"No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. Revolution is the negation of the existing, a violent protest against man's inhumanity to man with all the thousand and one slaveries it involves. It is the destroyer of dominant values upon which a complex system of injustice, oppression, and wrong has been built up by ignorance and brutality. It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society." - Emma Goldman.

One of my favorite quotes. One cannot hit a child for hitting another child and tell them that hitting is wrong. Their action contradict their words, and they promote what they claim to disavow. They have to actually be saying "hitting is wrong for you, but right for me", while claiming to be the ones that aren't vicious relativists. They claim many things.

Thankfully I'm not unjust, I do not promote ostracism, I do promote tolerance, regardless of how pretend. Those that are wrong ought to be use to pretending, and those that aren't won't need to.

The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I'll let you guys figure out who said that. — Wosret

Somebody's neighbor, right?

The least of us said that.

"No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. Revolution is the negation of the existing, a violent protest against man's inhumanity to man with all the thousand and one slaveries it involves. It is the destroyer of dominant values upon which a complex system of injustice, oppression, and wrong has been built up by ignorance and brutality. It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society." - Emma Goldman. — Wosret

Propaganda. As if the relations of man to man could be transformed. As if human nature could be overcome. As if free will never existed, and people could be forced - by education, by loving-kindness, or by whatever else - to be good to one another. As if the possibility for sin could be eradicated from the world. Foolishness.

One cannot hit a child for hitting another child and tell them that hitting is wrong. Their action contradict their words, and they promote what they claim to disavow. They have to actually be saying "hitting is wrong for you, but right for me", while claiming to be the ones that aren't vicious relativists. — Wosret

No it doesn't follow that if a child hits another, then he should also be hit. As I said, the punishment has to be adequate for the offence. No one said that hitting back is necessarily the adequate punishment - and the adequate punishment will also depend upon the circumstance and the severity of the situation. One possible punishment may be locking the child in his room temporarily - so that he understands that what he did was wrong, and will not be acceptable. Locking someone isn't acceptable - in most circumstances. Just like murdering someone, or hitting someone isn't acceptable in most circumstances. But there are circumstances when it is acceptable - say for example that you are attacked by someone, and in defending yourself you kill them. That is still murder, but it is acceptable morally speaking. In that case you wouldn't say "murder is wrong for you but right for me" - you'd say in situation X, it is right for Y to resort to murder if he/she must. Things aren't as black and white as you (and the other progressives) try to make them.

This is false. If I love myself, then I wish to be set straight when I go wrong. And therefore I wish to be punished - to get what I deserve - for having done wrong. And I wish the same for my neighbour - out of love. — Agustino

Enjoyment of the suffering of others, and the far less likely enjoyment of your own suffering, however deserved such suffering might be, is not the same as recognition that the suffering may be necessary and to a good purpose.

In the Dark Ages people no doubt enjoyed watching the sufferings of people being burned at the stake, feeling justified in their enjoyment by the comfortable belief that the punishments were deserved. It even becomes a form of macabre entertainment.

Sorry but for common folk, fulfilment is the exact opposite of overturning. Overturning means to replace - fulfilment means to uphold and extend. Those are very very different. — Agustino

You love to speak for the common folk, don't you? The fact is there are several possible meanings or nuances of meaning of the term "overturn". It might be better in future to ask for clarification, rather than jumping to erroneous conclusions about which meaning or nuance the author intends.

Marx said about Hegel that he overturned his philosophy, which is often taken to mean that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its head. He actually meant that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its feet, that he gave it its proper foundation (materialism). The law without love is without proper foundation; it is 'upside down' or if you prefer arse-about. The law should be interpreted in the light of love; then it will gain its flexibility. Without love the law is rigid and lifeless.

Marx said about Hegel that he overturned his philosophy, which is often taken to mean that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its head. He actually meant that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its feet, that he gave it its proper foundation (materialism). The law without love is without proper foundation; it is 'upside down' or if you prefer arse-about. The law should be interpreted in the light of love; then it will gain its flexibility. Without love the law is rigid and lifeless. — John

Depends - aufheben - which is the term you're referring to by "overturning" doesn't translate very well in English. The dialectic process through which the aufheben is achieved does not eradicate the two opposites which led to it - but subsumes them both within a higher perspective - ie. being and non-being are subsumed in becoming - which is both being and non-being at the same time. Certainly they are not overturned though - the English term simply doesn't mean the same thing. Aufheben is really that higher perspective which permits one to swallow a certain way of seeing into a higher one - it doesn't eliminate it though. It's a fulfilment of it - the swallowed thing still remains. So I agree that the law is fulfilled by love - it is subsumed and derives from love. That much is true. But one doesn't start from love and get to the law - except in thought. The dialectical process moves onwards - from law unto love.

