What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[temporal1]

that too

o.ok.
sorry, Falco.

[Falco Underhill]

Of course it sounds far-fetched. But. i’d like to listen to VB and/or Thomas Sowell speak to it. Possibly they have.

I have just ordered Vouddie Baucham's new book, Fault Lines. It's on this topic of CRT. I will probably be sharing insights from it sometime next week or the following week.

I look forward to your thoughts on that book. I hope to order it as well. I have enjoyed Voddie Baucham's Youtube videos. He is quite well versed in theology and its Scriptural foundations. He also addresses CRT from the "effects" it is having on those who ascribe to it. Those who adhere to it may not fully understand the original CRT premise but that does not stop them from spinning out their own definition. Once a concept is let loose into the wide world, it can mutate and change like a virus if it is discussed enough. That fact does not invalidate the newer definitions any more than a mutation of a virus would be invalidated.

Unfortunately, I'm having problems with my order so now I'm not sure when I'll get it.

[Falco Underhill]

i’ll leave it to FU to decide if i’m off topic.

just a request.
please don't shorten falco's name by using those 2 letters together.
i read it as something less than desirable. and i'm guessing if i do, then others do as well.

Some of us might be giggling because we're twelve.

[Josh]

For the record, I’ve been discussing critical theory here for quite a while, predating Fox News having much to say about it. I usually preferred to refer to it by talking about Foucault (and other postmodern philosophers).

Now it’s entered the mainstream. What’s wrong with Fox News talking about it?

[temporal1]

For the record, I’ve been discussing critical theory here for quite a while, predating Fox News having much to say about it. I usually preferred to refer to it by talking about Foucault (and other postmodern philosophers).

Now it’s entered the mainstream. What’s wrong with Fox News talking about it?

on this forum, i understand negative references to Fox to be hard slams intended to discredit others, whether the others follow Fox or not. it’s just code: “you’re an idiot” or “you’re wrong” or “you’re less than,” etc.

not that this is “news” to you.

(from the little i see, i don’t believe Fox is as conservative or apart from lib mainstream news, as is their reputation.)
possibly they were more of a departure in the past. i don’t know.

Reuters rides on a former reputation of being balanced. These things happen.

[Falco Underhill]

Hegel's dialectic idealism lent itself to Karl Marx in this way:

A curtain was fallen, my holiest of holies was ripped apart, and new gods had to be set in their place.

From the idealism, which by the way, I had compared and nourished with the Kantian and Fichtean, I arrived at the point of seeking the idea in actuality itself. If the gods had earlier dwelt over the earth, so they were now made into its center.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... _11_10.htm

Note the phrase "seeking the idea in actuality itself."

The "idea" is a divine manifestation for Hegel. "Actuality" means putting the idea to use for social change, or activism. Marx literally says revolutionary activism is a manifestation of the divine.

Note he moves Hegel's god from over the earth to the center of the earth, a symbol of the place from which man springs. God is no longer over him but in him manifesting himself in "actuality."

[Bootstrap]

Note the phrase "seeking the idea in actuality itself."

The "idea" is a divine manifestation for Hegel. "Actuality" means putting the idea to use for social change, or activism. Marx literally says revolutionary activism is a manifestation of the divine.

Yes - Hegel was interested in how ideas evolve and how people become more free. Marx was interested in how everyday people can gain control of an economic system in which the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, encouraging the poor to rise up and take control.

But Hegel very much propped up the same State that Marx wanted to topple, almost deifying the State and treating warfare as one more kind of conflict that ultimately leads to what is good. That's where I would criticize Hegel. He was no Marxist, though. Neither Hegel nor Marx are compatible with my view of the Kingdom of God. Or of a good democracy. Perhaps some God and Country, America Knows Best, America should dominate the world with its military people approach Hegel sometimes.

