The intention behind writing the present essay on the Difference Between Fichte’s and Schelling’s Systems of Philosophy was to find the guiding idea that, acting as a thread of Ariadne, could...Show moreThe intention behind writing the present essay on the Difference Between Fichte’s and Schelling’s Systems of Philosophy was to find the guiding idea that, acting as a thread of Ariadne, could connect Hegel’s early philosophical project with what across the following argument will be referred to as the paradox of temporality. Deliberately, the above title refers to ‘temporality’, and not to ‘Time’. Temporality is not a term employed by Hegel in his writings. In a strict sense, what Hegel explicitly refers to as Time is limited to natural Time, and any other sense that might be associated with a temporality beyond natural Time is understood by Hegel as History —not as temporality. In Hegel’s works, Time and History pertain to the different realms of Nature and Spirit. Nevertheless, at the same time, for Hegel Nature and Spirit constitute instances in the unfolding of the Absolute Idea. Far from being a merely pure or abstract form, the Absolute Idea exists and becomes concrete as both realms. Consequently, beyond the letter of Hegelian philosophy, there is a common element to ‘Time’ and ‘History’, in that they both are the existing logical figure of finitude, or of ‘that which has its negation out of itself’ . The central claim of the present essay is that, in Hegel’s philosophy, there is this larger and contradictory logic connecting ‘Time’ and ‘History’ (a paradox of temporality), and that the paradoxical nature of this logic can be explained by an early concept found in the Difference: the notion of absolute identity. Therefore, the following argument will consider two main questions. Firstly: what are the main aspects of the contradiction of temporality in Nature and in Spirit? Secondly: how does Hegel’s early notion of absolute identity account for this paradox of temporality?Show less
The Legend of The Grand Inquisitor, as featured in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, certainly requires little introduction. As a universally acclaimed piece of literature it has...Show moreThe Legend of The Grand Inquisitor, as featured in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, certainly requires little introduction. As a universally acclaimed piece of literature it has served as a source of inspiration for a wide array of different fields including philosophy, politics, literature, theology and art. Amongst the peculiarities that this Legend holds, we find that the head of the Spanish Inquisition, ‘The Grand Inquisitor’, is himself accused of being an atheist. In this ironic accusation, however, may just lie the expression of a defining feature of Christianity itself, as Slavoj Žižek would argue. With his unorthodox thesis that true atheist freedom is reached only through the process of Christianity, Žižek makes a point that seems to relate to Dostoyevsky’s legendary passage. Through a close analysis of several key points in The Grand Inquisitor, the manner in which the passage implies an intertwinement between Christianity and atheism is explored. In connecting this inquiry with Žižek’s theory of ‘Atheist Christianity’, a case is made for the idea that atheism and Christianity are interdependent and in the most radical sense even equivalent. This cross-analysis leads towards the issue of defining a secular form of faith, while at the same time opening up the way for questions regarding the aptness of Žižek’s Atheist-Christian framework in understanding the social issues brought to light in Dostoyevsky’s intriguing passage.Show less
