGELIAN IDEALISM: AN OVERVIEW .. .. .. 14
2.3 DERIVATION OF THE
DOCTRINE .. .. .. .. 17
CHAPTER THREE
3.0.
CRITICAL EXPOSITION OF HEGELIAN
IDEALISM .. 21
3.1
HEGEL ON ETHICS AND POLITICS .. .. .. .. 23
3.1.1. THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL IN HEGEL .. .. 24
3.2
DETERMINISM IN HEGELIAN IDEALISM .. .. .. 26
3.3
EXISTENTIALIST REACTION AGAINST
HEGELIAN
IDEALISM .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29
3.3.1
HEGELIAN CONCEPTS OF FREEDOM;
CHOICE AND RESPONSIBILITY: AN
EXISTENTIALIST VIEW. .. .. 32
3.4
TRANSFORMATION OF HEGELIAN
IDEALISM: FURTHER CRITICISMS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 37
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 THE IMPLICATIONS OF HEGELIAN IDEALISM FOR
THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PERSON .. .. .. .. 41
4.1
HEGELIAN SYSTEM: SELF – ALIENATION
OF THE
INDIVIDUAL .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 43
4.2
EROSION OF AUTHENTICITY AND
UNIQUENESS .. 45
4.3
DEPERSONALIZATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
HUMAN
PERSON .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 48
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION. .. .. .. .. 50
5.1.
CRITICAL EVALUATION .. .. .. .. .. 50
5.2.
CONCLUSION. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 59
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Throughout the
history of philosophy, one peculiar trait has marked all the philosophers and
served as their uniting factor. It is the desire to form a coherent and unified
interpretation of reality natural to the reflective mind. Starting from the
Greek philosophers, this trait is found in their quest for the “urstoff” of all
that exists (thereby remaining cosmocentric in their interpretation) through
the theocentric interpretation of the medieval era. In the light of this trait,
the modern period becomes over-laden with anthropocentricism. In sum, we can
bluntly say that philosophy has this single task of forming a unified
interpretation of reality to perform.
However, the actual task to be performed presents
itself in different ways at different times. For example, the development of
physical science in the post-mediaeval world meant that the philosopher who
wished to construct an overall interpretation had to grapple with the problem
of reconciling the scientific view of the world as a mechanical system with the
demands of the moral and religious consciousness. Descartes was faced with this
problem. And so was Kant. Even though kant rejected the ways of dealing with
this problem which were characteristic of his predecessors and offered his own
original solution, it is arguable that in the long run he left us with a
“bifurcated reality”[1].
On the other hand, a supersensous world of the free agent is provided. There is
no valid reason to assert the existence of the phenomenal realm, as well as a
theoretical proof of the supersensuous reality. Even though Kant made effort to
bridge the gap between the two realities in a way comprehensible to the remote
mind, he however related a problem which the German idealists refused to pass over
in silence. Thus, German idealism culminating in Hegel, made effort to make the
whole of reality intelligible to the human mind, provided that this mind can be
regarded as the vehicle, as it were of absolute thought reflecting on itself.
The result of this was the Absolute idea in Hegel’s philosophy or Hegelian
idealism.
The point to be made is that Hegel’s point of
departure was the theme of the relation between the infinite and the finite or
more precisely, between the universal, collectivity and the individual. Hegel
evaluated everything on the platform of the Absolute infinite, making the
finite, including the human person, a product of the Absolute, and universal.
Now, a mind-boggling question surges up: what is actually the role of the
individual in this universal? It is obvious at this point that Hegel in order
to solve the Kantian dualism created an existential problem for the individual
human person who appears to be at sea in the whole Hegelian set up.
Hence the problem, which
obviously faced Hegel as an idealist, was that of including, as it were, the
finite within the life of the infinite without depriving the former of its
reality[2]. The difficulty of
solving this problem is responsible for a good deal of ambiguity in
metaphysical idealism when it is a question of defining its relation to theism
on the one hand and Pantheism on the other. However, the problem lingered on
and constituted the fundamental springboard of existentialist trend. As such,
it becomes consistent to ask: How can the human person become fully himself,
free and independent in this existential order vis-à-vis the Hegelian
abstraction that kept his reality or rather existence somewhere beyond this
order. Could the individual human person be said to be free, responsible and
actually existing yet remaining a moment in the “self-development” of the
absolute thought or universal. If the state is the supreme will of the
individual and if the individual exists for the good of the state as an
institution, is the human person free from this mere objectification or
relegation? How could this utilitarian principle of the many against one
contribute to his survival? How could man’s authenticity be assured in this
all-consuming absolute universal? In the present era, the submerging of the
individual takes other forms in the society. These forms constitute the various
ways the implications of Hegelian idealism become evident in our society. The
powerful evidence towards political and social totalitarianism with its
reduction of personal responsibility and its evaluation of personal value in
terms of service to the collectivity are not apart from these forms and
consequent implications. This constitutes a hard nut to crack as there arises
the need to reaffirm the free individual in the face of this powerful tendency.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In the light
of the foregone (statement of the problem), one easily discovers the task or
aim of the whole work. The work is an effort to reinstate the concrete
existence of the individual human person which has been swallowed up in
abstractions through absolute idealism. Thus, it is primarily targeted on Hegel
who is a prime absolute idealist, and it is a reaction against the abstraction
of his idealism, which has depersonalized the individual human person. This
would be more effectively done via existentialist emphasis on man to restore
the essence of individual human person. Thus, it is a piece of evaluative
criticism of idealism with Hegel as a
reflex point.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Within the
limits of this consideration, the work even though it exposes idealist tenets,
does not claim an absolute and total exposition. Even at that, it does not
expose these tenets to empty idealism of its content. However, in order not to
build on the blues, Hegelian idealism is chosen as the reflex or focal point of
our reflections. Be that as it may, the work does not claim to expose equally
the whole edifice of Hegelian system, but exposes through critical inquiry and
analysis some aspects of this system as it relates to the individual human
person. Even when the writer toes the existentialist line in his criticism, he
does not claim to exhaust all themes of the existentialist in order to buttress
the deficiencies of Hegelian system.
