The episode on Hegel was disappointing—more a collective dismissal than a serious engagement. While one participant showed real familiarity with the thinker, the discussion quickly devolved into pointing out ‘errors’ that often seemed rooted in misformulations, followed by character attacks, semantic quibbles, and other fallacies. It was hard to pin down a coherent, substantive argument against Hegel.
A key missed opportunity was failing to grapple with concepts like Hegel’s ‘true infinite.’ Unlike the ‘bad infinite’ of endless, futile progression, the true infinite is the self-mediated unity in which the finite is not merely negated but sublated—conceptual comprehension always conditions our looking forward, preventing any static closure. Similarly, to claim a total, exhaustive understanding of the cross of Christ risks domesticating its mystery into a limited, finite proposition.
I wish the faculty had approached Hegel in greater good faith and openness. Reformed thinkers have much to gain from his rigor, even in disagreement. This episode felt like a closing off of intellectual and spiritual possibility in favor of premature certainty.
