TABLE
OF CONTENT
TITLE . . . . . . . . . .i
CERTIFICATION . . . . . . . .i
DEDICATION. . . . . . . . .ii
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS . . . . . . .iii
TABLE OF CONTENT . . . . . .vi
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Biography of
Hegel ……………………. ……………..viii
Statement of
problem…………………………………….xi
Literature
review…………………………………………….xii
Scope of
study…………………………………………………….xiv
Methodology……………………………………………………...xv
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND OF HEGEL’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
1.1 Historical Survey……………………………….…………1
1.1.2 The Philosophical Implications………………………….6
1.1.3 Hegel’s Aim of
Politics ………………………….9
CHAPTER TWO: HEGEL AND THE INDIVIDUAL
2.1. Hegel’s Notion of
the Individual…………………13
2.2. The End of the Individual
as the State………...19
CHAPTER THREE: HEGEL’S THEORY OF THE STATE.
3.1. The Nature of the State………………….……………27
3.1.1. The Development of
the State…………………32
3.1.2. The Combination of
the State with the Constitutional Law……………..40
3.1.3. The Structure of
the State……………………….44
3.2. The State as the Rational
Moral Body………….…..47
3.2.1. The Relation of
the Individual and the State…..49
CHAPTER FOUR: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
4.1. The True Concept of
the Individual Human Person……….54
4.2. The State as the Community
of Persons…………………….58
4.3. Critical Approach………………………………………59
4.4.
Conclusion……………………..………………………62
Bibliography………………………………………63
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
BIOGRAPHY OF HEGEL (1770-1831)
Hegel was born in Stuttgart on August 27, 1770,
the son of a revenue officer with the civil service. He was brought up in an
atmosphere of protestant pietism and became thoroughly acquainted with the
Greek and Roman classics while studying at the Stuttgart gymnasium (Preparatory School).
Encouraged by his father to become a clergyman, Hegel entered the seminary at
the University of
Tubingen in 1788. There
he developed friendship with the poet Friedrich Holderlin and the philosopher
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling. Having completed a course of study in
philosophy and theology and having decided not to enter ministry, He became a
private tutor in Berne, Switzerland in.1793. In 1797 he
assumed a similar position in Frankfurt. Two
years later his father died, leaving a financial legacy that was sufficient to
free him from tutoring. Hegel while at school gave no impression of exceptional
ability.
In 1801 Hegel went to the University of Jena, where he studied, wrote, and
eventually became a lecturer. At Jena
he completed The Phenomenology of Mind
(Die Phanomenologie des Geistes) in 1807. He remained at Jena until October 1806, when the French took
over the city and he was forced to flee. Having exhausted the legacy left for
him by his father, He became editor of the Bamberg
Zeitung in Bavaria. He dissliked journalism, however,
and moved to Hamburg,
where he served for eight years as headmaster of a gymnasium. During the Nuremberg years Hegel met
and married Marie Von Jucher. Three children were born to the family, a
daughter, who died soon after birth, and two sons Karl and Immanuel. Before his
marriage, Hegel had fathered an illegitimate son, Ludwig. While at Nuremberg, he published over a period of several years The Science of Logic (wissenschaft der
logic) in 1812- 1813, and in 1816 he accepted a professorship in philosophy at
the University of
Heidelberg. Soon after,
he published in summary form a systematic statement of his entire philosophy
entitled Encyclopedia of the
Philosophical Sciences (Enzyklopadie der philosophischen wissenschaften im
Grundriss) 1817. In 1818 he was invited to teach at the University of Berlin,
where he stayed for the rest of his life. He died in Berlin
on November 14, 1831,
during a cholera epidemic. The last extensive work published by Hegel was The Philosophy of Right (Der Philosophie des Rechts) in 1821,
(translated in 1896) although several sets of his lecture notes, supplemented
by students’ notes were published after his death. Published lectures include The
Philosophy of Fine Art in 1835-1838 (translated in 1920), ‘Lectures on the
History of Philosophy’ in 1833-1836 (translated in 1892-1896), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion
in 1832 (translated in 1895), and Lectures
on the Philosophy of History in 1837 (translated in 1858). Strongly
influenced by Greek ideas, Hegel also read the works of the Dutch philosopher
Baruch Spinoza, the French writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, and the German
philosophers Immanuel Kant; Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Schelling. Although he
often disagreed with these philosophers, their influences are evident in his
writings
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This work as considered above is
borne out of a desire to address analytically the unresolved problem of the
individual and the state. There have never been in time since the dawn of
political philosophy, any socio-political issue that never attracted so much
attention, reflection and debate among political theorists as the relation of
the individual and the state. Plato contemplated it; Aristotle, Aquinas,
Grothius, Suarez, Rousseau and others followed suit to the present day. Its
power of attraction does not arise from its being an intellectually fertile
issue, rather, it is because it fundamentally affects and penetrates the
deepest bossoms of the dignity of man. It refers superlatively to the human
person.
