I don't disagree with you there, a chara. There is a general acceptance among philosophers today that you cant understand Marx without Hegel, and you cant understand Hegel without Marx. Your main objection seems to be with the term "shows," as in Hegel shows that the human subject is not ready made and unchanging. Of course he didnt "prove" that this is the case, but "show" and "prove" are not the same concept. If one puts forward a very tight argument, well backed up and resistant to contradiction, then its valid to say that you have "shown" something to be the case.
I think if we look at the development of the child, it would be difficult to say that its subjectivity is not the result of its socialisation - rather than something that he\she was born with, and remains unchanging. Hegel's point was that as we aquire language, and develop our understanding of the world, our subjectivity expands. Freud "showed" that there is a kernal of subjectivity that is very resistant to change. This is a kernal of trauma centred around the castration complex. But this does not contradict Hegel, as the castration complex is a function of our socialisation.
The soul is a similar idea to the subject - but not at all the same. The Christian idea is that the soul is given at conception, but Christianity does not accept that the soul is unchanging. It can, of course, be blackened by sin and ultimately condemned to eternal damnation. On the other hand, it may be enriched by meditation and love of God and man.







Reply With Quote
Bookmarks