Is Metaphysics just glorified theology/Fanfiction?

*Freud and Lacan I meant

>Y-you just don't understand, only I h-have the secret priest knowledge of Hegel *sniff*
then tell us what he meant faggot?
Is OP wrong, or is he just being disingenuous when pretending his concept of Spirit is in any way philosophical or scientific rather than mystical/spiritual

>unexaminable conclusions
But that's exactly how I feel about Hegel to start with, just unattainable conclusions we're expected to take seriously by some authority fallacy. You gave an implicated prestige to Hegel's body of work by meriting them such, when this very fact of them meriting deep examination seems like it should only arrive when their conclusions are properly accepted.

That's why for example, we don't have physicists, ethicists and astrologers having deep discussions or even bothering giving a critique of Plato's Timaeus; it's based ancient Greek mythological accounts and ideas to the extent there's literally no reason to reference or disprove it.

>Hegel could answer all your critiques by treating them as immanent to his system, in fact dismissing those critiques is arguably one of the first moves Hegel makes in most if not all of his writings
You mean much like when a Theological writer is aware their ideas might come under scrutiny by people of higher reasoning, but just gives a blanket shielding from any disprove because FAITH basically. No proof needed. I get that it's a different discourse, that much is obvious. So why call it philosophy? It only self-references and examines itself, and begs you to pick apart the conclusions as a closed-system.

You have to argue and disprove mysticism with a theological counter-argument, you obviously cannot just provide any rational proofs or empirical de-mystification because to them it's exterior their arguments and truth entirely.

To me that's as far from philosophical as possible. There may be some overlap between spiritual and philosophical ideas but on the end of spectrum where your claims are just plain religion/fantasy, there's nothing philosophical about it. It's just mysticism.

>Hegel might himself be the slave of an unexamined μῦθος (as many think he is), but at least he's TRYING not to be.

How so? Atleast Kant and Schelling dress up their pretty pose in the enlightenment language of the time, Hegel seems to reject it entirely and speak like a priest or the perfidious scholars of the past millennia.

> 1 + 1 = 2 isn't an emotion. I don't know about the label 'rational' but it's lead to great advancement in mathematical thought.

1. Dishonest example as it is not really falsifiable. How do you know that kids don't get exited when shown this problem, and they get to solve it. And then they solve it. Also, not everything in logic or thinking is as 1+1=2.
2. Since you mentioned a math example: 1+1=2. Well, mathematicians will often times talk about the beauty of Mathematics and get all excited when they can prove something to you or when they speak about mathematics in general. For many of them, it's the most exciting and most amazing game there is, or even more than that: life, the universe, and everything. For this look no further than Paul Erdösi:
> His language had a special vocabulary — not just "the SF" [God] and "epsilon" [child] but also "bosses" (women), "slaves" (men), "captured" (married), "liberated" (divorced), "recaptured" (remarried), "noise" (music), "poison" (alcohol), "preaching" (giving a mathematics lecture), "Sam" (the United States), and "Joe" (the Soviet Union). When he said someone had "died," Erdős meant that the person had stopped doing mathematics. When he said someone had "left," the person had died.
3. You claim that it cannot be measure, you are wrong:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161129085014.htm
I'm not saying that God or all these things exist, or that proves this, but your idea of throwing all of this away is as dangerous as it is ridiculous.
4. Look at yourself, there's no reason (rational or otherwise) to prove to a bunch of Yea Forums anons that metaphysics as an abstract idea of language, and that a bunch of dead guys (Hegel and co.) were wrong. Could it be, that you too, are confusing emotions and reasons?

>The feels is rational and the rational is feels
I caught that one user, good work

Attached: 1522716407830.gif (350x350, 1.58M)

>This is your brain on God
Oh geez, are we really having this kind of debate?

>4. Look at yourself, there's no reason (rational or otherwise) to prove to a bunch of Yea Forums anons that metaphysics as an abstract idea of language, and that a bunch of dead guys (Hegel and co.) were wrong.
I'm not trying to prove anything, I made the thread to see if anyone inherently shares the same sort of demystifying skepticism I do.

Look, Socrates had a lot of theories about the soul, yes? He theorized the parts of it and how it integrates into being. The issue being it was just that, a theory, and he didn't attempt to build an entirely systemized philosophy around it where it interferes with not only his criticisms of other systems of thought but also extended to how people should live, how civilizations should rise and fall, how freedom progresses. He limited his speculation to a reasonable extent. Kant's whole project was on how much we could limit such speculation in our knowledge.

If someone comes to me with a tome on how all of history can be explained by the Holy Spirit or by Thor while also declaring half the world degenerates because they didn't love Thor enough, that's a pretty piss poor historian. Once they start writing treaties on how Thor's magic lightening works and turning it into a system, that's garbage "Philosophy" from the get go. Why should anyone bother critiquing that, let alone experiencing it?

What makes it different than Mythology, categorically, ontologically, epistemologically? Kant kind of brought Hegel a guide book and then Hegel rhetorically took that book, shit on it and bashed his head over it until the shit was caked in blood before throwing it out at the world.

>You're just gesturing pre-rationally to the self-evidence of certain criteria of truth and actuality.
>lmao what is truth anyway mannnnnnn?

Attached: 830408_1315834921220_full.jpg (376x389, 59K)

Hegel thought 18th century Germany was the pinnacle of the world and would've orgasmed in sheer pleasure had he lived to see the Nazis in power. There's not much point in putting stock in anything he says.

Hegel is just nonsense because Marx doesn't realize that spiritualism/occultism is a fundamental aspect of Hegel's dialectic that cannot be removed. There is no "materialist" interpretation of Hegel; Spirit is too important to his thought.

Eternity passed. There was nothing but inky blackness inside this bubble. This room would provide no external stimulus to distract from the mysteries that plagued me. My mind began to wander. Stark naked, and yet without ability to see or even feel my form, one blushed at the cold sensation of my personal quarters, approaching the medium of which one could only begin understanding absolute detachment. Stark corners of the room seeping the little illumination had provided me with some sense of things. one concentrated these senses as hard as one could and in return got a vague but plausible perception back, there was no ripple effect and there was no mystical sensation. Only that of myself entering a more comfortable awareness and level of knowledge.
It was here one had awakened in a darkened room, momentarily disoriented. The room had but a single mirror hanging on the wall, but reflecting nothing in its image. But the second one focused hard enough and 'envisioned' an existence beyond it the room soon faded and beyond its walls was yet still a vast realm beyond my wildest comprehension. one literally couldn’t fathom it’s total form at first. It was an abyss of contractual nonsense and endless disorientation. The mirror stayed put though.
For the longest time, this was all. It was all one had ever known for eons, eons that never passed, that one never felt and was only awaking now. My conscience was finally let loose, and one had some information to grasp, a world of shadowy forms and colorless mountains and prairies and smileless smokey people, translucent shadows that walked this plane. one looked all around me and not a speck of color was to be seen, only the torrent of razing grass in the ashen fields, the hellish behemoths that posed for geographical structures, and the shadow public that seemed to disregard and pass right by me.
One tried calling out to them, but not a single answer would return. one tried running left and right, back and forth screaming, but no sound emitted, and the place seemed to stretch out for eternity for what one couldn’t comprehend otherwise. one was lost in a near formless place. one tried to recollect what just happened, but nothing immediately came at first. As a matter of fact, seconds, minutes, hours and then years ago, all were embodied in this worlds same taint, darkness. That is to say they were non-existent, one couldn’t even remember a world, any world, any life prior to this one, this short eternal woken life of yourself awoken in a strange world without sense. Who was I? What was I? Where was I? These questions all felt as meaningless as their answers nonexistent in a way one cannot possibly convey in understandable terms.

>why not just call it fucking religion?
Because it shares nothing with what is usually called a religion and it's part of the tradition called philosophy.

But why? Because Hegel said so?

Not reading your post but metaphysics is the "science" (used in a loose and old-school way) of being or what is: the nature of "reality."
Majority of western metaphysics centers around *being* being an actual thing and then trying to define what it is and how it came about (though this usually is left to theology (a term Aristotle used)). Hegel is one of many metaphysicists. Don't like him? Or metaphysics at all? I've got great news for you; you don't have to read it.
Some where along the way someone said you have to want to study these things because they have little tangible effect on your life, unless you're driven crazy by not knowing what being is.

Hegel's rants were right around the corner of the industrial revolution, where we'd already look begun looking into the scientific nature of things. How did woo debates and mystification on 'being' resume at all? Why is he still being debated?

It's one thing to speculate on reality with vivid fantasies. It's another when you literally ignore 200 years of progress to have navel-gazing debates on topics that don't correlate to anything at all or really "reality."

Are tarot cards and astrology metaphysical? What about Intuit beliefs about reality about cosmic polar bears and sky fathers? I don't see why we'd emphasize introspecting Hegel instead of them, at what point is one fiction more wholesale with its reception than another?

I ask this as a philosophical query.

>Just because you make up vast terms like the Dialect, Geist or the Absolute, and label it philosophy how does that somehow magically make it more valid than like an essay on Chakra or a dressed up essay on mana energy, or holy spirit and psychic miracle powers
There is a difference between creating a vocabulary to describe the world and making erroneous claims about the world. Yes, you need to buy into his language, this will allow you to discuss complex issues with other scholars in this niche area much more easily and you gain access to the worldview of a great thinker who spent decades refining it. If those two things don't appeal to you, that's totally fine. You also get big boy points in many circles for understanding the work of esoteric philosophers just like you do for understanding complex math that has no implication. No one is saying you have to read this stuff. My advice is read it because it's an influential work by a genius and it will help you develop your own conceptual framework. Or don't. You only have so many years on this planet so do whatever you want.

ive always thought this process was hopeless because it's like a small part of a thing trying to contain the larger thing it's a part of. Very brainlet and basic take on things i know but i could never get over that.

Does Hegel not make incredulous claims that history is decided by spirits and the Spirit/Geist as it progresses towards the Absolute and reaches the end of history (Which he believed to be 18th century Germany, how nice and convenient for him)?

Or is this a case where you can excuse erroneous claims and supernatural ideas just by labeling them as metaphors and saying "That's not what I actually meant, it's a metaphor *wink wink not really.*"

Empirical science is descriptive, not explanatory. Things are made of stuff. What is the stuff?
>Are tarot cards and astrology metaphysical?
Not in the way anyone who'd be considered a metaphysician would use "metaphysics." They are mystical or superstitious but have been equated with metaphysics thanks to nu-age queers mostly
>What about Intuit beliefs about reality about cosmic polar bears and sky fathers?
No, superstition and theology.
>I don't see why we'd emphasize introspecting Hegel instead of them, at what point is one fiction more wholesale with its reception than another?
One is definitely more general than a specific culture's religious beliefs. One is also supported entirely by a logical process instead of unsupported beliefs.
But it's a matter of interest. If you don't care about being beyond your senses then no, metaphysics is not for you. Plenty of other particular sciences to suit your fancy, I'm sure.

Incredulous means disbelieving

Incredible means unbelievable

Your intuition is correct but in the wrong direction. It is the loss of religion, or myth, which creates this absence of meaning, or loss of connection with reality.
Contrast with the Marxist idea of praxis, 'the point is not to interpret the world but change it.' Yes, and no. Such a view politicizes philosophy, involves those who may not be able to make sound judgments, and ignores the problem that there are eras in which change is neither desirable nor even possible.

Your position is similar, there is nothing wrong with authority in itself, rather it is the specific type of authority. From this standpoint the differences between liberalism and communism disappear as they are each opposed to the old world's form of authority.
Essentially, philosophy is the political transition of myth/theology into the political form. Only in the Christian and modern period does it become separate from any real world practise, merely a thinking on the role of man without any real power to enact political change or sovereignty.
And it is from this point that it begins to abstract even further. Hegel and similar thinkers are not wrong, however, there is a level of abstraction connected to their bourgeois relation to ideas. This, of course, does not imply an opposition of common or proletarian ideas, but mythic, human, noble, and heroic ideas.
Myth is superior to philosophy because it combines life with sense and meaning, its concern is that of being (think of philosophical novels and more poetic philosophy, Nietzsche is incredibly engaging because of the power in his writing rather than any truth). Philosophy is only a minor part of this and if it replaces the others it is inevitable that we descend into something like 'fan fiction' as you put it. In other words, it was not inevitable that the entire history of philosophy would end up as a footnote to Plato, that he was somehow a greater thinker, rather this comes down to the disconnect from reality, from a mythic relation to being in the world, enacting great forces. There remained great thinkers, just they were often completely disconnected from the political trajectory.

Human thought, at least in the western metaphysical tradition, can comprehend and create a pretty good picture of what *being* is. What is beyond being, or perhaps, the first being is the subject of what's usually called theology. It's not necessarily religion or abrahamic ramblings. This is where there has to speculation or an acceptance of revelatory religious beliefs. What is behind or the cause of being. In most cases it takes the form of God, even with pagans like Plato and Aristotle.
It is the, in the traditional thought, the highest science humans can hope to engage in. Of course we cannot see the whole picture (unless we assume we do), and so it has its limits

>One is also supported entirely by a logical process instead of unsupported beliefs.

Can you back this up?
If it cannot be empirically or synthetically proven, how can we verify that? There are so many claims in Hegel's work that seem to defy common sense and logic that saying they're inferred logically seems counter-intuitive. We know mathematics can be validated by computer models and scientific principles by empirical data.

There's no external component to Hegel's logical system that corresponds to reality (In fact his Philosophy of Nature is chalk full of erogenous claims), so I don't see how it differs from say the logical system of Astrology or the logic system of Tarot Cards.

It's almost as if slapping labels like "Logical system", "Metaphysics" or "Philosophy" are just convenient and powerful ways to dress up and categorize your ideas as important to distract from their superstitious and theological nature and with enough clout can just buy right into said catagory.

Very interesting.

I just find Hegel a good topic for this schism because he seems intellectually dishonest whether he desires readers to take his work rhetorically and read 'Spirit' the same way one might read Commodity Fetishim or 'Will to Power- or whether he means what he writes and is quite literal, meaning the mystical/spiritual aspects of this thoughts are part of his actual religiosity instead of a materialist system.

I'd read that Marx assumed the latter of the previous paragraph and thus wrote off large portions of his work as superstitious mystifying silliness.

Who innovated the phonetic alphabet into the compiled scripture of Greek thought, translated down to the electronic annuls of the wikipedia page? I wonder if you've ever actually read anything? or just made noises in your head every time you come across the non-technology of phonics...

Look, my man. I'm not here to sell you metaphysical thought. You are free to be an empiricist if you want. If you don't believe in a-priori or purely logical principles, yeah, it's not going to do it for you. If you belief only what you see is real, then that's it. For some people that's not enough.
I'll just ask what you'd have these metaphysicists like Hegel spend their time on instead of what interests them.

What is rational? What constitutes a "rational" motive? Because all of human ingenuity stems from an emotional drive to explore, understand, and create. Is all of that irrational?

I personally find Metaphysics fascinating, but the line between them and a religious discourse seems like a blurred line sometimes. A lot of Buddhist thought runs into the same problem and whenever I tell Buddhists some of their claims run contrary to both conventional science and newly discovered logic, they just dismiss it outright as not part of their circle of discourse. Dismissing elements that don't fit or work elegantly into your ideas, even metaphysical ones strike me as inherently unphilosophical.

I mean an a-priori can be reached easily according to the laws of even our current universe, a lot of what we know on Quantum Physics is arrived apriori to elaborate on unknowns in the physical realm. The difference is Hegel's system requires you to accept the totality of it or just live in denial about select parts. But Kant's metaphysical system is also his system's weakness, since its ethics doesn't prescribe specific moral judgement and dances around like Rumpelstiltskin with some of the broader conclusions. A sanitized Hegel would probably just end up purged to a materialist thought like what Marx wrought in the end.

>And they say Hegel wasn't the first postmodernist

Attached: Hawt_5b17e0_5838657.jpg (500x513, 103K)

Curious question, is Plato's Timaeus metaphysics or are they religious/superstitious?

Yep

These sorts of philosophers aren’t grounded in a static divine source, so it’s all just pointless babble that will be overturned by the next philosopher. What’s the point

You’re right, they want to start their own religion but based on human thought

I would place it under mysticism or religious.

Hey
Back up a moment,
with regards to their analogies with constellations and tarot cards I think what
is saying is all 3 (the 2 and Hegel) make astounding claims about their predictive power and analysis that turns out to be mostly spaced on an entirely self-concocted system. The same way they look at the stars or cards for reading trends, Hegel seems to read history and 'Spirit' the same way a bit brazenly.

Why so? Aren't they just attempting to find the true nature of being similar to Hegel is?

I agree with all that. I've never read Hegel beyond a few summary pieces and am trying to "defend" metaphysics as a whole. Anything that doesn't admit new ideas or is too rigid to do so is dogma. Modern science often takes dogmatic stances but I'm not here to critique them.
As I said, metaphysics is on the edge of human reason. It will naturally take mystical/superstitious/religious forms on occasion, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
There are plenty of answers to the question. More often than not they resemble each other.

Please allow Hegel to speak for himself on this interesting question. Here is a quotation from Hegel’s Encyclopedia volume 1 (ca. 1820).

>"The term Mysticism is at present used, as a rule, to designate what is mysterious and incomprehensible: and in proportion as their general culture and way of thinking vary, the epithet is applied by one class to denote the real and the true, and by another class to name everything connected with superstition and deception. On which we first of all remark that there is Mystery in the Mystical, only however for the Pure Understanding, which is ruled by the principle of abstract identity. Whereas the Mystical, as synonymous with the Speculative, is the concrete unity of those propositions which the Understanding only accepts in their separation and opposition." (Hegel, ENC LOGIC, para. 82)

The complexity of Hegel’s answer is due to his use of Kant’s vocabulary, specifically his terms, “Pure Understanding,” and “abstract identity” as well as “Speculative.” I will not attempt to summarize Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1780) here, which first uses these terms in Hegel’s manner of speaking. Yet there is Hegel saying that the Mystical is synonymous with Speculative philosophy.

If I remember correctly the dialogue explicitly states that it is revelatory in nature.

I already said elsewhere I'm not defending Hegel but metaphysics as a whole. I can't comment on Hegel's doctrines explicitly. If it's as rigid as you say I would classify it as dogma, same with the other two as well as Buddhism and atheism and empirical science. It's is likely a theory or explanation. If one part fails the whole thing may go too. He may have tried defending it with circular reasoning and other tactics so that it didn't collapse on itself. If this is the case, it is either sophistical or at least not philosophically spirited.

You're confusing scientific procedure with logical truth; the scientist fallacy. Falsifiability isn't a standard of truth, it's a technique within the narrow bands of scientific procedure. A statement that is logically necessarily true isn't falsifiable: "all bachelors are unmarried" is necessarily true and is not falsifiable.

Start with Kant to clarify what knowledge is and what the sources of it are, unmuddle your thinking.

'reality' is not all that important

Hegel’s whole philosophical system was designed to show modern individuals what it actually means to be “Rational.” It takes a lot of patience but don't dismiss the abstractions, he's much less pseudo-spiritual wank than say Plato or Arthur Schopenhauer. He borrows from religious ideas and concepts like spirit or the Trinity to force the reader to analyze why he chose those choices in examining the development of an idea, but it's not like he's a baptist preaching about the holy spirit entering Napoleon or anything like that.

Hegel was very critical of religion and this sort of mystification you speak of. He'd agree a lot more with OP then people might like to admit, since the philosophers in his day and age he had similar complaints about sputtering into metaphysical absurdities and white noise.

Logical truth can be demonstrated in computer models and algorithms. There's a lot in Kant's thought that establishes what can be said to be knowledge or truth- Hegel just defys and shits on most of it because he hates that Kant takes god and spirit (wooo supernatural theological values) out of the equation.

>or at least not philosophically spirited.
That seems to be OPs charge
But that's a complicated debate

Philosophical claims often aren't all built on logical truth either, much of it is just speculation.

>to force the reader to analyze why he chose those choices in examining the development of an idea

...so, why exactly? Especially since in many areas he puts out terms that pro-port to be scientific/logical while conflating spirit and supernatural ideas with them.
Treat me like a brain/lit/ and explain his reasons like I'm 5 user.

Why? Because Jesus and Christianity were the of the after-imagery of the ghosts of Spartacus, they continued his fight and the implications for Christian Ethos have been a far reaching struggle between father and son, exploiter and exploited, oppressor and the oppressed. Basically in Christianity Hegel sees the perfect mirror of the Master-Slave dialect where humanity attempts to throw off its own dark forces ravaging their mind and preventing them from elevating their status in history.
>Explain it to me like I'm 5
Just go watch Steven Universe then. It's a dumbed down cartoon that explains Hegel better than any story since Lord of the Flies or Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Attached: Rose.jpg (1280x720, 84K)

Look buddy just because you're a brainlet doesn't mean that Hegel is wrong. Have sex.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

All sciences rest on a primitive notion. Hegel is interested in the Notion (Begriff) itself. Of course you are going to get frustrated, try reading something easier. If your keen on understanding him work your way up to him. Good luck

yes

Attached: friedrich-nietzsche-1065179.jpg (640x948, 162K)

>It feels almost authoritarian that way since their doctrines require unquestioning acceptance to accept as relevant or meaningful.
Its not doctrines its just vocabulary. They use words in specific historically contextual ways. Think of it like reading math and instead of the variable x substitute the word for the original German or assign it a separate pronunciation in your mind to distinguish it. If you think he is wrong give him a few chapters to explain and if you get confused its probably because you misread something.

Its not blind acceptance of dogma, its understanding the terms and how they relate in context, then you can refute it easily.

Petulant and lambasting
user is right, Nietzsche is right up your alley

>because that's an irrational belief-filled statement, like the Tao or a koan a Buddhist monk would make
allegories metaphor and symbolism dumb because not real

Attached: +_8167cc179ef6c3c9ba84c19dc5bb4fd6.jpg (682x900, 176K)

>Hegel
LOL HE BELIEVES IN FANTASY LARPING ANYTHING GOBBELDYGOP
Seriously, Hegel was a subverter, chuck that rubbish into the bin and pick up Siege

>lmao what is truth anyway mannnnnnn?
You can do that if you want but until the mind body problem is solved your justifications for truth are just as arbitrary.

>But that's exactly how I feel about Hegel to start with, just unattainable conclusions we're expected to take seriously by some authority fallacy.
It has nothing to do with authority. You have to take the concepts and test within their own construction to see if they work.

Like if you don't find the problem interesting or you are find with just assuming things are as they appear with no evidence for it that's fine but not a reason to shit on people who actually want to try and understand human experience

>It's one thing to speculate on reality with vivid fantasies.
I don't know why people unironically come into philosophy threads and act like the mind body problem is solved. This is possibly the most irritating thing in the world other than "non-ideological" liberals which you probably also are.

No one in this thread has read Wittgenstein and it shows

>Is Metaphysics just glorified theology/Fanfiction?
Sort of. It's a meme before memes were the norm. You won't miss anything by ignoring it. You'd gleam more truth from looking at outsider art in museums.

Hegel claims to be use logic and science however. To pretend his wishful history trinity ghost theory is real because durrr just a metaphor but also very logical is retarded

>You have to take the concepts and test within their own construction to see if they work.

Granted, history really didn't 'end' nor play out the way Hegel thought it would (or atleast, the way he wished it would, with Nazis just taking over everything and progressing spirit with utter domination like he got a hard on for). So yeah his theories weren't really accurate and became quickly irrelevant into the 20th century.

What do you mean 'but why' you retard. It isn't part of what we understand the word religion to mean not colloquially nor academically, and Hegel was writing within the tradition of Western philosophy and thus intrinsically tied to it and anything named philosophical. In any case, these are just names and groupings you could interpret and rearrange in many ways. Although to properly do so you must have the prescience of a historical and philosophical genius to avoid discarding things you don't notice or understand. As that almost always produces naming games obfuscation dressed up as a critical look, it's a simplification pretending to be a better, more enlightened overhaul. I haven't read Hegel but it seems more like you hold a metaphysical view like anyone but deny metaphysics, and are oddly hostile towards this instance of it, and so you are intellectually stunted. Read the Greeks or something with an open mind and start the basics.

Math is metaphysics. the constants e and pi are universal constants which's effects are visible in the real worlds.
Anyone who doesn't "believe" in metaphysics 1. Is making a fallacy 2. Didn't understand What metaphysics is 3. can't be trusted with the fruits of scientific method.

>are tarrot cards metaphysical
>what about the Inuit idea of cosmic polar bears and sky fathers
Unironically yes.

>bro if his literal images in his metaphor aren't visible to me then it's dumb

Attached: thumb_create-meme-meme-memes-retarded-wojak-pictures-53573032.png (300x217, 37K)

> That Hegel's Absolute is identical to Man (with a capital M) could be understood first of all in the sense that Man reappropriates his own infinite essence, inheriting all the qualities that until then had been attributed to God. It is well known that this was the thesis of the "Hegelian left," of Feuerbach and the young Marx (whose Manuscripts of 1844 had just been discovered), and Kojeve, in fact, did not scruple to take it up again and attribute it, as generously as he did tendentiously, to Hegel himself: "In a general way, Hegelian anthropology is a laicization of Christian theology. [Hegel] repeats several times that everything Christian theology says is absolutely true on condition of its being applied.
>-Lacan, the absolute master (p13)