Hegel Argues That the State Constitutes the

Hegel argues that the State constitutes the "march of God through history" while arguing that the individual is nothing and the individuals only means of freedom is achieved by obedience to the State. An analysis of this argument will show that it includes several major flaws. These flaws are in the form of arguments that contradict themselves and arguments that go against the laws of God. The final flaw is then realized by assuming that Hegel's philosophy is attainable and considering what the result would be if it was achieved.

This shows that the end result would go against the very principles that Hegel begins the argument with, showing another major contradiction. Hegel's argument is that the State is God and that every citizen must surrender themselves to serving God and therefore surrender themselves to the State. This basic statement raises various questions, the first one being, 'why is the State God?' Hegel bases his argument for the State as being God, by arguing that God is the whole and the people must surrender themselves to the whole.

According to Hegel, the State is the living God, the closest thing to God that can exist on earth. This is based on God as being universal and the State as being universal. The State impacts on everyone's life and every individual is part of it. Therefore, the State becomes the whole, the whole giving guidance to all individuals. The main problem with this argument is that the State is created by individuals. Hegel is arguing that the individuals means nothing and the State means everything.

Yet, the State is not just created for individuals, but by individuals. If all individuals mean nothing, how could they create the State? The answer is that they could not. Individuals have to mean something to create the State, yet if this is true, Hegel's argument cannot be correct. This shows one of the major contradictions in Hegel's theory. Ultimately, the State is not something that exists and leads the people, it is something the people create and shape for themselves.

This would mean that the people create God, but to say this is to go against God as the universal being. The next question that is raised is related to the idea that the individual is nothing and must surrender themselves to the State. Hegel's view is that the individual can only achieve freedom by worshiping the State. However, worshipping and obeying the State hardly seems like freedom. The very nature of freedom is based on there always being a choice, with freedom about individual rights.

Yet Hegel argues that the person must obey the State and surrender their individual rights. This obedience is the exact opposite of freedom. Hegel's view of attaining freedom is really a process of taking freedom away. According to Hegel, you will be free if you obey the State. In a sense you will be free, free of the opportunity to make a choice and therefore, free from freedom. This is another contradiction in Hegel's argument.

Also according to Hegel, individuals must dedicate themselves to the whole, while giving up individual rights. Is this the way to God? If God is the State, and the State needs to be obeyed, why did God give individuals free will? Doing right by God must require that people choose to do right. Being forced to do right is not the same as choosing the right over wrong.

Hegel's argument though is based on taking away the individual right to choose the right path and forcing the right path upon them. This aspect does not appear to be consistent with the laws of God. Another major flaw in the argument is realized by considering the situation if Hegel is right. Consider the case where the individual has no rights but gives in to the State and is obedient to the State without question. If this was the case, the State would cease to exist.

This is true because the State is a product created by the people. If all people are obedient to the State and believe that they are submissive to the State, than they stop creating the State. No individual creates laws or upholds laws and so ultimately, the State ceases to exist. The only way this argument of Hegel's can work is to assume that at some point the State that has been created by people becomes a perfect State.

At this point the people accept the State, surrender to it, and from this point, the State does not change. This could be seen as a process where the State gradually changes and improves until it reaches the point where it has become a State representing God. At this point then, every individual accepts the State and it ceases to change, it is accepted as good. However, a closer look at this situation will show that it is also impossible.

First, it must be assumed that the State has developed to the point where it is successful and all people have accepted it. According to Hegel, everyone would surrender to the State and in doing so, give up their personal freedom for that of the State. If every individual has surrendered to the State, who is to say that the State is right or wrong? Every individual has surrendered and is obedient to the State.

In this situation of obedience, there can be no opinion on the State, there can only be obedient action. As long.