Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve had some very interesting talks on how society works from the point of view of Hegel and Kierkegaard. While Hegel believes that there are certain patterns we can track i.e. the plant, blossom, fruit example, Kierkegaard runs more with this idea of our reality as a “perpetual illness” in which we should aim to contract despair. So I thought I would try to apply Hegel’s modes of thinking to modern politics and political theory, and then bring a challenge to the table for Kierkegaard and my understanding of what it means to be existentialist.
Hegel And The Anithesis Synthesis Model
When looking at Hegel the first person I’m reminded of is Thomas Hobbes; a famous political theorist who wrote a book called “Leviathan”. Within the book, Hobbes attempts to construct a political society piece by piece, almost as an engineer would, and in turn, creates this unstoppable Sovereign we would come to know as the Leviathan. So the question obviously arises within Hobbes as to why would you give away your power to create such an unstoppable figure? The answer lies within Hegel’s Antithesis – Thesis model.
The Antithesis – Thesis model is a model in which a thesis is made, and then through understanding, antithesis and synthesis follow infinitely.
The point of this model is to show a pattern which occurs within society, whenever synthesis occurs, we will force ourselves into antithesis and so on. Hobbes identifies this pattern and understands it to be an integral part as to why we sign the social contract (the reason as to why we give away our power). So this infinite political loop works like this: If we didn’t sign the social contract we’d be in chaos (assuming you think mans state of nature is chaotic). So we sign the social contract to give a figurehead power in trade for protection. The figurehead becomes too powerful and we destroy it. We’re now back in the state of nature and we’re worse off. So we sign the social contract etc. This continues until eventually, we create a figure so big, that we ourselves cannot stop it – a Leviathan.
So overall I would say Hegel and Hobbes have very similar views, and I can definitely see how this and many other models (master and slave) would contribute to the political sphere we have today.
Kierkegaard’s Challenge
This is more of a question than anything else, and if anyone could help me with it I’d be grateful. Kierkegaard is said to be existentialist, and the definition given to existentialism is existence precedes essence. Yet in Christian philosophy, a strong tenet of belief is essence precedes existence i.e. God has a plan, and Kierkegaard is also Christian. So what am I missing here? It’s either
A) My definition of existentialism is wrong (most likely this?)
B) Kierkegaard isn’t existentialist
C) Christians don’t believe essence precedes existence
D) I’m missing something?
If you have an opinion on this leave it in the comments!
Could we maybe see the thesis model in modern day politics? I maybe see this idea come out in social politics, where a lot of our ideas about different marginalized groups tend to change because people push for it. Several decades ago, it was seen as socially acceptable to say racial slurs (thesis). But then, even with intense backlash, people rose up and said it wasn’t acceptable (antithesis), and so nowadays, it’s seen as socially unacceptable (synthesis). It is the hope of many trans activists that even with the same backlash to the antithesis (the push for a person’s pronouns to be respected), it will be seen as being socially acceptable to be using a person’s preferred pronouns in the future.
I think maybe (it’s so sad that I don’t really know this since my test on Kierkegaard was like a few weeks ago but here we are) what’s worthy of noting w/r/t your Kierkegaard question is that Kierkegaard sees the ultimate form of life (one he says, later in life, he achieved thru suffering) as being a life of faith. In this life of faith, there can occur a “teleological suspension of the ethical” for God’s sake (i.e. Abraham agrees to kill his own son)
Perhaps Kierkegaard considers existentialism (although, he wouldn’t refer to himself in that way, I’m pretty sure) on such suspension