It is refreshing to see a writer so clearly and straightforwardly attempt to understand Hegel. Waldron is a good example of my contention that, whereas we may from time to time require a difficult genius to push the boundaries of thought using convoluted prose and technical terminology, this necessity does not condone herds of third-rate imitators mouthing the terminology and presenting the obscurantism as the genius itself. Rather, what we need from interpreters of difficult, brilliant texts is the sort of clear, patient understanding and evaluation that scholars like Waldron provide.
That said, with an inherently difficult subject even the clearest of analyses can be hard to follow, as when Waldron argues that property for Hegel is necessary even if it is something eventually to be discarded: "... his thesis is that without property, no man can develop to the stage where he is capable of responding to the sort of demands to which the principle of property might properly be subordinated" (The Right to Private Property, p. 350). Convoluted as this sounds, it's clearer than Hegel, and probably not susceptible of further simplification.
But to what sort of demands might the principle of property properly be subordinated? It does seem to me that you have to have something before you are in a position to give a gift, and as Hegel might say, a gift is at the same time the outright negation of the property you have in the thing...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Hegel might be emphasizing that we “have to have” our "self"; and once we do, we shed our skin, or “negations” (The necessary phases of human development) on our way to “Mind Absolute”. These “negations” might be seen as gifts to others who have not yet gone through particular phases of development, and therefore still possess value. Hegel, similar to Plato, masterfully places us in the experience of understanding truly the concepts-and in Hegel’s case I think we are in a "struggle" with ourselves and the acquisition knowledge.
i may not understand this post well, but it seems obvious that we would have to own something to give it, in order for it to be a gift. if i gave you something that did not belong to me, though not taking anything away from the intrinsic value, it wouldn't carry the same intention (i may want you to be the one with it in your possession when the rightful owner comes looking for it).
though an object may be disregarded, the labor invested in the object (as locke would remind us) remains in the fruit of the labor, even if the intention of the labor was to disregard it.
on a different perspective, but no less true, i would think one of the qualifying attributes of being self actualized is being in harmony with nature without needing to possess it. only in a society where, if you don't own something people will feel free to take it from you, does the need to own property arise as part of our development.
Post a Comment