Academic journal article St. John's Law Review

Audience Participation

Academic journal article St. John's Law Review

Audience Participation

Article excerpt

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Brother Sulmasy, you mentioned that you did not think that the Hegelian supersessive was all that popular anymore. My sense is maybe this is not a fair description, but there is a real temptation for the Sandel crowd to creep toward that Hegelian idea. It seems to me, without the sort of Christian personalism that the Catholic tradition could be, you are really likely to lead from this sense to this kind of creepy statist Hegelian sense. Thinking back to the first Panel, that is what I see in some of the writing about education these days. It seems to me they are kind of on this road from integral to supersessive. Do you agree with that or is that a problem?

DR. SULMASY: I sort of rushed it at the end and said I think these are some of the possibilities there are. Precisely, toward the danger of moving toward a totalitarian sort of sense and maybe the first step in between that is a Hegelian move, so I think that is right. Part of it is that because there is no, as you are suggesting, no sense of the person, no sense of the good for the person is what I'm classifying as, you know, the common common good within a lot of the communitarians, so all they have, then, sort of an amorphous spirit. And if there's a vacuum there, someone is likely to fill that, so I agree that that is a particular kind of danger.

PARTICIPANT: Is not that similar to what our luncheon speaker mentioned with regard to secular morality versus religious morality in that there is purpose for the believer. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.