Thus, the questions have always been
how can man, in virtue of his dignity (as a person) and his rationality (which
implies freedom) relate with the state? What is the use of the state for man?
What are the limits of man’s creativity, ingenuity and authenticity, in fact,
his freedom when made to stand in direct confrontation with the state? What
really is the state and/or man? Should the state assimilate the individual or
preserve his identity? These and many other questions have necessitated various
opinions of various distinguished political theorists. For instance, Aristotle
would maintain that man is man because he is political, that is he (man) is
state bound. To be non-political is tantamount to be humanly impossible. That
is why he said “he who is not able to live in the state is either a beast or a
god.”
For some, it is exclusively natural. For others like St.Thomas Aquinas, the
relation of the individual and the state has a theological connotation. This
explains why he opined that in creating man, God willed a political community.
Meanwhile, it is Hegel’s promise to provide a state of freedom under law that
had attracted us to the study of his theory in his Philosophy of Right.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Our main focus in this literature review is to
consider most importantly, some of the works that are of great help in the
course of writing this work. However, we may not review them exhaustively. The
first work to be considered is Hegel’s The
Philosophy of Right. This work was published in 1821. It constitutes along
with his Philosophy of History, the
penultimate section of his Encyclopedia, the section that deals with the human
world and its array of social rules and institutions. Thus, this book helped me
in the overall writing of this work, especially how Hegel made a comprehensive
and scholarly case study of his native German state and discovered the
multitude of ills that overwhelmed it. He lamented that people considered
private property and interest to be indeed common to all society so as to
justify their selfish ends.
The second book to be considered is Thomas
Aquinas Summa Theologica.This book
offered a great help in the general treatment of what a law is and how it
should be obeyed by the individual for a better state.
Another book that is considered
useful is the phenomenology of mind
by Hegel (Translated by J.B Baille). This book presented me with Hegel’s
dialectics which was the fundamental principles surrounding Hegel’s philosophy.
The last but not the least book to be considered is Austin Fagothey’s Right and Reason. This work published in
1967, was of a great service in the general treatment of the topic of this
essay. Moreover, many other relevant materials were used in bringing home my
points
SCOPE OF STUDY
This work aimed at investigating
Hegel’s reaction and perspectives of these claims (the state and individual) is
the sole object of this dissertation. Therefore, we hope first to expose the
factors that biased and necessitated his views.
Now apart from perennial importance,
our interest in socio- political philosophy is aroused by Hegel’s brilliant and
effective criticism of the individualistic theory of social contract of his
predecessors (with Rousseau as the
foremost advocate) who made the state a mere instrument of protection of
individual in the pursuit of their selfish interest. The idea of unity and
solidarity is entirely disregarded on the assumption that men created the state
by a mere convention rather than a natural reality of humans.
Secondly, we shall see his concept of
the individual as based on his dialectic principle of reality and how the state
stands to be man’s greatest end.
Thirdly, we shall treat his theory of
the state, its development, emergence, structure and the state as the only
rational moral body. The relation of the individual and the state then follows
suit.
We shall conclude by treating the
traditional concept of the human person and the state as a community of
persons. These will help to expose Hegel’s defects more clearly, after which
the curtain draws with a brief conclusion.
Finally, it is necessary to state
from the onset that the researcher is not going into all the philosophical
thoughts of Hegel rather the accent lies on his political philosophy.
1.5 METHODOLOGY.
From the
Hegel’s political stance, the researcher intends to analyze, evaluate and
criticize his political opinion that says that not the individual but the state
should come first. The method of exposition was adopted for a better and
clearer understanding.
THE STATE AS A COMMUNITY OF PERSONS IN
HEGEL; A CRITIQUE
CHAPTER
ONE
1.1 BACKGROUND OF HEGEL’S
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
1.1.1. HISTORICAL
SURVEY
Every individual is a child of his time. It is
not easy for one to escape the influence of his epoch or contemporary world.
Hegel himself is not innocent of this. His historical judgments and moral
evaluations were in fact as much conditioned by time, place and personality, as
those of other philosophers.
