Hegel: Why Liberal Thought Is Not Anti-Totalitarian Enough

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Pro-Fil Pub Date : 2020-06-19 DOI:10.5817/pf20-1-2086
Tomáš Korda
{"title":"Hegel: Why Liberal Thought Is Not Anti-Totalitarian Enough","authors":"Tomáš Korda","doi":"10.5817/pf20-1-2086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses totalitarianism against the background of Hegel’s concept of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). It employs Hegel’s concept of experience from the Phenomenology of Spirit so that the reader could “experience” totalitarianism (in Hegel’s sense), and thereby apprehend a universal (sittlich) ethical life within the state as a true antidote against totalitarianism. “Hegel’s” state, understood here as an emergent middle that balances between its relation to itself (domestic policy) and to the other states (foreign policy) is contrasted with the totalitarian state that suspended its self-relation in the name of its relation to the outside, either in the form of a “total war” (Hitler) or the “total peace” (Stalin). Contrasting the totalitarian state with that of Hegel’s aims to reveal, in turn, the substantial defect of liberal thought. Despite the fact that “total war” and the “total peace” had taken place, liberal thought still stubbornly preoccupies itself with domestic issues, traditionally with the question of how to secure the “Maginot” line between the state and its citizens, at the expense of overcoming its own impoverished knowledge of the state as an instrument, since this utilitarian knowledge of the state combined with the fact that the state is also the sovereign individuality appearing on the scene of foreign relations turned out to be totalitarian. Totalitarianism and liberalism are thereby not understood simply as enemies but rather as a tragical couple. To reveal this mutually enforced interdependence, the paper illustrates it on different and more commonplace examples in order to clarify how liberal thought can overcome animosity against its totalitarian enemy, namely via “experiencing” totalitarianism as nothing but the hitherto unknown dark side of its own instrumental understanding of the state.","PeriodicalId":53428,"journal":{"name":"Pro-Fil","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pro-Fil","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/pf20-1-2086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses totalitarianism against the background of Hegel’s concept of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). It employs Hegel’s concept of experience from the Phenomenology of Spirit so that the reader could “experience” totalitarianism (in Hegel’s sense), and thereby apprehend a universal (sittlich) ethical life within the state as a true antidote against totalitarianism. “Hegel’s” state, understood here as an emergent middle that balances between its relation to itself (domestic policy) and to the other states (foreign policy) is contrasted with the totalitarian state that suspended its self-relation in the name of its relation to the outside, either in the form of a “total war” (Hitler) or the “total peace” (Stalin). Contrasting the totalitarian state with that of Hegel’s aims to reveal, in turn, the substantial defect of liberal thought. Despite the fact that “total war” and the “total peace” had taken place, liberal thought still stubbornly preoccupies itself with domestic issues, traditionally with the question of how to secure the “Maginot” line between the state and its citizens, at the expense of overcoming its own impoverished knowledge of the state as an instrument, since this utilitarian knowledge of the state combined with the fact that the state is also the sovereign individuality appearing on the scene of foreign relations turned out to be totalitarian. Totalitarianism and liberalism are thereby not understood simply as enemies but rather as a tragical couple. To reveal this mutually enforced interdependence, the paper illustrates it on different and more commonplace examples in order to clarify how liberal thought can overcome animosity against its totalitarian enemy, namely via “experiencing” totalitarianism as nothing but the hitherto unknown dark side of its own instrumental understanding of the state.
黑格尔:为什么自由主义思想不够反极权主义
本文以黑格尔的伦理生命观为背景来探讨极权主义。它采用了黑格尔在《精神现象学》中的经验概念,这样读者就可以“体验”极权主义(在黑格尔的意义上),从而在国家内部理解一种普遍的(sittlich)伦理生活,作为对抗极权主义的真正解毒剂。“黑格尔的”国家,在这里被理解为一种新兴的中间状态,它在与自身的关系(国内政策)和与其他国家的关系(外交政策)之间取得平衡,与极权主义国家形成对比,极权主义国家以与外部关系的名义暂停其自我关系,要么以“全面战争”的形式(希特勒),要么以“全面和平”的形式(斯大林)。将极权主义国家与黑格尔的极权主义国家进行对比,旨在揭示自由主义思想的本质缺陷。尽管“全面战争”和“全面和平”已经发生,自由主义思想仍然固执地专注于国内问题,传统上是如何确保国家与公民之间的“马其诺”线,而牺牲了自己对国家作为一种工具的贫乏认识。因为这种对国家的功利主义认识结合了国家也是出现在对外关系舞台上的主权个体性这一事实,结果是极权主义的。因此,极权主义和自由主义不是简单地理解为敌人,而是一对悲剧的夫妇。为了揭示这种相互强制的相互依存关系,本文以不同的和更常见的例子来说明它,以阐明自由思想如何克服对极权主义敌人的仇恨,即通过“体验”极权主义,而不是它自己对国家的工具性理解的迄今为止未知的阴暗面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pro-Fil
Pro-Fil Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Electronic journal of philosophy Pro-Fil is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes articles addressing a whole range of philosophical topics as well as contributions from natural sciences focusing on philosophically relevant issues. We welcome original papers, reviews, polemics, interviews, abstracts, announcements, audio and video recordings of lectures as well as instructional and educational materials in Czech, Slovak, English, and German.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信