Hegels Interpretation on Universal Love Research Paper

Hegels Interpretation on Universal Love - Research Paper Example The fragment starts with the author’s reasoning on equality. These contemplations of the equality of man in front of the Lord must have been aroused in Hegel by the events and ideas of the French revolution. In this fragment, Hegel states that the equality of right brings on the dependence of people. As a result, the man loses his domination over objects, and thus he loses his worth, whereas humans are used to measuring their worth by the degree of their influence over the objective world. Feeling himself only a tiny part of the universe, the man starts despising himself, thus injuring his self and coming to ever greater discord. Whereas â€Å"the object, severed from the subject, is dead†, the only kind of love he can experience towards Lord and the universe is the love to the dead objects. The living union between the man and the world is not possible, while love towards the dead object is unrequited. The individual finds himself opposed to the external world, entirely independent of it. The man loses the sense of life and does not see the essence of his existence. These passages, in fact, describe the state of many modern people. We spend our lives attempting to overcome our loneliness and seeking help outside, we are not able to bear responsibility for our acts. Feeling detached from the external world we doom ourselves for a constant struggle with the opposed world, which often seems to be hostile to us. Not realizing that we are the part of the universe, just as our arms and legs are parts of our body, we are not able to hear the voice of God in us and understand his intentions. We lose ourselves following the wrong teachings and ideals, and only love has the power to make us whole, able to understand the divine plans and feel the way the universe moves. Hegel explains that it is so difficult for the man to bear this nullity, while our necessity is always relative, â€Å"the one exists only for the other† (p.304).