RedMaistre posted:

(Enlightenment) expresses the ultimate Being of
belief as something foreign to self−consciousness, something that is not a bone of its bone, but is surreptitiously foisted on it like a changeling child. But here enlightenment is entirely foolish; belief experiences it as a way of speaking which does not know what it is saying, and does not understand the facts
of the case when it talks about priestly deception, and deluding the people. It speaks about this as if by means of some hocus−pocus of conjuring priestcraft there were foisted on consciousness as true Reality something
that is absolutely foreign, and absolutely alien to it; and yet says all the while that this is an essential reality for consciousness, that consciousness believes in it, trusts in it, and seeks to make it favourably disposed towards itself, i.e. that consciousness therein sees its pure ultimate Being just as much as its own single and universal individuality, and creates by its own action this unity of itself with its essential reality. In other words, it directly declares that to be the very inmost nature of consciousness which it declares to be something alien to consciousness. How, then, can possibly speak about deception and delusion? By the fact that it directly expresses about belief the very opposite of what it asserts of belief, it ipso facto really reveals itself to belief as the conscious lie. How are deception and delusion to take place, where consciousness in its very truth has directly and immediately the certitude of itself, where it possesses itself in its object, since it just as much finds as produces itself there? The distinction no longer exists, even in words.

When the general question has been raised, whether it is permissible to delude a people, the answer, as a fact, was bound to be that the question is pointless, because it is impossible to deceive a people in this matter. Brass in place of gold, counterfeit instead of genuine coin may doubtless have swindled individuals many a time; lots of people have stuck to it that a battle lost was a battle won; and lies of all sorts about things of sense and particular events have been plausible for a time; but in the knowledge of that inmost reality where consciousness finds the direct certainty of its own self, the idea of delusion is entirely baseless....

(Enlightenment) states regarding belief that its absolute Being is a
piece of stone, a block of wood, having eyes and seeing not, or again a bit of bread−dough, which is obtained from grain grown on the field and transformed by men and is returned to earth again; or in whatever other ways belief may be said to anthropomorphize absolute Being, making it objective and representable.

Enlightenment, proclaiming itself as the pure and true (notion ), here turns what is held to be eternal life and holy spirit into a concrete passing thing of sense, and contaminates it with what belongs to sense−certainty−−with an aspect inherently worthless and one which is not to be found at all in the worshiping attitude of belief, so that enlightenment simply calumniates it by introducing such an aspect.What belief reveres is for belief assuredly neither stone nor wood, nor bread−dough, nor any other sort of thing of time and sense. If enlightenment thinks it worth while to say its object all the same is this as well, or even that it is this in its inherent nature and in truth, then belief also knows that it is this "as well", but for it this something lies outside; its worship....

In the same way enlightenment finds it foolish for consciousness to absolve itself of its characteristic of being absolutely individual, excluding all others, and possessing property of its own, by itself demitting its own property, for thereby it shows in reality that this isolation is not really serious. It shows rather that itself is
something that can rise above the natural necessity of isolating itself and of denying, in this absolute isolation of its own individual existence, that e others are one and the same with itself.

Pure insight finds both purposeless as well as wrong. It is purposeless to renounce a pleasure and give away a possession in order to show oneself independent of pleasure and possession; hence, in the converse case,
insight will be obliged to proclaim the man a fool, who, in order to eat, employs the expedient of actually eating. Insight again thinks it wrong to deny oneself a meal, and give away butter and eggs not for money, nor money for butter and eggs, but just to give them away and get no return at all; it declares a meal, or the
possession of things of that sort, to be an end in itself, and hence in fact declares itself to be a very impure intention which ascribes essential value to enjoyment and possessions of this kind. As pure intention it further
maintains the necessity of rising above natural existence, above covetousness as to the means for such existence; it only finds it foolish and wrong that this supremacy should be demonstrated by action. In other words this pure intention is in reality a deception, which pretends to and demands an inner elevation, but
declares that it is superfluous, foolish, and even wrong to be in earnest in the matter, to put this uplifting into concrete expression, into actual shape and form, and demonstrate its truth.

Pure insight thus denies itself both as pure insight−−for it denies directly purposive action, and as pure intention−−for it denies the intention of proving its independence of the ends of individual existence.

-From The Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel

I prefer my Pietism a la Hamann; but this is perhaps of some interest to y'all (as well as the the whole section on the Enlightenment stage and its successor, Absolute Freedom, in the Phenomenology)

And with that, I shake the dust off the sandals of my feet against this thread.

Yeah fucktard I guess religion does make people feel good, big shocker....someone tweet this ownage to this hegel noob.

notciaNOTjew posted:

Is it really necessary for modern leftists to come up with all these pseudo intellectual justifications for religion instead of just saying they like being part of a community as provided by churches or whatever.

Thats like saying Why do people say they love life when they could just admit that breathing oxygen is necessary to survive instead

notciaNOTjew posted:

Is it really necessary for modern leftists to come up with all these pseudo intellectual justifications for religion instead of just saying they like being part of a community as provided by churches or whatever.

I wonder if the drive for community is compatible with, say, communism?

jools posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

I'm not up for reading Gould after finding out how some of the big claims in Mismeasure of Man were distortions, or plain wrong. Less disinterested science, more an activist telling you science supports your political beliefs.

what about this http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fede.12077

dont link redtube