The slave resents the master because he must obey him. The master resents the slave because he needs the slave in order to have the status of master. The relation is also marked by resentment. So the master’s very contempt is an implicit recognition that the slave is a person, and that the relation is an improper one. To call a person a "dog" shows that we have contempt for such obedience when it is exhibited by a person. Why be contemptuous of a river that yields to a dam? Nor do we hold dogs in contempt because they obey us. Were the slave not a person, there would be no contempt. The slave is debased and odious because he really is a person, just like the master. By becoming subservient to him, the slave is debased and so is odious. But clearly this approach is self-defeating for this consciousness of independence requires the existence of something to subordinate and something that can recognize the master’s dominance.Īnother feature of the master-slave relation is the master’s contempt for the slave. The more arbitrary his control, the stronger the slave’s dependence, and hence the greater the master’s sense of independence. The master tries to keep this truth hidden, to suppress it, by making his control more and more arbitrary, so there is no recourse beyond his will as to how he treats the slave. Thus he does not have perfect independence. He has status as master only as long as he has a slave. He must have something to pay him deference, something to subordinate. To assert his independence, his mastery, he must have something that is not himself. The master cannot be truly independent or free. From the point of view of one of the people-the master-this is the optimal resolution, for that person’s will is obeyed and hence his personhood is fully realized.īut there is an irony in the situation. One person dominates the other completely. One resolution of the conflict is the master-slave relation. Hegel tells us that in human life there is conflict, with each person seeking to get his or her own way.
So the spiritual life has at its center the question, How can we be free, when we are ruled by a master? I want to approach this question by examining Hegel’s analysis of the relationship between master and slave and then comparing that relationship to Jesus’ treatment of his disciples. How can that develop from a relationship with one who has unquestionable authority over us, especially if we think that blessedness includes a significant degree of self-direction? How would that be human fulfillment? How could that be self-fulfillment? How could that be happiness? The Christian gospel claims that the spiritual life is to be one of fullness of life and blessedness. You do not need to endorse Sartre’s claim to recognize the resentment we would feel at having a boss, a ruler or anyone else telling us what to do all the time. So the very idea of God reduces people to slavery and is essentially antihuman. To be human is to be free, to be autonomous. Jean-Paul Sartre, like so many in our culture who want to be in personal control of their lives, claimed that the two notions-freedom and God-contradict each other.
#Diogenes allen free#
How can people be free if they have a master? How can people be free if they have someone to obey?
This claim is also made about religious institutions and teachings.Īt the core of the Christian life is the fact that people have a Lord, someone to whom they belong and to whom they are obedient. This means, in turn, that all social hierarchies are based on domination by the most powerful groups in various societies. Today it is commonly said, especially by those who endorse a postmodernist creed, that all values and meaning are human or cultural projections. Jesus is a different kind of lord: he does not need followers. Current articles and subscription information can be found at This article prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation used by permission. This article appeared in the Christian Century, March 18-25, pp. This article is excerpted from his contribution to The Truth about Jesus, edited by Donald Armstrong III and published this month (March, 1998) by Eerdmans. Diogenes Allen teaches philosophy at Princeton Theological Seminary.
0 kommentar(er)
