Comparing Hegel, Marx, Kant's Views on Pantheism 1.Hegel is a pantheist, meaning that he believes that everytng toeather comes to being God. Subsequently he believes that everythenig is one, menatin gtat reason and reality actually are the same thing, fuirtheremore Hegel believst that reality is reason, this is his "first Principle". In contrast to this Kant believes that all we really know are our persc=eptions of the real (Nominal world) and tat we cannot really knowanything aobut the real world. So our reason, though it lets us perceive reality it in fact changes reality, so our reason is not our reality. This is why Kant believes that reason isn't our first principle, and that we cannot in fact know the true first principle. I said earlier that Hegel was a pantheist. This is true. He believes that all of reality is moving toward a specifce goal, this goal is ever being pushed towards the better. An example of this that comes into society comes well with the ideas of thesis,antithesis, and finally a synthesis that combins the too in such a way as to make the argument null and viod. A good example of this can be found in Christianity. We look at the problems we have with God and the Human soul. God is everlasting and unchangeing he is also perfvect, the human soul is distinctly human, it is changeable. What can possibly make it so that these to can communccre? Well the anseww is Jesus Christ, he was the synthesis between God and humans, being that Jesus was both God and man at the same time. So we are all moving towards a specific goal, and the ore we learn the closer we get and eventually we will arrive, once we have learned enough we will come to the realization that we are all part of this Consousness. The prob... ... middle of paper ... ...at we are to be willing to be onself. We are to try to be the one that God is trying to make us. We are to do this out of our natural love for god and that we are doing in because this is what inside us is telling us is right. To do this we must look to the teachings of the bible which tell us to be humble, rightouss, and to help those in need. This will lead us to be that which god has designed for us to be and this is what we are striving for. Kiekegaard is saying that we are going through the astetic, ethical, and religious steps in order to better society by being that which God wants us to be. Kiekegaard is saying that his attempt will lead us to a life of despair, because we will never match up to the goal set in front of us. But that this is good because in the midst of this we have in fact become the best we can, and we have become what God wants us to be.
We must adapt our way of living to make sure we continue to strive and no longer hinder our own existence. Ishmael highlights that people should learn from each other, and learning from your peers is an important part of learning and life. If we didn’t learn from each other, the world would never thrive or be able to adapt to the changes that the modern day brings. The moral responsibilities of humans that the text highlights are essential to living a good life. The responsibilities that are discussed are important in the teaching of religious education.
...is seems to line up well with the serenity prayer: “Lord, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Our task as humans is to discern these wills in our lives and separate them. We must not become embittered, but rather empowered, clinging to the knowledge that there is an ever-benevolent God constantly working for our good, and that he always has a plan for us amidst trial presented by life on earth. In order to discern this will though, we have to be on the lookout for it with an awareness of its separateness from our own fears and desires. This discernment is also difficult because of our limited perspectives as humans, and thus we need humility in our search. The most important thing, however, is the search itself: we must all continue to search for the will.
He says strive for goodness, live in conformity with it, and you will find God. God is
	Living is about making choices. The choices people make shape their lives for better or worse. Even the decision not to choose has its effects, often not wanted. But the individual who chooses to make positive choices and to act accordingly is more likely to see his or her life reflect his or her beliefs and desires. Usually the individual who chooses to take action is also willing to face the risks and obstacles that such choices involve.
Philosophers believe that Hegel’s historicism has inherent conflicts that surprisingly fall in same dialectic argument that Hegel promotes, which somehow nullifies his philosophy. Originated and influenced by his Dialectic thought process of “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis”, Hegel believes that all societal and more importantly all human activities including culture, language, science, art, and even philosophy are defined by their past and the heart of these activities can be understood by studying their history. Hegel argues that the history of societal activity is a cumulative reaction to the events that has happened in the past. His famous “Philosophy is the history of philosophy" quote essentially summarizes his thoughts. Hegel believes history is a progressive and directional relation between human activities and society. He argues that in order to understand an individual, he must be studied in a society where in turn the same society can be understood by evaluating th...
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
Nagel is a profound philosopher, who defends a customary view of science a way to gain knowledge of the world. In the argument, Nagel makes it clear that there is good reason to believe that God doesn’t exist, however, he does make it clear that his views make fall along the lines of Buddhism. Nagel claims that he his questioning the theological proposition to believe in God. Nagel has given two points in proving that God does not exist. The first point goes along the lines that of that God exist, however, they don’t have a good reason to believe in God but they also have no good reason to not believe in God. Or we cannot truly understand the concept of God exist because according to Nagel its nonsense- although, we understand it as an expression
...’ new elaboration on the deliberative model of its substantive force; once again confronting it with the Hegelian charge of emptiness and ineffectiveness.
In addition, in Kierkegaard’s “Practice in Christianity,” we are given the distinction between an imitator (a true Christian)
Kierkegaard suggests that Hegel, at his core, does not understand that the nature of man, or at the very least the nature of faith, which is in a constant state of moral uncertainty. He illustrates the state of man with various analogies on Abraham's sacrifice of Issac in “Fear and Trembling,” suggesting that Abraham should either be considered a murder because he would have killed his son, or a man of faith because of he obeyed God unwaveringly. Kierkegaard wirtes, “I return, however, to Abraham. Before the result, either Abraham was every minute a murderer, or we are confronted by a paradox which is higher than all mediation” (Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 51). He makes the claim that while the ethical is universal, the individual who has a personal relationship with God takes on a higher importance than one would with Gies...
In beginning his lengthy phenomenology for identifying the pathway in which Geist will realize itself as Absolute Knowledge, Hegel begins at what many considered the most basic source of all epistemological claims: sensual apprehension or Sense-Certainty. Though the skeptical tradition took this realm as a jumping-off point for making defensible epistemological claims, Hegel sees in the sensual a type of knowledge so general and abstract as to be entirely vacuous. Focusing on the principle that anything known in the Scientific sense must be communicable, through language or its approximations, Hegel shows that whatever the sensual purports to know is inherently incommunicable and therefore cannot represent true knowledge.
Kung, Hans. The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought As Prolegomena to a Future Christology. T&T Clark, 2001. hard cover.
We were designed for one purpose, to honor and love our creator (Matthew 6:24). When we look at ourselves, and others we find that we each have individual humanistic characteristics. Each with different thoughts of how we perceive God and what we think he wants from us. By using our talents and gifts wisely and just we are giving praise back to our creator (1 Timothy 6:17).
...es that we are all unique in our own way and at some point will realize our potential and try to achieve more not that our genes made us act the way we do.
If we try to live our lives without searching for or finding what it is God is calling us