However, in virtue of the
nature and scope of our topic, this portion will rather concentrate more on the
de facto German political condition
which presented itself glaringly before Hegel and to which his political
thought was nothing but a reaction.
Hegel made a
comprehensive and scholarly case study of his native German state and
discovered the multiple ills that overwhelmed it. He lamented that people
considered private property and interest to
be indeed common to all society so as to justify their selfish ends.
He also saw the
pseudo-democratic spirit that shrouded the state which he thought would
engender more threat to freedom than ever. In effect, he wished to eradicate
all these. He wanted to substitute them with a magnificent theory of power
vested upon the state and the monarch.
From his experiences of
the French Revolution, Hegel deplored the consequences of the Revolution. He
even tagged it a ‘glorious dawn,’ but he also meant that at the inception of
the revolutionary wars, Germany
was not free from the revolutionary armies’ invasion. The invasion came up when
Hegel was twenty-one.
On another note, Germany was infested with a myriad of petty
despotisms that were loosely linked together as the Holy Roman Empire under the
leadership of Francis I of Austria.
Marcus enumerating this noted that:
The Reich consisted of Austria and Prussia, the prince Electors, 94
ecclesiastical and secular princes, 103 barons, 40 prelates, and 51 Reich
towns, in sum it consisted of nearly 300 territories.
Under this heteronomy of
despotisms, Germany
found it extremely hard to subsume their personal whims under a united national
spirit. There was rather an evidence of porosity, individualism and weakness.
In view of this Hegel as one of the contributors to the development of the
German state made this elegant remark;
Without law and
justice, without protection from arbitrary taxation, uncertain of the lives of
our sons and our freedom and our rights, the existence of the despotic power,
our existence lacking unity and a national spirit… This is the status quo of
our nation.
Therefore, this was a
period when people believed strongly in the divine right of kings even though
they could not reach out for laws and justice. This means that rationality was
conspicuously lacking and this manifested itself in the introduction of arbitrary
taxations and insecurity. However, everyone yearned for the German
reunification, which has for long eluded her even after the revolutionary wars
during which Austria and Prussia
were vanquished.
At this time when the
French power was incumbent, Germany
experienced much reformation. In Prussia, for instance, Von Stein, a
liberal, was appointed chief adviser to the king, and he immediately abolished
serfdom and reorganized the system of government. Following him was Von
Hardenberg, who promised to give Prussia a representative
constitution; but these hopes were obliterated completely after Napoleon’s
defeat.
On his own part,
Frederick William III, the Prussian king lost interest in reform, and after
years of delay, in 1823 he set up only provincial ‘estates’ which engaged only
in advice, and in any case were completely dominated by land owners.
Moreover, in 1819, at a
meeting at Carlsbad,
all the German states agreed to censor repressive measures against those who
advocated revolutionary ideas. After observing
all these, Hegel viewed that Germany
has had a real genetically political cankerworm. He instantly detected these
national defects of German character as ‘provincialism’ and ‘particularism,’
which, he said, are the causes of the empire’s weakness.
He also observed that
Germany, viewed from the cultural point of view, was a nation but it had not
understood what it meant to subjugate parts to whole which was essential to
(the) a national government. The central government, he noted, was weak because
its power flowed from its parts. Even the existing constitution reflected
nothing but an explicit subterfuge for weakness.
Thus, there was total
individualism among the people and sheer sectionalism among corporations,
estates, guilds and even religious sects. For this reason then Hegel identified
this German particularism with an anarchical love of freedom which misconceived
liberty as an absence of discipline and authority.
And this he contrasted with “true freedom”, which is to be found only within the
bounds of a national state. Freedom as Hegel understood it had nothing to do
with the individualism of English and French political thought but it was
rather a quality reflected upon the individual by the national power of
self-determination.
In effect, Hegel saw
Germany as revolving around what he termed the’ civil society’ with no greater
aim than collective protection of its industrial property. He aimed at
elevating Germany
from its political and social trash to an organic natural state, the divine idea
in the universe. Following his diagnosis of Germany’s weakness Hegel defined
the state as a group which collectively protects its property. Its only
essential powers are civil and military establishment sufficient to this end.
1.1.2 THE
PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS
Hegel’s treatment of most
of the social issues can rightly be seen as a direct criticism and rejection of
some of Rousseau’s liberal opinions. Rousseau had put forward his idea that man
is born free but is everywhere in chains. For him man is naturally free. He
captures his freedom as soon as he gets the opportunity. This freedom of the
individual, ordained by nature, offers the general will. The general will is
the will that discrete individual, that appear to be more powerful than their
fellow individuals, and the less powerful individual falls the victim of surrendering
to more powerful individual and as a result pay their obeisance to them.