I think these summaries are helpful:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/

Hegel on civil religion and the role of the State:

For Hegel, the state is the “march of God [Spirit] in the world” (1821, §258Z). At any point in time, a state or group of states represent the highest point achieved by humanity thus far. Hegel thinks that at the time of his writing, the states of Western Europe play this role. In the Philosophy of Right, he argues that these states, however imperfectly, combine individual freedom with social unity into one enduring whole. The political constitution of the society he describes is a constitutional monarchy. It approximates the never-adopted constitution that Prussian reformers drew up in 1819 (Wood 1990, 13).

Marx is quite different from Hegel:

Many thinkers, including Hegel and Auguste Comte, view the development of ideas over time as the fundamental change that causes overall improvement. Marx, in contrast, regards the growth of the means of production as primary. Kant represents a third category, arguing that a tension within human nature itself is the source of change.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) adopted Hegel's single-factor model of historical development but “turned [Hegel] right side up” (1873, 302) by replacing his idealism with materialism. According to Marx, the fundamental fact about a society at a given moment is not its ideological orientation but rather its “productive forces” (1845, 150), by which Marx means its material and technological resources. Over the long run, the productive forces determine other aspects of the society, starting with the relations of production, the informal and formal rules that define and regulate property (1845, 151). Marx builds on these assumptions to define capitalism and communism and to predict the former's eventual transformation into the latter.

Like Hegel, Marx asserts that conflict drives historical development. But in Marx's account, conflict occurs when the productive forces outgrow the relations of production (1845, 196). A different class of society represents each side of the conflict. The class that benefits from the outmoded relations of production seeks to maintain them, while the losing class seeks to destroy them and replace them. For instance, capitalism emerged from feudal aristocracy when the merchants, through revolution, rewrote the laws in their favor (1848, 477–8, 484). Capitalism is a system in which land and labor are commodities able to be bought and sold on the free market. Marx predicts that communism will emerge from capitalism because the productive forces developed within a capitalist society will eventually make capitalist property rights unworkable (1848, 477). At this point, the working class, or proletariat, will successfully overthrow the old order (1845, 161–2).

Marx's philosophy of history can seem like a deterministic materialism that ignores ideas and passes no judgment on the change it describes. However, this picture is incomplete. First of all, Marx thinks that consciousness of historical trends will guide at least some of the future revolutionaries (1848, 481). Second, Marx clearly thinks that communism is superior to capitalism because it eliminates barriers to freedom such as alienation and exploitation and replaces them with a community of free producers (1845, 197). Marx's early writings—published after his death—show that the value of freedom was as central a concern for him as it was for Kant or Hegel.

[Falco Underhill]

Note the phrase "seeking the idea in actuality itself."

The "idea" is a divine manifestation for Hegel. "Actuality" means putting the idea to use for social change, or activism. Marx literally says revolutionary activism is a manifestation of the divine.

Yes - Hegel was interested in how ideas evolve and how people become more free. Marx was interested in how everyday people can gain control of an economic system in which the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, encouraging the poor to rise up and take control.

But Hegel very much propped up the same State that Marx wanted to topple, almost deifying the State and treating warfare as one more kind of conflict that ultimately leads to what is good. That's where I would criticize Hegel. He was no Marxist, though. Neither Hegel nor Marx are compatible with my view of the Kingdom of God. Or of a good democracy. Perhaps some God and Country, America Knows Best, America should dominate the world with its military people approach Hegel sometimes.

I think these summaries are helpful:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/

Hegel on civil religion and the role of the State:

For Hegel, the state is the “march of God [Spirit] in the world” (1821, §258Z). At any point in time, a state or group of states represent the highest point achieved by humanity thus far. Hegel thinks that at the time of his writing, the states of Western Europe play this role. In the Philosophy of Right, he argues that these states, however imperfectly, combine individual freedom with social unity into one enduring whole. The political constitution of the society he describes is a constitutional monarchy. It approximates the never-adopted constitution that Prussian reformers drew up in 1819 (Wood 1990, 13).

