H.P. Kainz – författare

There is a consensus among Christian theologians that the symbol of the "kingdom of God" inherited from the Judaic tradition, is the key to understanding Christianity, but theologians have for millenia differed among themselves as to the interpretation of this symbol. Political ramifications of, or reactions to, this Judaeo-Christian idea have included the Holy Roman Empire, the Crusades, the "Third Rome", American manifest destiny, Zionism, the Third Reich, and Liberation Theology. This text focuses on the question of whether the Kingdom of God is necessarily related to certain political implementations, and its possible implications for democracy and democratic theory. It examines the development of the symbol in the Old and New Testaments, the diversity of related theological interpretations and political concomitants, and the significance of the "Kingdom of God" in the development of present and future political formations and political theory.

A. "SEPARATE SUBSTANCES" AND lOR" ANGELS"? It is interesting to note that, in an expressly theological treatise such as the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas generally uses the term "angel", in preference to "separate substance"; while in works with a less explicit theological intent - e. g. the Summa contra gentiles and the De substantiis separatis 1 - he generally prefers the term "separate substance". But at any rate there is little doubt that the two terms, "separate sub­ stance" and "angel" have a certain interchangeability and equivalence in the works of St. Thomas. In other words, "the separate substance" is equivalent to "the angel, insofar as its existence and attributes are knowable through human reason alone". And this has led Karl Barth 2 to charge that St. Thomas' angelology is primarily a philosophical presenta­ tion, with little relevance to theology. 1 We might say that these works are "philosophical" insofar as arguments from reason are emphasized in them, rather than arguments from revelation or faith. However, as Lescoe points out (in the Introduction to his edition of the De substantUs separatis, p. 8), the treatise on separate substances leads up to theological subject-matter in Ch. 's XVII ff- namely, an exposition of Catholic teaching as found in Sacred Scripture, the Fathers, and especially Dionysius. And Chenu maintains that the Summa contra gentiles is basically a theological work, because it not only leads up to theological subject-matter in Bk.

The present volume represents the proceedings of the Marquette Hegel Symposium, held at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on June 2-5, 1970. The Symposium, celebrating the two-hundredth annivers­ ary of Hegel's birth, was presented under the combined sponsorship of the Philosophy Department of Marquette University, the American Coun­ cil of Learned Societies, and the Johnson Foundation of Racine, Wiscon­ sin. Its general theme embraced not only specific topics of interest in con­ temporary Hegel studies, but also the wider aspects of the influences and impact of Hegel's thought upon contemporary philosophical, political, and social problems. Principal contributors and panelists were selected for their scholarly achievements in Hegel studies and also in keeping with the broad view of the Hegelian legacy in current thought. All sessions of the Symposium were plenary, and designed for maximum discussion and in­ terchange among participants. The Symposium Committee regrets that it has not been feasible to incorporate the transcript of the discussions (ex­ cept for the round-table discussion on editing and translating Hegel) into this volume. The papers presented in each day's sessions are published here with editorial changes and corrections made by their respective authors. The papers by Professors Otto Poggeler and Eric Weil were originally trans­ lated by members of our Committee: the present versions incorporate many changes and corrections made by their authors. The comments on each paper were brought into their present form only after the Symposium, and in the light of the discussions which took place during it.

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770-1831) THE PLACE OF HEGEL IN THE HIS TOR Y OF PHILOSOPHY In order to gain a proper perspective of Hegel's place in the history of philo­ sophy, it might be useful to focus on one key concept which has evolved significantly in meaning, from the time of Aristotle to Hegel. I am speaking of the philosophical concept of the "category. " In Aristotle's system, there were ten categories (or "predicaments") of reality or being. These included substantiality, time, place, quantity, quality, and other aspects of knowable beings. The most notable thing about these categories is that they all have to do with what we would call "objective" realities. That is, none of them purport to describe subjective or mental states or conditions. In modern philosophy (i. e. , philosophy since the time of Descartes), there was a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction, from objectivity to subjectivity - culminating in the twelve new "categories" of Kant. All of Kant's categories were subjective ways oflooking at reality: We can organize objective phenomena into universal unities; therefore the first Kantian cate­ gory is "unity. " We can separate objective phenomena into particular divi­ sions; therefore the second category is "plurality. " And so forth. With Hegel, the modern trend to subjectivism is arrested, and we have, not surprisingly, a new type of "category" - the category of the unity of thought and being, of self and other, of subject and object.

"Dialectic" is a fulcrum word. Aristotle attacked this belief, saying that the dialectic was only suitable for some purpose- to enquire into men's beliefs, to arrive at truths about eternal forms of things, known as Ideas, which were fixed and un­ changing and constituted reality for Plato. Aristotle said there is also the method of science, or "physical" method, which observes physical facts and arrives at truths about substances, which undergo change. This duality ofform and substance and the scientific method of arriving at facts about substances were central to Aristotle's philosophy. Thus the dethronement of dialectic from what Socrates and Plato held it to be was ab­ solutely essential for Aristotle, and "dialectic" was and still is a fulcrum word . . . I think it was Coleridge who said everyone is either a Plato­ nist or an Aristotelian . . . Plato is the essential Buddha-seeker who appears again and again in each generation, moving on­ ward and upward toward the "one. " Aristotle is the eternal motorcycle mechanic who prefers the "many. " R.

"Dialectic" is a fulcrum word. Aristotle attacked this belief, saying that the dialectic was only suitable for some purpose- to enquire into men''s beliefs, to arrive at truths about eternal forms of things, known as Ideas, which were fixed and un­ changing and constituted reality for Plato. Aristotle said there is also the method of science, or "physical" method, which observes physical facts and arrives at truths about substances, which undergo change. This duality ofform and substance and the scientific method of arriving at facts about substances were central to Aristotle''s philosophy. Thus the dethronement of dialectic from what Socrates and Plato held it to be was ab­ solutely essential for Aristotle, and "dialectic" was and still is a fulcrum word . . . I think it was Coleridge who said everyone is either a Plato­ nist or an Aristotelian . . . Plato is the essential Buddha-seeker who appears again and again in each generation, moving on­ ward and upward toward the "one. " Aristotle is the eternal motorcycle mechanic who prefers the "many. " R.

"Dialectic" is a fulcrum word. Aristotle attacked this belief, saying that the dialectic was only suitable for some purpose- to enquire into men's beliefs, to arrive at truths about eternal forms of things, known as Ideas, which were fixed and un­ changing and constituted reality for Plato. Aristotle said there is also the method of science, or "physical" method, which observes physical facts and arrives at truths about substances, which undergo change. This duality ofform and substance and the scientific method of arriving at facts about substances were central to Aristotle's philosophy. Thus the dethronement of dialectic from what Socrates and Plato held it to be was ab­ solutely essential for Aristotle, and "dialectic" was and still is a fulcrum word . . . I think it was Coleridge who said everyone is either a Plato­ nist or an Aristotelian . . . Plato is the essential Buddha-seeker who appears again and again in each generation, moving on­ ward and upward toward the "one. " Aristotle is the eternal motorcycle mechanic who prefers the "many. " R.

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770-1831) THE PLACE OF HEGEL IN THE HIS TOR Y OF PHILOSOPHY In order to gain a proper perspective of Hegel''s place in the history of philo­ sophy, it might be useful to focus on one key concept which has evolved significantly in meaning, from the time of Aristotle to Hegel. I am speaking of the philosophical concept of the "category. " In Aristotle''s system, there were ten categories (or "predicaments") of reality or being. These included substantiality, time, place, quantity, quality, and other aspects of knowable beings. The most notable thing about these categories is that they all have to do with what we would call "objective" realities. That is, none of them purport to describe subjective or mental states or conditions. In modern philosophy (i. e. , philosophy since the time of Descartes), there was a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction, from objectivity to subjectivity - culminating in the twelve new "categories" of Kant. All of Kant''s categories were subjective ways oflooking at reality: We can organize objective phenomena into universal unities; therefore the first Kantian cate­ gory is "unity. " We can separate objective phenomena into particular divi­ sions; therefore the second category is "plurality. " And so forth. With Hegel, the modern trend to subjectivism is arrested, and we have, not surprisingly, a new type of "category" - the category of the unity of thought and being, of self and other, of subject and object.

The present volume represents the proceedings of the Marquette Hegel Symposium, held at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on June 2-5, 1970. The Symposium, celebrating the two-hundredth annivers­ ary of Hegel''s birth, was presented under the combined sponsorship of the Philosophy Department of Marquette University, the American Coun­ cil of Learned Societies, and the Johnson Foundation of Racine, Wiscon­ sin. Its general theme embraced not only specific topics of interest in con­ temporary Hegel studies, but also the wider aspects of the influences and impact of Hegel''s thought upon contemporary philosophical, political, and social problems. Principal contributors and panelists were selected for their scholarly achievements in Hegel studies and also in keeping with the broad view of the Hegelian legacy in current thought. All sessions of the Symposium were plenary, and designed for maximum discussion and in­ terchange among participants. The Symposium Committee regrets that it has not been feasible to incorporate the transcript of the discussions (ex­ cept for the round-table discussion on editing and translating Hegel) into this volume. The papers presented in each day''s sessions are published here with editorial changes and corrections made by their respective authors. The papers by Professors Otto Poggeler and Eric Weil were originally trans­ lated by members of our Committee: the present versions incorporate many changes and corrections made by their authors. The comments on each paper were brought into their present form only after the Symposium, and in the light of the discussions which took place during it.

A. "SEPARATE SUBSTANCES" AND lOR" ANGELS"? It is interesting to note that, in an expressly theological treatise such as the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas generally uses the term "angel", in preference to "separate substance"; while in works with a less explicit theological intent - e. g. the Summa contra gentiles and the De substantiis separatis 1 - he generally prefers the term "separate substance". But at any rate there is little doubt that the two terms, "separate sub­ stance" and "angel" have a certain interchangeability and equivalence in the works of St. Thomas. In other words, "the separate substance" is equivalent to "the angel, insofar as its existence and attributes are knowable through human reason alone". And this has led Karl Barth 2 to charge that St. Thomas'' angelology is primarily a philosophical presenta­ tion, with little relevance to theology. 1 We might say that these works are "philosophical" insofar as arguments from reason are emphasized in them, rather than arguments from revelation or faith. However, as Lescoe points out (in the Introduction to his edition of the De substantUs separatis, p. 8), the treatise on separate substances leads up to theological subject-matter in Ch. ''s XVII ff- namely, an exposition of Catholic teaching as found in Sacred Scripture, the Fathers, and especially Dionysius. And Chenu maintains that the Summa contra gentiles is basically a theological work, because it not only leads up to theological subject-matter in Bk.

I. A Dangerous and/or Useful Kingdom? ............ 5 II. Is There a Concept of the Kingdom of God? . . . . .. . 9 III. The Development of the Concept of a Kingdom of God in the Old Testament ................... 15 IV. Is an Apolitical Kingdom of God Possible? ....... 21 V. The Vicissitudes of Theocracy in Israel ........... 27 VI. New Testament Conceptualization of Messianic Fulfillment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 37 . . . . . . . . VII. Is an Alternative Messianic Scenario Conceivable? ................... . . . . . . .. . . 43 . VIII. Did Jesus make a Major Mistake? ............. 51 IX. The Dialectics of Christian Interpretation . . . . . .. . . 59 X. Hermeneutical Circle, or circulus vitiosus? ........ 67 XI. Political Milestones: Three Romes, Three Reichs, Three Kingdoms, and a "Holy Roman ." 73 E mplre ................................. . viii XII. Catholic Political Theology: The "Two Cities" and "Two Swords," and Beyond. . . . . . . . . .. . . 83 . XIII. How Visible can a "City of God" be? ......... 101 XIV. Protestant Political Theology: Beyond the "Two Kingdoms" and the "Two Regiments" . . . . .. . . 109 XV. Does Hegelian Political Theology have a Future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 119 . . . . . . . . . XVI. The Emergence of the Secular Kingdom of God ..................................... 125 XVII. Secularization-a Boon to Mankind? ......... 137 XVIII. Religious Experience, Chosenness, and Political Expression ....................... 145 XIX. Does Democracy need Redefinition? .......... 157 XX. The Dialectics of Democracy ................. 169 XXI. Democracy and the Kingdom of God . . . . . . .. . . 183 XXII. Are Church and State "Mutually Conducive"? .. 195 XXIII. World Federalism and Ecumenical Christianity 205 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 221 . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 225 . . . . . . .