As it were, it was Rousseau who initiated the romantic cult of democracy. This
led him to formulate the contractualist theory of the state against which
Hegel would hold as a
contrary view, one that is strictly organic. More so, the constitution of Germany
showed clearly that Hegel’s conception
of the dialectic was controlled by a moral rather than a scientific purpose.
Hegel explained that the object of the essay was to promote understanding of
things as they are, to exhibit political history not as arbitrary but as
necessary. The unhappiness of man is a frustration that arises from the discrepancy
between what is and what he is feigned to believe ought to be. It occurs
because he imagines that event is mere unrelated detail and not a “system ruled
by a spirit.”
Its remedy comes with reconciliation, the realization that what is must be and
the consciousness that what must be also ought to be. This is manifestly the
principle which Hegel later summarized in his aphorism, “the real is rational
and the rational is real” The authority that was fully conferred on
the civil society, with the elimination of the state government as it were
upheld by Rousseau was seen by Hegel as nothing but transitory means to and end
and not the end itself.
Thus, the absolute
democracy of Rousseau was rightly criticized by Hegel. And the criticisms gave
direction to Hegel’s philosophy of the organic state. This absolute democracy
gave individuals the right to agree and form government of all citizens’
participation. This implies that there is no state outside the civil society,
because all are decision makers. This form, according to Rousseau, accords well
with individual inalienable freedom that should not be surrendered to another.
Hegel found serious faults against this liberalist individualist absolute
democracy. He saw its demolition and replacement as the hope of a new
socio-political order
1.1.3
HEGEL’S AIM OF POLITICS
Hegel aimed at
introducing a substantial change in the entire socio-political structure but
with a special reference to Germany.
To achieve this he brought in his new logic, the dialectic which is the
underlying principle for validation of the historical necessity of a people’s
national mentality and spirit.
Again
he wanted to present a view of the individual as an entity whose end is the
absolute spirit, and without the existence of the absolute spirit it automatically loses its
authenticity as a substantial individual.
Also
the de facto German government which he says has not yet arrived at a national
unity requires a binding force to achieve its organic structure. This, in fact,
would elevate it to the level where it will be the teleology or the ‘entelechy’
of the individual. It would be the highest authority, the most moral being and
the superlative synthesis of all families and civil societies.
At such a stratum, it will dedicate itself to the
so-called Hegelian Nobel act of institutionalizing the common interest and
defending it against all external and internal conflicts. Thus the state will
not only embody or encapsulate its citizens but also pastures them like a
flock. This then gave Hegel more courage to hold that the state is far superior
to and qualitatively different from the civil society. That is why he said:
The state is the actuality of concrete
freedom. But concrete freedom consists in this, that personal individuality and
its particular interests not only achieve their complete development and again
explicit recognition for their right (as in the family and civil society) …they
also pass over of their own accord into
the interests of the universal,… they know and will the universal. Even
recognize it as their own substantive mind; they take it as their end and aim
and are active in its pursuit. The result is that the universal does not
prevail or achieve completion along with particular interests and through the
co-operation of particular knowing and willing…
The summary of his
political purpose could rightly be regarded as an effort to reconcile freedom
and authority which is accomplished when the state emerges and imposes its laws
(in the form of the constitution) upon the lesser associations in which the
individuals are involved. Sequel to this he upholds a standardized organic
system which is directly contrapuntal to Rousseau’s absolute democracy.
More over, his desire
includes portraying the state as an unrivalled and magnificent institution that
invests its government with standards of absolute reason and laws that are
universally valid. To this end he sets out to reconstruct political philosophy
in general. Little wonder then, the outcome of such an ambitious venture was
his elegant work “The Philosophy of Right”- a work that is difficult to
comprehend. It was as a result of this incomprehensibility of this material
that many people described him as a fellow that embraced an abstract
philosophy.
Hegel’s aim was to set
forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it would encompass the ideas
of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in terms of which both
the past and future could be understood philosophically. Such an aim would
require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel
conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole. This
reality, or the total developmental process of everything that is, he referred
to as the Absolute.
According to Hegel, the
task of philosophy is to chart the development of the Absolute. This involves
first, making clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute; second,
demonstrating the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and
human history; and, third, explicating the teleological nature of the Absolute,
that is, showing the end or purpose towards which the Absolute is directed.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment