How would Hegel counter the claim that the actualisation of freedom is only based on the State being truly?

Question

ethical? If someone translates their concept of freedom through the duties expressed by the State in the understanding that the State is ethical, what happens if, in hindsight, the State was not infact truly ethical, and the person's understand was thus wrong? Would that mean that they weren't actually free? If we apply that theory to us today, does that mean that although we think we are free, we might not be?

Just trying to comprehend Hegel's The Philosophy of Right. Any help welcome, thanks in advance

sorry i meant to say "the person's understandING was thus wrong..."

Vonhiggen, thanks for your answer, can you tell me how can you not seperate the two though? Since in reality, states are not ALWAYS ethical in terms of their doctrines, even if at the time we thought they were. So, say for example, now we are abiding by the laws of the state in order to be free, under the impression that they coincide with our 'moral will'...but what if, in the future, we find these doctrines were not actually moral? Does that mean we were not actually free?

Answer 1

Hegel does not take it to be the case that individuals "translate" their concept of freedom into the State, if by this you mean either that persons simply accept what the State presents to them as moral duties or if they take their meaning of freedom from the State. "I was only following orders" is not an excuse nor does it express a proper relation to the State.


Your opening question is somewhat backwards: For Hegel, freedom is a process. The State is a necessary component of that process; the freedom of persons, which is itself a product of history (subjective freedom is grasped only in the Reformation and in modernity), is actualized in the State. (Be careful using the word 'actually'; it's a technical term in Hegel). The actualization of freedom is expressed in the State, not based upon it. One cannot, of course, be free without an ethical State, but the development of freedom is logically prior to its actualization in the State.

The duties to the State are not alien to the modern State. They are the means by which the freedom of the individuals in it are actualized.

A contrast would be the medieval State--here persons are not subjectively free, but only objectively so. But this is not because they have handed their freedom over to the State. It's because the development of Spirit has not yet reached the point of personal freedom.

In order to convict Hegel in hindsight, one would have to show that his understanding of history is incorrect, that is, his "grand narrative" should be replaced by a different understanding of modernity and/or history. Or that he neglects a significant aspect of human freedom, such as economic freedom. This is what Marx tries to do.

You're right to suggest that if the State is not ethical, then its citizens were not truly free. But this is not the fault of the State.

But remember what Hegel says at the end of the Preface: philosophy comes too late to teach how the world should be. In other words, he is open to the possibility that Spirit might be still developing. It is simply not the task of philosophy to tell Spirit how to manifest itself; its purpose is to reflect upon those manifestations. Philosophy is not prescriptive. We might not be free, but only history can tell us that. (Though his system seems not to allow for the possibility of further development, especially in The Philosophy of Right).

Answer 2

The struggle I had with Hegel's thought diminished when I started to read him as a correction to Kant's transcendental deduction. See Science of Logic, 2:227/589. Where Kant backs away from elaboration, maintaining a distance between form and content, Hegel proceeds forward with his method.

Sorry, I'll have to say your error occurs in the implied separation of State and ethics. Looks a bit like a "trick" question.

*Addendum. The strained answer below is troubling to me because it also implies a relation between State and ethics that is not extant in Hegel's works. Please show me the relation and prove me wrong.

Hegel makes Civil Society the sphere where individuals are respecting the freedom of others. He writes (trans.), "...it follows that membership in the state is something optional." (Phil. of Right, #258z)

*Addendum II. Honorable Cici, please realize that Hegel's conception of the State was informed by his intelligent reading of ancient authors like Aristotle and Sophocles. He made much of Sophocles' "Antigone", for example. Our modern sense of individual freedom differs from that of ancients, who do not exhibit an awareness of "rights" to claim from their state. Such things are the result of 17th and 18th century thought, though there are hints in the interval that the individual's self-reflection was sharpening as Christianity's influence waxed. The religions of the ancient world were state religions; separation of religion and state is a new idea. Modern notions of freedom are not the only ones, and are not necessarily what Hegel was aiming at.

Answer 3

Hegel's premises are all false, because dialectics ignore the fact that there is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, that there is only one truth, and the rest is rebellion.

We are free so long as we're in absolute truth. Hegel is deceived and has deceived millions, apparently.

Jesus is truth.

Answer 4

You got it right. Freedom is always an illusion because we are tied by ethical considerations to one another.