Hegel’s God of absolute presence requires an original passivity foreshadowed by Origen
Evidence
The Hegelian idea of parousia – God’s absolute presence-to-self – could in fact only be sustained by admitting into God an original passivity: the possibility of His submission to the same constitutive negativity that marks all subjectivity. This would be an unacknowledged radicalization of Origen, who had already written: ‘God the Father himself is not impassible!’ — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 645
Categorization
- XREF: The claim that passivity grounds absolute presence resonates with her plasticity work — presence isn’t untouched but is itself formed and suffered. — connects to: Hegel’s critique of reified divine presence paradoxically enables a more intimate possession of God — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 729; For Hegel the death of God lodges negation within God’s own being — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 154; Hegel’s God can present itself yet never truly happen — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 755 (+1 more)
- DEFINE: Defines parousia as absolute presence-to-self, the hinge of the whole critique.
- SHARE: The Origen quote ‘God the Father himself is not impassible!’ is narrow enough that a patristics-minded theologian would delight in it.
Broader Connections
- Hegel’s God can present itself yet never truly happen
#expands(0.78) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 755 - For Hegel the death of God lodges negation within God’s own being
#complicates(0.75) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 154 - Hegel’s critique of reified divine presence paradoxically enables a more intimate possession of God
#expands(0.72) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 729