This is Google's cache of http://mises.org/daily/6165/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 12 Nov 2014 20:43:39 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

 
  1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
 
powered by
Custom Search
Web
 
 
 
.

Hegel and the Man-God

Mises Daily: Thursday, September 27, 2012 by Murray N. Rothbard

A
A
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
Recommend
Recommend
Share
You and 160 others recommend this.160 people recommend this. Sign Up to see what your friends recommend.

[This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 11 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995). An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.]

The key step in secularizing dialectic theology, and thus in paving the way for Marxism, was taken by the lion of German philosophy, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831). Born in Stuttgart, Hegel studied theology at the University of Tubingen, and then taught theology and philosophy at the Universities of Jena and Heidelberg before becoming the leading philosopher at the new jewel in the Prussian academic crown, the University of Berlin. Coming to Berlin in 1817, Hegel remained there until his death, ending his days as rector of the university.

In the spirit of the Romantic movement in Germany, Hegel pursued the goal of unifying man and God by virtually identifying God as man, and thereby submerging the former into the latter. Goethe had recently popularized the Faust theme, centering on Faust's intense desire for divine, or absolute knowledge, as well as divine power. In orthodox Christianity, of course, the overweening pride of man in trying to achieve god-like knowledge and power is precisely the root cause of sin and man's fall. But, on the contrary, Hegel, a most heretical Lutheran indeed, had the temerity to generalize the Faustian urge into a world-philosophy, and into an alleged insight into the inevitable workings of the historical process.

In Professor Tucker's words, Hegelianism was a "philosophic religion of self in the form of a theory of history. The religion is founded on an identification of the self with God" [1] It should not be necessary to add at this point that "the self here is not the individual, but the collective organic species 'self.'" In a youthful essay on "The Positivity of the Christian Religion," written at the age of 25, Hegel revealingly objects to Christianity for "separating" man and God except "in one isolated individual" (Jesus), and placing God in another and higher world, to which man's activity could contribute nothing. Four years later, in 1799, Hegel resolved this problem by offering his own religion, in his "The Spirit of Christianity." In contrast to orthodox Christianity, in which God became man in Jesus, for Hegel Jesus's achievement was, as a man, to become God! Tucker sums this up neatly. To Hegel, Jesus

is not God become man, but man become God. This is the key idea on which the entire edifice of Hegelianism was to be constructed: there is no absolute difference between the human nature and the divine. They are not two separate things with an impassable gulf between them. The absolute self in man, the homo noumenon, is not mere godlike … it is God. Consequently, in so far as man strives to become "like God," he is simply striving to be his own real self. And in deifying himself, he is simply recognizing his own true nature.[2]

If man is really God, what then is history? Why does man, or rather, do men, change and develop? Because the man-God is not perfect, or at least he does not begin in a perfect state. Man-God begins his life in history totally unconscious of his divine status. History, then, for Hegel, is a process by which the man-God increases his knowledge, until he finally reaches the state of absolute knowledge, that is, the full knowledge and realization that he is God. In that case, man-God finally realizes his potential of an infinite being without bounds, possessed of absolute knowledge.

Why then did man-God, also termed by Hegel the "world-self" (Weltgeisf) or "world-spirit," create the universe? Not, as in the Christian account, from overflowing love and benevolence, but out of a felt need to become conscious of itself as a world-self. This process of growing consciousness is achieved through creative activity by which the world-self externalized itself. This externalization occurs first by creating nature or the original world, but second — and here of course is a significant addition to other theologies — there is a continuing self-externalization through human history. The most important is this second process, for by this means man, the collective organism, expands his building of civilization, his creative externalizing, and hence his increasing knowledge of his own divinity, and therefore of the world as his own self-actualization. This latter process: of knowing ever more fully that the world is really man's self, is the process which Hegel terms the gradual putting to an end of man's "self-alienation," which of course for him was also the alienation of man from God. To Hegel, in short, man perceives the world as hostile because it is not himself, because it is alien. All these conflicts are resolved when he realizes at long last that the world really is himself. This process of realization is Hegel's Aufhebung, by which the world becomes de-alienated and assimilated to man's self.

But why, one might ask, is Hegel's man so odd, so neurotic, that he regards every thing that is not himself as alien and hostile? The answer is crucial to the Hegelian mystique. It is because Hegel, or Hegel's man, cannot stand the idea of himself not being God, and therefore not being of infinite space and without limits. Seeing any other being, or any other object, exist, would mean that he himself is not infinite or divine. In short, Hegel's philosophy is severe and cosmic solipsistic megalomania on a grand and massive scale. Professor Tucker develops the case with characteristic acuity:

[product:0]

For Hegel alienation is finitude, and finitude in turn is bondage. The experience of self-estrangement in the presence of an apparent objective world is an experience of enslavement … Spirit [or the world-self], when confronted with an object or "other," is ipso facto aware of itself as merely finite being, as embracing only so much and no more of reality, as extending only so far and no farther. The object is, therefore, a "limit." (Grenze.) And a limit, since it contradicts spirit's notion of itself as absolute being, i.e., being-without-limit, is necessarily apprehended as a "barrier" or "fetter" (Schranke). It is a barrier to spirit's awareness of itself as that which it conceives itself truly to be — the whole of reality. In its confrontation with an apparent object, spirit feels imprisoned in limitation. It experiences what Hegel calls the "sorrow of finitude."

The transcendence of the object through knowing is spirit's way of rebelling against finitude and making the break for freedom. In Hegel's quite unique conception of it, freedom means the consciousness of self as unbounded: it is the absence of a limiting object or non-self.… This consciousness of "being alone with self" … is precisely what Hegel means by the consciousness of freedom.… Accordingly, the growth of spirit's self-knowledge in history is alternatively describable as a progress of the consciousness of freedom.[3]

Comment on this article.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. See Murray N. Rothbard's article archives.

This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 11 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995). An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.

You can subscribe to future articles by Murray N. Rothbard via this RSS feed.

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Notes

[1] Robert C. Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 39.

[2] Ibid., p. 41. These and other early essays by Hegel were first published as a collection of Early Theological Writings in 1907.

[3] Ibid., pp. 53ff.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Close
Forgot password?
Send me my password!

Close message

Login

Subscribe to this blog post's comments through...

  • Add to netvibes
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Add to Google
  • Add to Microsoft Live

RSS Icon RSS Feed

Subscribe via email

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's comments through...

  • Add to netvibes
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Add to Google
  • Add to Microsoft Live

RSS Icon RSS Feed

Subscribe via email

Subscribe
Follow the discussion

Comments (16)

Loading... Logging you in...
Close

Login to IntenseDebate

Or create an account

Close WordPress.com
  • Logged in as

Admin Options

Save Settings

Loading comments...
You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input.
I have not read Hegel myself so I am not sure what he does with his conception of man wanting to realize God as himself. If he takes this and then provides some sort of a reason for an economic philosophy then i dont know. But if all he means is what i have re-printed from the article below, then from a spiritual perspective Hegel is not very far from a lot of other saints and books that date thousands of years back.

"Man-God begins his life in history totally unconscious of his divine status. History, then, for Hegel, is a process by which the man-God increases his knowledge, until he finally reaches the state of absolute knowledge, that is, the full knowledge and realization that he is God. In that case, man-God finally realizes his potential of an infinite being without bounds, possessed of absolute knowledge"

"n Hegel's quite unique conception of it, freedom means the consciousness of self as unbounded: it is the absence of a limiting object or non-self.… This consciousness of "being alone with self" … is precisely what Hegel means by the consciousness of freedom"

If you for example read Rumi (English translations) or Khalil Gibran you will see several times that sentences in their poems end with Self, You, Truth, Knowledge, Ignorance all with capital letters at the end of the sentence. There they mean that state that a man can achieve. 'Self' is the state of GOD which is the state of the ultimate 'Truth' and 'Knowledge' and without the 'realization' of this 'Truth' there is 'Ignorance'. The way to achieve this state are many but devotion to finding the truth and love are important.

Does this mean we reach that stage as a collective - of course not! Does this mean if today you start saying I am GOD and acting as such then you are GOD - of course not instead then the result would be the same as what Christianity suggests i.e. arrogance and downfall. Rothbard says Hegel's conception of a man as GOD implies some sort of a conception of a collectivity. I am not sure if Hegel actually said that (since I haven't read him) but the process of realizing that state of Godliness is the most individualistic process there can be. This is one of the primary reasons why really old religions like Hinduism do not subscribe to one book because they consider 'realization' of the true nature of GOD a process, a discovery to be uncovered by man's individualistic perseverance and devotion. There are even many different paths, practices and ways to persevere towards that state. It is quite amazing to me that being so questioning of all economic(which is after all the science of human action) methodology we are so eager to believe in a construct GOD that we think has already been defined correctly withing the boundaries of one religion or another.

Is there a possibility that egomaniacs through their ignorance misuse this conception to develop crazy collectivist theories? Sure, but this does nothing to undermine the original theory.
1 reply · active 53 weeks ago
He's not collectivist, one of the problems here is the "need" of God, that's not what he's implying and is an elementary mistake. I'm surprised, and very disappointed in Tucker for making this elementary mistake, that someone would exclude the basic premises of Plato's demiurge (as laid out in his Symposium), Aristotle's Prime Mover (Metaphysics), or hell guys Spinoza's Natura Naturans (Ethics). Let's not forget Hegel's famous dictum: "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all." Furthermore, Hegel was quite specific in his Philosophy of Rights that individual rights are to take absolute premise, however to claim that individual rights have any meaning outside of a particular society is dogmatic nonsense. You can plead your "natural rights" before a Barbarian Hoard all you want but that will not make it so. A point that Mises was keen to champion, which is why he supported the West vrs the rest.

Though I doubt anyone here will read this, and thus I am tossing pearls before swine, a good source on Hegel's opinons of what we are facing today can be found in Cecil L. Eubanks esquisite essay: http://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/poeubk/wp-content/...

to quote: “It hence becomes apparent that despite an excess of wealth civil society is not rich enough, i.e.
its own resources are insufficient to check excessive poverty and the creation of a penurious
rabble.”
Before you all vomit in your insane zeal please read:

“the evil of lacking self-respect enough to secure subsistence by its own labour and yet at the same
time of claiming to receive subsistence as its right. Against nature man can claim no right, but
once society is established, poverty immediately takes the form of a wrong done to one class by
another. The important question of how poverty is to be abolished is one of the most disturbing
problems which agitate modern society.”

Hegel agrees with the free market but simultaneously he accepts that the free market creates poverty due to civil society as a result of the wealth, and the power that comes with wealth, accumulated by those rewarded by the market who act against their own interest by manipulating the power of the state to further sate the unquenchable (and capital, which is essentially power, after a certain point becomes irrationally addictive meaning that those with large quantities of wealth will no longer act rationally and thus will use their extraordinary talents, that once were productive, for irrational and thus destructive means). Hegel had no answer for this, and neither does Mises. Technology and advancements have made the gap worse. You can claim that the poor are better off, but that is beside the point. As Ricardo would point out substinance is culturally defined, maintaining a level of equitable substinance is not merely survival but active participation in the culture at hand.

Have any of you read the works of Karl Wittgenstein? That man had an INTENSE effect on Mises.
Having not read Hegel, but beginning to understand that I must if I am to understand the History of the last 200 years, I am struck by the fact that modern 20th century pyschologists have discovered that baby humans originally believe that the entire world and all of the objects in it (including mommy and daddy) are part of himself. Someplace around age 2, the baby suddenly realizes that the reason mommy and daddy and everything else cannot be controlled by Baby in the same way he controls his hands and feet is that these other things are SEPARATE from Baby, and Baby is not in fact the embodiment of the Universe. Baby is VERY unhappy over this, which helps account for The Terrible Twos.

But normal human babies learn and grow and, in most cases, discover their place in a universe with competing minds and immovable rocks.

Without the benefit of modern experiments, Hegel seems to have hit upon a precise description of The Philosophy of 2 Year Olds. A tremendous technical achievement, but a thing of no general usefulness in understanding adults.
1 reply · active 111 weeks ago
I haven't heard of this psychological theory before. I'd be very interested to read about it; any links/study names/etc?
This is yet another article reminding me of the idea of the Omega Point, which I've been thinking about lately (although it's all speculative). This idea involves the universe being overrun with life, at which point sentient beings can construct (or join into?) a technological, god-like intelligence. This intelligence would asymptotically reach some kind of perfection at the end of the universe - perhaps it's a giant computer approaching the maximum computing power at the Bekenstein bound (i.e. a dense mass on the verge of collapsing into a black hole). It is necessary for this to happen because there is a kind of teleological character to the history of the universe. Current human beings could be viewed as proto-gods.
4 replies · active 111 weeks ago
BTW I find this idea as only slightly plausible because of the Rietdjik-Putnam argument, which uses findings from special relativity to argue in favor of four-dimensionalism, where both past and future are basically set in stone. There is a a kind of boundary condition at the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang, or a point of extraordinarily low entropy that gives us an arrow of time. There arguably should be some kind of interesting boundary condition in the distant future, too.
Oops, by "This intelligence would asymptotically reach some kind of perfection at the end of the universe" I didn't necessarily mean after an infinite time. The intelligence could complete its evolution in a finite time, but as it became more and more perfect, an infinite number of subjective experiences could be produced. Subjectively, it could be perceived as infinite length of time.
A little while ago Mises Daily ran another excerpt of Murray N. Rothbard concerning this same type of proto-Omega Point concept ("Marx and Alienation", Sept. 20, 2012), taken from Vol. 2, Ch. 11 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.

Although contrary to what Rothbard thought, this concept of man becoming God is simply traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings, that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)", Wikipedia, August 30, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diviniz... . Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been deemphasized for the last millennium. Further, unlike the Marxian and similar versions of it, the Christian concept of apotheosis emphasizes the resurrection of the dead, so that everyone who has ever lived will be able to share in theosis if they have lived rightly--as opposed to a collective accretion of mankind somehow, vaguely, through the workings of history, becoming God, even though the dead remain dead. In this, Rothbard was correct in criticizing such collectivist notions of apotheosis.

Indeed, the words "transhumanism" and "superhumanism" originated in Christian theology. "Transhumanism" is a neologism coined by Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72), referring to a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin of the term "superhumanism", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.).

I'm in the process of reading Edgar A. Poe, Eureka: A Prose Poem (New York: Geo. P. Putnam, 1848), a nonfiction book which Edgar Allan Poe considered to be his magnum opus. Poe basically gives a description of the Omega Point cosmology: of the universe starting at a "primordial particle" (i.e., an atom in the ancient Greek sense of indivisible unity), then expanding and evolving, and then collapsing into Godhead and unity. I wonder if Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was influenced by Poe, since Poe was very big in France.

Lysander Spooner in his essay A Deist's Immortality also describes this concept of man becoming God. Although Spooner makes the same mistake Rothbard did in thinking that this isn't traditional Christian theology, but in the inverse way, as Spooner, a Deist, argues in favor of the concept of man becoming God.

For much more on this, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQ...
VolitionMatters's avatar

VolitionMatters · 111 weeks ago

As far as I know latter-day saint theology is the last bastion of theosis left in all of Christianity. The Bible is replete with references to deification. Mormon Doctrine of Deity, by B.H. Roberts, is an interesting read; the most fluid, concise defense of christian deification that I've some across.
freeharmonics's avatar

freeharmonics · 111 weeks ago

It's interesting that Hegel found the salvation of man in the very place where Christianity finds man's fall. In the desire of man to be God. Pantheism and Christianity are opposites in so many ways. One way as shown by Rothbard in the article is where he talks about God becoming man through Christ. Yet for Hegel, he saw Christ as man becoming God.

The philosophy of Hegel is that of metaphysical collectivism. Collectivism is the belief that collections of things are actual things in themselves. The pantheism of Hegel sees the collection of the things in the universe as being the same as God. To me, it seems very similar to atheism.

One of the dangers of this is its ethical and political implications. If one concedes that a mere description of a collection of things can be an entity itself, then how can one dispute the assertion by political collectivists that society, a collection of individuals, is an entity as well. Indeed, it easily follows from such a view that collective man is the consciousness of the deified collective universe. I myself take a philosophical individualist view across the board. Metaphysical individualism(monotheism) along with a radical political individualism, anarcho-capitalism.
2 replies · active 111 weeks ago
"It's interesting that Hegel found the salvation of man in the very place where Christianity finds man's fall. In the desire of man to be God."

Well, except that is a serious misreading of Hegel. Rothbard's source (Tucker) is not a Hegel scholar or even a philosopher: he was a Sovietologist!
VolitionMatters's avatar

VolitionMatters · 111 weeks ago

The lie and lure of Satan is not merely that men may become gods; it is that they may do so by transgressing the laws of god. "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." The end of godhood is entirely manifest in the scriptures. The lie revolves around the means of attainment.
Hegelian dialectic seems to have been at work throughout most of the last century. If man exists for the state - and the state is amoral - then what becomes of man? How could he possibly reach for the divine within himself?
0 replies · active 111 weeks ago
Question Here!'s avatar

Question Here! · 111 weeks ago

Who is Professor Tucker that Rothbard keeps mentioning?
1 reply · active 111 weeks ago
Found within 30 seconds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Tucker

Google is your friend. ;-)
To understand the import of Hegel you need to read and understand Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes as the founders of modern science and the project and purpose of science, making man the masters of nature in general and human nature in particular -- secular man becoming god(s) -- masters and makers of the universe.
0 replies · active 111 weeks ago

Post a new comment

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Go back

Displayed next to your comments.

Not displayed publicly.

If you have a website, link to it here.

Posting anonymously.

Comments by IntenseDebate

Displayed next to your comments.

Not displayed publicly.

If you have a website, link to it here.

Posting anonymously.


About the Author

Photo of Murray  N.  Rothbard
Murray N. Rothbard
View Author Archive

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.

The last comments for

Can Anarcho-Capitalism Work? - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily

noah



Rothbard says the state sets an example of force and coercion for the people, which is true enough,...

Jump to » 11 hours ago

The last comments for

War Making and Class Conflict - Joseph T. Salerno - Mises Daily

Randy

Nice post. I think you might be on to something.

Jump to » 12 hours ago

The last comments for

Central Banks are Not Innocent Bystanders - Peter St. Onge - Mises Daily

Deucalion

I could be wrong but I think this article confuses investment with borrowing. It's really not clear....

Jump to » 16 hours ago

The last comments for

Can Anarcho-Capitalism Work? - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily

Gil

L:ibertarians like to point out it's been tried and failed to last. On the other hand, the current...

Jump to » 16 hours ago

Gamble

I think you are talking about freedom and government being contradictory, ultimately the source of all...

Jump to » 16 hours ago

Comments by IntenseDebate

Bastiat Blog

Upcoming Events

rss
Ludwig von Mises: "In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism." - Socialism
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%