An Immaterialism Discussion Group – pt. 2 .The Cure vs. the Disease Most of the attention of the Jaspers Forum is being focused on the refinement of the problem of idealism rather than on its solution. The academically minded are reluctant to jump into the water. They would rather stand on the riverbank and talk about what it might be like to jump in. Rather than look for new answers, they would rather rehash old questions. One can then easily conclude that the cure of idealism must be worse than the disease of dualism because no one is willing to take it.
On the other hand it can be argued (see R. Pippin) that modern philosophy is so saturated with Hegel’s idealism that we are already swimming in that river whether we want to or not.
I am recommending the transition from mystical, contemplative idealism to a prophetic idealism. This transition entails a shift from the position of student to that of professor or proselyte. Professing is just about the last thing you are likely to catch a professor doing. It is not cool. It is not professional. Hegel was the first and last proselyte of idealism. Subsequent idealists are students of Hegel. They hide behind his ample skirts.
This is not necessarily the fault of the professors. It is partly the fault of Hegel for not having adequately grounded his immaterialism in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic prophetic tradition, despite his own preoccupation with that tradition. The only way to do that is to incorporate the paradigm shift into the context of the Second Coming. This is beyond almost any professor’s conceivable call of duty. Some of Hegel’s followers were not averse to his being the Spirit of Truth, but it would be difficult to take the plunge without the benefit of Ron, or perhaps a quantum computer operating in a quasi-oracle mode, or both. Maybe Ron is a quantum computer, no offense.
You can see why it is easy to suppose that the cure is worse than the disease.
.
- | Contents |
rev. 11/2/98