METHOD
OF STUDY
In line with
the purpose of this work, the method employed here is simply expository. This
exposition would be addressed via critical analysis and evaluative techniques
in order to produce a comprehensive corpus that suits the entire intellectual
edifice.
DIVISION
OF WORK
The work is divided into five chapters that
are linked to one another with each succeeding stage being a further
elaboration of the preceding one. The work comprises one theme running through
all chapters but in a developmental manner from the first to the last chapter.
Chapter one delves into idealism that exposes Hegel as an idealist. Chapter two
discusses the idealist predecessors of Hegel as the springboard of Hegelian
idealism. This gives us the impetus for a critical exposition of the system to
be made in chapter three. Having critically exposed Hegelian idealism, a room
was created for the fourth chapter that draws out the implications of this
system for the individual. Lastly, chapter five aims at practical solutions by
evaluating the two sides of the human person: individuality and collectivity.
Consequently, the curtain is drawn with the writer’s standpoint on the whole
quagmire.
A
SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF HEGEL
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, greatest of German
Idealists and one of the renowned philosophers of western tradition was born at
Stuttgart on August 27th, 1770. He was the oldest son of a minor
state official. In his school years at Stuttgart the future philosopher was not
spectacular. However, at this period, his attraction to the great genius,
especially the plays of Sophocles and above all in the Antigone was evident. At
the age of eighteen he entered the University of Tubingen as a student of
theology. However, he showed little aptitude for theology. The certificate
which he received in 1793 commended his excellent talents but declared that his
industry and knowledge were mediocre and above all deficient in philosophy. He
seems to have profited most from the companionship of his friends, notably
Holderlin and Schelling, with whom he read Kant and Plato. The friends studied
Rousseau together and shared a common enthusiasm for the ideals of the French
Revolution, which obviously might have stirred up in Hegel the later
development of his philosophical ideals.
After his stay in Tubingen, Hegel became a family
tutor at Berne in Switzerland and Frankfurt respectively. During his residence
in Switzerland he wrote a life of Jesus, a critique of positive religion and
several studies in the history of religion. Later, his attention turned to
questions of economics and government, and he left writings on the reform of
the Prussian land laws, a commentary on James Stuart’s Political Economy, and
other studies of similar character which have since been published. In 1800, he
produced a sketch, which is generally regarded as the first systematic
statement of his philosophy.
At the time, when Schelling was in his heydays, Hegel
made a request from Schelling demanding him to suggest a suitable town for a
brief period of studious withdrawal as well as “a good beer”. He joyfully
acclaimed the success of his friend in the academic world, which spurred on
ambitions in him (Hegel). Consequently, he said: “the ideal of my youth has
necessarily taken a reflective form and been transformed into a system… how can
I return to influencing the life of mankind?”[3]
Shelling must have given him an enthusiastic answer which pushed him into
abandoning his previous plans and joined him (Schelling) at Jena. At the
university, he became a privatdocent (an unsalaried university lecturer)
and gradually famous, through the series of lectures he delivered. As such,
before Schellings’s departure from Jena, in 1803, he and Hegel collaborated in
the publication of the journal of critical philosophy. This work however,
strengthened the impression that Hegel was to all intents and purposes a
disciple of Schelling[4].
On the contrary, with the publication of his first great work, The
Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Hegel showed his divergence from Schelling. It
was while he was engaged in the details of publication of this work that his
academic career was brought abruptly to a halt by the Napoleonic campaign
culminating in the battle of Jena in the autumn of 1806.
The “Phenomenology of spirit” appeared in 1807
despite the war, but Hegel himself was at loose ends. Two volumes of his
science of logic were published in 1812, and a third in 1816, and he was
offered professorships at Erlanges, Heidelberg, and Berlin. He accepted the
invitation to Heidelberg, but after the publication of his “Encyclopedia of the
philosophical sciences” in 1817, the offer of Berlin was renewed and accepted
and he occupied the vacant chair following the death of Fichte.
His thirteen years of
professorship at the University of Berlin brought him to the peak of his career
and made him a recognized leader of philosophic thought in German world. His
prestige thus rose until his name was linked with that of Goethe. His
publication of “The philosophy of Right”, was significant as the last of the
large works published in his life time. His lectures on aesthetics, the
philosophy of religion, the philosophy of history, and the history of
philosophy were constantly revised and improved and finally published
posthumously. In 1830, he became the rector of the university and was decorated
by Frederick William III of university of Berlin until his death from Cholera
in 1831 at the age of sixty-one.
[1] F. Copleston, A history of Philosophy, Vol. 7 (New York:
Continuum pub. Co, 2003), P. 6.
[3]R.M. Hutchins (ed) Hegel-The
Philosophy of Right – The Philosophy of History (Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica Inc., 1982), P.V.
[4] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 7 (New York
Continuum Pub., 2003), P. 160.