GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of philosophy, one peculiar trait has marked all the philosophers and served as their uniting factor. It is the desire to form a coherent and unified interpretation of reality natural to the reflective mind. Starting from the Greek philosophers, this trait is found in their quest for the “urstoff” of all that exists (thereby remaining cosmocentric in their interpretation) through the theocentric interpretation of the medieval era. In the light of this trait, the modern period becomes over-laden with anthropocentricism. In sum, we can bluntly say that philosophy has this single task of forming a unified interpretation of reality to perform.
However, the actual task to be performed presents itself in different ways at different times. For example, the development of physical science in the post-mediaeval world meant that the philosopher who wished to construct an overall interpretation had to grapple with the problem of reconciling the scientific view of the world as a mechanical system with the demands of the moral and religious consciousness. Descartes was faced with this problem. And so was Kant. Even though kant rejected the ways of dealing with this problem which were characteristic of his predecessors and offered his own original solution, it is arguable that in the long run he left us with a “bifurcated reality”[1]. On the other hand, a supersensous world of the free agent is provided. There is no valid reason to assert the existence of the phenomenal realm, as well as a theoretical proof of the supersensuous reality. Even though Kant made effort to bridge the gap between the two realities in a way comprehensible to the remote mind, he however related a problem which the German idealists refused to pass over in silence. Thus, German idealism culminating in Hegel, made effort to make the whole of reality intelligible to the human mind, provided that this mind can be regarded as the vehicle, as it were of absolute thought reflecting on itself. The result of this was the Absolute idea in Hegel’s philosophy or Hegelian idealism.
The point to be made is that Hegel’s point of departure was the theme of the relation between the infinite and the finite or more precisely, between the universal, collectivity and the individual. Hegel evaluated everything on the platform of the Absolute infinite, making the finite, including the human person, a product of the Absolute, and universal. Now, a mind-boggling question surges up: what is actually the role of the individual in this universal? It is obvious at this point that Hegel in order to solve the Kantian dualism created an existential problem for the individual human person who appears to be at sea in the whole Hegelian set up.
Hence the problem, which obviously faced Hegel as an idealist, was that of including, as it were, the finite within the life of the infinite without depriving the former of its reality[2]. The difficulty of solving this problem is responsible for a good deal of ambiguity in metaphysical idealism when it is a question of defining its relation to theism on the one hand and Pantheism on the other. However, the problem lingered on and constituted the fundamental springboard of existentialist trend. As such, it becomes consistent to ask: How can the human person become fully himself, free and independent in this existential order vis-à-vis the Hegelian abstraction that kept his reality or rather existence somewhere beyond this order. Could the individual human person be said to be free, responsible and actually existing yet remaining a moment in the “self-development” of the absolute thought or universal. If the state is the supreme will of the individual and if the individual exists for the good of the state as an institution, is the human person free from this mere objectification or relegation? How could this utilitarian principle of the many against one contribute to his survival? How could man’s authenticity be assured in this all-consuming absolute universal? In the present era, the submerging of the individual takes other forms in the society. These forms constitute the various ways the implications of Hegelian idealism become evident in our society. The powerful evidence towards political and social totalitarianism with its reduction of personal responsibility and its evaluation of personal value in terms of service to the collectivity are not apart from these forms and consequent implications. This constitutes a hard nut to crack as there arises the need to reaffirm the free individual in the face of this powerful tendency.