Marx is quite different from Hegel:

Many thinkers, including Hegel and Auguste Comte, view the development of ideas over time as the fundamental change that causes overall improvement. Marx, in contrast, regards the growth of the means of production as primary. Kant represents a third category, arguing that a tension within human nature itself is the source of change.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) adopted Hegel's single-factor model of historical development but “turned [Hegel] right side up” (1873, 302) by replacing his idealism with materialism. According to Marx, the fundamental fact about a society at a given moment is not its ideological orientation but rather its “productive forces” (1845, 150), by which Marx means its material and technological resources. Over the long run, the productive forces determine other aspects of the society, starting with the relations of production, the informal and formal rules that define and regulate property (1845, 151). Marx builds on these assumptions to define capitalism and communism and to predict the former's eventual transformation into the latter.

Like Hegel, Marx asserts that conflict drives historical development. But in Marx's account, conflict occurs when the productive forces outgrow the relations of production (1845, 196). A different class of society represents each side of the conflict. The class that benefits from the outmoded relations of production seeks to maintain them, while the losing class seeks to destroy them and replace them. For instance, capitalism emerged from feudal aristocracy when the merchants, through revolution, rewrote the laws in their favor (1848, 477–8, 484). Capitalism is a system in which land and labor are commodities able to be bought and sold on the free market. Marx predicts that communism will emerge from capitalism because the productive forces developed within a capitalist society will eventually make capitalist property rights unworkable (1848, 477). At this point, the working class, or proletariat, will successfully overthrow the old order (1845, 161–2).

Marx's philosophy of history can seem like a deterministic materialism that ignores ideas and passes no judgment on the change it describes. However, this picture is incomplete. First of all, Marx thinks that consciousness of historical trends will guide at least some of the future revolutionaries (1848, 481). Second, Marx clearly thinks that communism is superior to capitalism because it eliminates barriers to freedom such as alienation and exploitation and replaces them with a community of free producers (1845, 197). Marx's early writings—published after his death—show that the value of freedom was as central a concern for him as it was for Kant or Hegel.

I think I answered that here:

viewtopic.php?p=126575#p126575

[Falco Underhill]

For the record, I’ve been discussing critical theory here for quite a while, predating Fox News having much to say about it. I usually preferred to refer to it by talking about Foucault (and other postmodern philosophers).

Now it’s entered the mainstream. What’s wrong with Fox News talking about it?

Josh, it seems Michael Foucault and Antonio Gramsci are the two main sources of anti-western culturalism now. I wasn't too much aware of postmodernism before. Foucault regarded science as a mask for white supremacism. Gramsci shared the Marxist belief that socialism was scientific. So they have different views regarding the role of "science." Gramsci's descendants aim at deconstructing western culture to establish some kind of socialist order according to their "science." Foucault's followers just seem to want to deconstruct for the sake of deconstructing, I suppose believing some magical utopia will just magically appear when everything has been deconstructed. Have I got that about right?

Here's a short article regarding these two anti-western movements:

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the ... t-ideology

[MaxPC]

For the record, I’ve been discussing critical theory here for quite a while, predating Fox News having much to say about it. I usually preferred to refer to it by talking about Foucault (and other postmodern philosophers).

Now it’s entered the mainstream. What’s wrong with Fox News talking about it?

Josh, it seems Michael Foucault and Antonio Gramsci are the two main sources of anti-western culturalism now. I wasn't too much aware of postmodernism before. Foucault regarded science as a mask for white supremacism. Gramsci shared the Marxist belief that socialism was scientific. So they have different views regarding the role of "science." Gramsci's descendants aim at deconstructing western culture to establish some kind of socialist order according to their "science." Foucault's followers just seem to want to deconstruct for the sake of deconstructing, I suppose believing some magical utopia will just magically appear when everything has been deconstructed. Have I got that about right?

Here's a short article regarding these two anti-western movements:

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the ... t-ideology

Falco, you’ve hit the proverbial nail: spot on. I agree too that the followers of Foucault were/are iconoclasts. I’m not sure of the motives of the man himself and where this would all lead. But I do believe that his writings are definitively embraced by by those who seek to abolish familiar institutions. Motives for such? Only they can tell us. I do see evangelisation of these malcontents as a means of serving The Kingdom.