Dialectical necessity inscribes lack in divine potentiality, converting gift into consuming need

Evidence

Now at first glance these claims could sound surprising. How could one possibly doubt the speculative generosity of the Hegelian God? To conceive of God as absolutely present to thought should logically lead to the conclusion of his infinite goodness. Nonetheless, it would seem impossible to imagine generosity without the presence of an originary plenitude. And is it not the case that dialectical necessity will inscribe ‘lack’ in the divine potentiality, thus depriving it of all power to give? Hegel’s God would, on this account, be jealous not in the sense that He wishes to protect the exclusive nature of his power over against humanity, but in the sense that the logical economy of the concept would adapt itself to an economy of need, a need to which the emptiness of kenosis can be assimilated. What would be the meaning of such an emptiness, such an avidity, if not the desire to possess, hence jealousy? The God who reveals Himself, as Hegel conceives Him, must, in order to avoid speculative ‘envy’, be no less dialectically consuming (dévorateur). — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 688

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s MOC thread: when a subject is fully determined by an economy of need (like the fully-known enemy), it can flip into consuming, self-redefining agency — the plasticity of explosive need. — connects to: Dialectical necessity inscribes lack into divine potentiality, producing a consuming God. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 688