Kierkegaard criticizes Hegel. He compares him to a man who has built a fantastic castle and lives in a tiny hut on the grounds out back. Hegel articulated a marvellous philosophy. Everything is God unfolding through time. Everything is essentially perfect. Human life is a step toward this self-perfecting activity. The thinking mind is the activity of God. Wonderful stuff.
So why did Kierkegaard criticize Hegel? He had built a fantastic castle.
What did Kierkegaard mean when he said: Hegel is not living in his castle?
Hegel made compromises to keep his job like anybody else. He, in the words of Richard II, lived by bread. Felt want. Tasted grief. Needed friends.
If Hegel actually lived the life of the owner of the mansion, Kierkegaard would have no problem with him. He’d bow at his feet.
Kierkegaard made his critique of Hegel but it’s a general criticism that can be leveled fairly against many philosophers. Taylor Carman calls it the existentialist critique of rationalism.
Here is another example.
Derek Parfit put forward a theory that there are no selves. There are only patterns of resemblance and reasons. So for example, Bob’s brain was horribly damaged as in Alzheimer’s dementia. At the same moment as a molecule-for-molecule replica of Bob’s brain was created and installed in a body. That new being would be Bob. Bob did not die. He just continued.
And what if they made two Bobs? Then there would be two Bobs. Selves are not real for Parfit. All there are are bodies and reasons and patterns of resemblance.
Bernard Williams another philosopher said: not so fast.
Imagine you are Bob. You are imagining that you will get Alzheimer’s and then one of two people will be horribly tortured. Either yourself with Alzheimer’s. Or a being which is created by copying your brain and putting it in a robot body. Don’t you fear the Alzheimer’s plus torture scenario, asks Bernard? Isn’t that just two horrible misfortunes being visited upon you. Do you really not care?
Bernard says: you do care. You actually fear mental deterioration happening to *you*. Even if you claim to believe Parfit. (Possibly even if you are Pafrit — I don’t know.)
Bernard Williams is leveling the existential critique against Parfit’s rationalism. He may claim to think he is not his actual body — that he is a pattern of resemblances and reasons that could be instantiated in millions of copies. But he doesn’t. Like Hegel he has built a magnificent palace (called “Reasons and Persons”) but lives in a shack somewhere out back.
Which raises the question — what if you build a magnificent palace of philosophy and do live there.
But what would that look like?
Utter fearlessness for one. He would not care about his personally safety or reputation. He would live the life of somebody who actually felt he was an expression of an infinitely powerful God.
Can anybody do that? Maybe some. But the existentialist critique of philosophy amount to: don’t kid yourself.
If you are not living in the mansion don’t describe the mansion as your reality.
Because it is not.
And if you fall into the habit of imagining that you are in the mansion, that dream will hold you back. It will blind you to the actual painful compromises and failings of your life — that if corrected could help you live better.
Promote you from a shack to maybe, a bungalow.