Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenforde a dressé le constat d’un écart historique entre la conception hégelienne de l’État moderne comme « État chretien » et la conception contemporaine de l’État libéral comme « neutre à l’égard des religions et des conceptions du monde ». D’après lui, Hegel aurait défendu la thèse selon laquelle l’État moderne trouve son « principe spirituel » dans le christianisme. L’auteur de l’article nuance cette interprétation en montrant, tout d’abord, que le processus de modernisation ne se réduit pas chez Hegel à une simple application au monde du principe chrétien. Il revient ensuite sur la manière originale dont le philosophe berlinois conçoit, à partir de l’évènement fondateur de la Réforme, les rapports entre politique et religion à l’époque moderne. C’est à partir de la figure de « l’État protestant » que Hegel peut affirmer a la fois la separation de l’État et des Églises et l’identité spirituelle de l’État et d’une religion chrétienne « modernisée ».

This essay examines Hegel’s variegated understanding of the relationship of religion and politics, especially as articulated in his idea of state as a “secular deity” or “earthly divinity.” It does so by engaging and expanding upon themes explored by Ludwig Siep in his 2015 Der Staat als irdischer Gott: Genese und Relevanz einer Hegelschen Idee. Its focus is fourfold: 1) It affirms the special role played by a civil religion in sustaining and maintaining institutions of modern states. 2) It details the religious dimension of Hegel’s theory of the corporation to explicate an account of rights understood not just formally but with reference to substantive claims oriented to considerations of social justice. 3) It ascribes to Hegel a political theology rooted in the uniquely self-causative elements of his constitutional theory and directed to ongoing reflection by community members on the conditions of their commonality. 4) It asserts that Hegel’s notion of Weltgeist furnishes elements of a transnational account of human rights, yet one that both depends upon and entails proper development of Hegel’s notion of state as an earthly divinity.

Le motif de la réconciliation traverse toute l’œuvre de Hegel. En effet, de ses écrits théologiques de jeunesse, jusqu’à ses différents cours de la période de Berlin, en passant par la Phénoménologie de l’esprit et ses ouvrages systématiques de la maturité, Hegel a maintes fois évoqué ce motif, et ce, dans des contextes aussi divers que des analyses portant sur la logique, l’esthétique, la philosophie de l’histoire, l’histoire de la philosophie et, bien sûr, la religion et la politique. Pourtant, aussi nombreuses que soient les études qui, d’une façon ou d’une autre, s’intéressent à ce motif ou à ce thème, il reste, nous semble-t-il, qu’un peu moins d’attention a été portée au sens ou à la signification exacte que recouvre la notion ou le concept de réconciliation chez Hegel. C’est ce sens qui nous servira de fil conducteur dans ce qui suit. Ainsi, dans la première partie de notre présentation, nous nous emploierons à rendre compte de ce terme en montrant comment il est à comprendre en regard des notions clés de la logique hégélienne telles que celles de « sursomption » (Aufhebung), « d’effectivite » (Wirklichkeit) et de vérité. En un deuxième temps, nous nous attacherons à démontrer en quel sens, Hegel, dans les Principes de la philosophie du droit et dans les Lecons sur la philosophie de la religion, pense les rapports entre la religion et la politique en termes de réconciliation et d’unité.

Contemporary reluctance to consider any complicity between philosophy and religion has led to an inability to consider, in Hegel studies, how the revelatory agency of the Absolute necessarily complements the narrative of human reason. According to Hegel, reason alone can do no more than end in the endless limitations of actuality, in the infinite approximations of a moral summum bonum and in the ad infinitum strivings for concrete political freedom. Recognizing where revelatory agency occurs in Hegel’s Science allows us to recognize the Idea’s freedom in the worldly, human expressions of art, religion and philosophy, in their philosophical study within the state University. Without such recognition, both Left and Right fields of Hegel interpretation tend to evaluate the success (or failure) of his philosophy based on inflated, unrealistic expectations of what is meant by “actuality.”

In this essay I explore some implications and effects of taken-for-granted expectations of achieved certainty as the only legitimate outcome of scientific and everyday inquiry. The analysis contrasts ubiquitous if often tacit expectations of certainty with a critique of how these very expectations can truncate productive engagement with matters ecological. The discussion focuses on the limited prospects of success in inquiry when certainty is the only putatively acceptable outcome, and it defends the value of situated quests for knowledge with their reliance on hermeneutic understandings of place and process as these involve real human knowers.

Apocalyptic fictions abound in contemporary culture, multiplying end-of-the-world fantasies of environmental collapse. Meanwhile, efforts toward global sustainability extrapolate from deep-past trends to predict and manage deep-future scenarios. These narratives converge in “eco-eschatologies,” which work as phantasms that construct our identities, our understanding of the world, and our sense of responsibility in the present. I critique ecoeschatology’s reliance on an interpretation of deep time that treats every temporal moment as interchangeable and projects the future as a chronological extension of the past. This enacts what Jean-Luc Nancy calls the “catastrophe of equivalence” by domesticating the future and obscuring the incommensurability of what resists substitution, conversion, or exchange. By contrast, the renewal of our responsibility toward the future, without apocalypse or apotheosis, requires an intuition of deep time that respects the singular anachronicity of the present and refuses the framing of existence against a background of annihilation.

While it is generally accepted that deconstruction’s principal target is the “metaphysics of presence” and thus a presentist conception of time and being, it is less well known that Derrida connected the deconstruction of presence to an idea of justice that is from the beginning intergenerational, that is, concerned with the dead and the unborn. The first section of this paper re-inscribes the idea of “my life” or “our life” in Derrida’s concept of life as “living-on” to show that justice arises with a disjointed time that began before me and is already in the process of outstripping my life toward a future without me. In the second section, I sketch a concept of indirect intergenerational reciprocity in conversation with Derrida as well as with extant work on reciprocity in normative theory and economics. While Derrida’s ideas can be operationalized and fleshed out with the help of this other literature, the disjointed time pertaining to living-on permits new responses to some common objections to intergenerational reciprocity.