Hegel-Nietzsche-Sri Aurobindo axis needs to be rewoven

[A famous example of immanent critique would be nearly any movement in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. When Hegel critiques, for example, sense-certainty in the opening of the Phenomenology, he doesn’t bring anything from outside the claims of sense-certainty to show that this position is inadequate, but rather shows how the very claims of sense-certainty itself fail to say what it purports to say, thereby generating an internal contradiction with itself. The Question of Time and Meillassoux
from Larval Subjects by larvalsubjects]

Hobbes's "godless, atheistic materialism," argues Mark Lilla, Professor of the Humanities at Columbia University, in The Stillborn God brought about "The Great Separation." Like Charles Taylor in A Secular Age, Habermas also insists upon taking religion seriously, and Terry Eagleton is talking about God too (Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate).

If “The tension between Hegel and Nietzsche is a constant and living dialog in Sri Aurobindo,” as Debashish Banerji, Educational Coordinator for the University of Philosophical Research, Los Angeles has so elegantly put it, then the Hegel-Nietzsche-Sri Aurobindo axis needs to be rewoven to dictate new terms in the world politics. The clinching pertinence could not be more pithily expressed.

Man himself is religion as much as biology or libido. Phobia for religion, for that reason, makes little sense as it must shed the past dross to be future ready. A daring engagement of politics with religion in line with Sri Aurobindian vision, therefore, should be heralded as a valid and viable agenda. [TNM 7:41 PM at 1:16 PM ]