Propaganda. As if the relations of man to man could be transformed. As if human nature could be overcome. As if free will never existed, and people could be forced - by education, by loving-kindness, or by whatever else - to be good to one another. As if the possibility for sin could be eradicated from the world. Foolishness. — Agustino

I don't think you have read that passage thoroughly The point is that a revolution that lacks the right means, that is lacks the right spirit will never succeed. "The relations of man to man" can be transformed, not by imposition from without, but from within if the men are transformed by love.

The possibility for sin could never be totally eradicated; but it could be greatly diminished; but not, for sure, by imposition "from above"; it could only be by change from within.

I don't think you have read that passage thoroughly The point is that a revolution that lacks the right means, that is lacks the right spirit will never succeed. "The relations of man to man" can be transformed, not by imposition from without, but from within if the men are transformed by love.

The possibility for sin could never be totally eradicated; but it could be greatly diminished; but not, for sure, by imposition "from above"; it could only be by change from within. — John

Both are needed. The law is needed for love to become possible. Only under the law is it possible to reach up to love. That's why all religions - even Buddhism for example - emphasises morality for its practitioners before meditative insight. That morality is conducive to everything else. The law is conducive to love.

In Buddhism, morality or ethical conduct (sila) is one of the three supports, the other two being wisdom (prajna) and concentration (actually more like 'meditative rapture' - samadhi).

Despite Buddhism and early Christianity being worlds apart their practical morality have many points in common.

Marx' inversion of Hegel resulted in a thorough materialism, however - there is no room in Marx for geist, as such (although that is surely tangential to this thread.)

To be sure aufheben is a nuanced term , just as overturn is; and they could thus be thought to be everything from exactly equivalent to not equivalent at all, depending on interpretation and context.
It remains the case, however, in Hegel's view, that the dialectical moments of consciousness are successively overturned. The fact that something remains from what has been overturned is really merely common sense; everyone knows that in history more or less remnants of what went before always remain in what comes after.

Marx' inversion of Hegel resulted in a thorough materialism, however - there is no room in Marx for geist, as such (although that is surely tangential to this thread.) — Wayfarer

For Marx - geist is part of matter - that's his aufheben, which isn't an overturning, but a subsuming. Geist - spirit - is subsumed merely as part of matter, which is final.

The fact that something remains from what has been overturned is really merely common sense; everyone knows that in history more or less remnants of what went before always remain in what comes after. — John

Not "something" remains - all of it does. Imagine two circles which don't meet. Now you draw a bigger circle around them. Now there is a connection between them - they do form part of the same thing (the bigger circle), even though at first they appeared to be completely separate and unconnected. Aufheben is the resolution of the contradiction by rising to the perspective from which the contradiction vanishes. Being and non-being are apparently contradictory. Both cannot be true it seems. Either something is, or it isn't. But there's a higher perspective - that of becoming, in which this paradox and contradiction is resolved - something both is and isn't - at one and the same time.

Yes and in the Western tradition the revelation of Law (the Torah) comes before the revelation of love (the Gospel). This is certainly the situation vis a vis historical priority; I haven't denied that. The law in principle is conducive to love; but if the law is practiced without love then it is not, in practice, conducive to love. Love is spiritually prior to law.

Yes and in the Western tradition the revelation of Law (the Torah) comes before the revelation of love (the Gospel). This is certainly the situation vis a vis historical priority; I haven't denied that. The law in principle is conducive to love; but if the law is practiced without love then it is not, in practice, conducive to love. Love is spiritually prior to law. — John

I would say that the law is conducive but not sufficient for love. If you remain stuck with the law - if you become a legalist - and assume that the law is all there is, that the law is the end - the goal - then you are failing to reach up to the higher perspective. But I insist that it is impossible to achieve love without the law.

I don't think it's true at all to say that everything necessarily remains. Today there are still remnants of monarchical rule, but there may come a day in human history where nothing at all of monarchy remains, for example.

Sure, but that is a truism.You could say it is impossible to achieve society without law; and love is meaningful only within society. But even then, I am not too sure about that. Do not animals love? You might say that animal love is bound up the the law of instinct; but there are cases like that of a lioness adopting a baby antelope. If creation is an expression of God's love then love comes before all else.

Again, there's a Buddhist parable which addresses the question of the role of 'law' or 'commandments' in the spiritual life, which is 'the parable of the raft'. If a man reaches the shore of a flowing river and has to cross it - this 'river' symbolising the condition of suffering - then he will pick up leaves and branches and bind them together to create a raft. He will use this to cross to the 'further shore', i.e. nibbana, release from suffering. But on the further shore, says the discourse, does that man carry the raft around on his back, saying 'what a great raft'? 'No, bhagavan'.

'Just so', says the teacher, 'you should relinquish all dhammas, to say nothing of a-dhamma'.

This awareness of the teaching as being a vehicle or a 'skillful means' but not an end in itself is one of the cardinal distinctions of Buddhism; I don't think there's an analogy for it in the Biblical religions.

You're degrading the point. Hegel was making a point about consciousness and its evolution - not about material history. For example, democracy which is very common today, was common in Ancient Greece as well. So if we were now living in Ancient Greece back in the day, would you say that democracy is a higher stage, and will from now on continue without any returns to monarchy? That would be foolish - or in Nazi Germany would you say that fascist dictatorship is an advanced stage of history because it came after passing through both monarchy and democracy, and is in this sense a kind of aufheben of both? This was Marx's mistake - to confuse the evolution of consciousness for material evolution. This is about the evolution of consciousness - the evolution of the way through which we perceive and think of things. I of course disagree with Hegel that there is any such trajectory in the change of consciousness - I disagree there is an evolution. Someone could reach up to the highest truths 2000 years ago, just as much as today. In other words, evolution isn't linear - there is no necessary trend upwards towards higher consciousness.

Sure, but that is a truism.You could say it is impossible to achieve society without law; and love is meaningful only within society. But even then, I am not too sure about that. Do not animals love? You might say that animal love is bound up the the law of instinct; but there are cases like that of a lioness adopting a baby antelope. If creation is an expression of God's love then love comes before all else. — John

And don't animals also love in society? Maybe their own societies, or if you have a dog, in the society of your family, and so forth.

You're degrading the point. Hegel was making a point about consciousness and its evolution - not about material history. — Agustino

Nonsense, for Hegel material history just is the evolution of consciousness. The democracy of the Greeks of antiquity is very different to what we call democracy. For example, they kept slaves, and women were not citizens.

Nonsense, for Hegel material history just is the evolution of consciousness. — John

No this is false. The evolution of consciousness can be seen in history - but it has no necessary connection with the material evolution of man - the way his material conditions evolve.

This awareness of the teaching as being a vehicle or a 'skillful means' but not an end in itself is one of the cardinal distinctions of Buddhism; I don't think there's an analogy for it in the Biblical religions. — Wayfarer

There is an exact parallel - Love is the end (or goal) of the law. Thus the law is a skilful means of achieving love.

For Hegel, history is the evolution of spirit; all the shapes and details of history reflect the overarching moments of spirit.
I'm not going to bother arguing about this. All I can say is, read some more Hegel. You obviously don't understand his philosophy.

For Hegel, history is the evolution of spirit; all the shapes and details of history reflect the overarching moments of spirit. — John

Intellectual history - the history of ideas. Not material history - the history of what castle followed upon the destruction of the former.

Sure they generally do, but the case of the lioness and the antelope is an exception. Also, thoug, animals do not have codified laws that needs to be given by a lawgiver; they don't have an animal Moses.

Love and law are one for animals, in their state of innocence. The way for humans to come to Freedom is via love, (which does not exclude the law) but not through the law alone. Love must come first (spiritually speaking).

Also, thoug, animals do not have codified laws that needs to be given by a lawgiver; they don't have an animal Moses. — John

Animals may not have codified laws - in written format - but they do seem to follow a moral code in the way they organise themselves.

Love and law are one for animals, in their state of innocence. — John

I'm not sure.

Love must come first (spiritually speaking). — John

This is impossible. You cannot reach that which is higher without first passing through that which is lower.

The very difference between Hegel and Marx is that Hegel understood the material exigencies of history to be a reflection of the history of spirit (or consciousness as reflected in the history of ideas), whereas Marx saw the history of ideas to be a reflection of the history of the material exigencies (economics as the dialectic of materialism).

This is impossible. You cannot reach that which is higher without first passing through that which is lower. — Agustino

That's true. But you're speaking about what has been historically prior, and I am speaking about what is now spiritually prior. Thanks to the advent of Christ, we do not need to pass through the stage of preoccupation with Law now and may proceed directly to Love.

There is an exact parallel - Love is the end (or goal) of the law. Thus the law is a skilful means of achieving love.

But I think there has been a strong tendency in mainstream religion to loose sight of that. It's called 'mistaking the finger for the moon' - another Buddhist parable. Actually it is what I learned from Buddhism, that has enabled me to re-evaluate the meaning of my own Christian heritage.

Google 'Joachim of Fiore'.

The evolution of consciousness is material. Inspiration from people within an environment and ideas handed down through the generation. Hegel is actually talking about this history of ideas in culture and society. The call and response of ideas in the material.

How in knowledge (that is, what is know to people) we (often) begins with "X", then someone of the time reacts with "not X," till finally we get to a point of holding both "X" and "not-X" at once.

Hegel is essentially giving a description of the evolution of knowledge when we look back on what came before us.

Strictly speaking, knowledge does not need to evolve. We might jump straight to synthesis in our ideas. In such cases though, we cannot "derive" meaning from what's gone before. Since we've jumped to knowledge of all sides in such cases, there is no act of thinking through to discover something based on what we already know. Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with distain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery."