Hegel: Post-Kantian Interpretation

El presente artículo aborda el problema hegeliano del comienzo de la ciencia filosófica desde el prisma de la circularidad constitutiva del proceso lógico y, en consecuencia, de la vinculación especulativa entre el comienzo y el resultado. Siguiendo una metodología hermenéutica, la exposición está organizada en tres secciones. En la primera de ellas, el comentario se atendrá a la cuestión de la actualidad del comienzo de la Lógica. La segunda sección ofrecerá una aproximación al concepto del método, con la intención de (...) dilucidar en su naturaleza extensivo-intensiva el fundamento de la circularidad especulativa de lo lógico y de la integración dialéctica de sus momentos. En la última parte, la argumentación se enfocará en determinar la relevancia de dicha operación circular para la comprensión de la totalidad del programa filosófico hegeliano. (shrink)

blurb from publisher: "In Apperception and Self-Consciousness in Kant and German Idealism, Dennis Schulting examines the themes of reflexivity, self-consciousness, representation and apperception in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and German Idealism more widely. Central to Schulting’s argument is the claim that all of human experience is inherently self-referential and that this is part of a self-reflexivity of thought, or what is called transcendental apperception, a Kantian insight that was first apparent in the work of Christian Wolff and came to (...) inform all of German Idealism. In a rigorous text suitable for students of German philosophy and upper-level students of metaphysics, epistemology, moral and political philosophy, and aesthetics courses, the author establishes the historical roots of Kant’s thought and traces it through to his immediate successors Karl Leonhard Reinhold, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He specifically examines the cognitive role of self-consciousness and its relation to idealism and places it in a clear and coherent history of rationalist philosophy." . (shrink)

In our Introduction to the special issue on Hegel and Sellars, we explain why there needs to be a more detailed analysis of the similarities and differences between Hegel and Sellars. Sellars is usually regarded as closer to Kant than to Hegel, but this obscures the more Hegelian features of his theoretical and practical philosophy. We briefly describe each article in the special issue.

Wenn Hegels Denkweg in seiner Gesamtheit betrachtet wird, ist es möglich, in ihm zwei große Entwicklungsphasen zu unterscheiden, die sich ihrem Inhalt und ihrer Darstellungsform nach durch unterschiedliche Einteilungen, Formen der Vermittlung und innere Übergänge voneinander unterscheiden. Eine solche Gedankentotalität manifestiert jeweils einen spekulativ-enzyklopädischen Sinn, aus dem sich auch ihre Entwicklungslogik ergibt, bis sie sich zuletzt als konkreter Ausdruck der Idee zu erkennen gibt. Diese Gedankentotalität zeigte sich in der ersten Phase des Hegelschen Denkens in einer vorenzyklopädischen Weise, um im (...) Laufe der Vertiefung dieses Denkweges schließlich in eine enzyklopädische Phase zu münden. Dadurch wurde eine Neugründung der Philosophie im Sinne eines umfassenden Zusammenschließens des Logischen, des Natürlichen und des Geistigen vollzogen, deren letzte Form als absoluter Geist entfaltet werden wird. Das Denken als absolute Form ist im Sinne Hegels ein unendliches Denken, da es sich selbst wie auch den Inhalt bestimmt. Auf diese Weise erscheinen nun die Fragen, wie und in welcher Form der Begriff des unendlichen Denkens zum Leitmotiv von Hegels Philosophie werden konnte und insbesondere, welchen Denkweg Hegel genommen hat, um zu einer schlußlogischen Konzeption der Philosophie zu gelangen, in der die Idee der Philosophie die letzte Bestimmung des absoluten Geistes und dieser Geist die definitive schlußlogische Einheit des enzyklopädischen Wissens sein wird. Die Beantwortung dieser Frage sollte sich aus den Hauptformationen jener syllogistischen Konzeption innerhalb der enzyklopädischen Denkphase ergeben. (shrink)

For two hundred years, people have been trying to make sense of Hegel’s so-called “dialectical method”. Helpfully, Hegel frequently compares this method with the idea of life, or the organic (cf., e.g., PhG 2, 34, 56). This comparison has become very popular in the literature (in, e.g., Pippin, Beiser, and Ng). Typically, scholars who invoke the idea of life also note that the comparison has limits and that no organic analogy can completely explain the nature of the dialectical method. To (...) my knowledge, however, no scholar has attempted to explain exactly where or why the organic analogy falls short. In this paper, I propose to remedy this lack by exploring in depth two different organic models. In brief, I argue that both versions of the organic model require an appeal to something external to the organism, and no such appeal can be made sense of within the dialectical method. (shrink)

The author aim is to explore the role Sellars has played in shaping the current discussion of Hegel.

Der Denkweg Hegels kann als ein Bildungsprozess von Einheitsbegriffen angesehen werden. Dieser Weg lässt sich in zwei Phasen einteilen: eine spekulative und eine vorspekulative Phase. Die These dieses Aufsatzes besteht darin, dass der Begriff der Einheit sich innerhalb beider Phasen jenes Denkweges entwickelte und dabei die gleichen allgemeinen Formen annimmt. Von daher kann der Weg dieses Denkens durch einen Doppel-Begriff, den der spekulativen und den der vorspekulativen Einheit, rekonstruiert werden. Im Blick auf das Ganze lässt sich also sagen, dass beide (...) Phasen am Ende durch die fundamentale Entscheidung Hegels eines „Eingreifens in das Leben der Menschen“ verbunden sind. Und die letzte Form der Einheit in der spekulativen Phase – die der absoluten Idee – wird dementsprechend eine gewisse aufgehobene Bewegung der Subjektivität und der Objektivität sein, an der sich die Einheit als Freiheit zeigt. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue, first, that Hegel defended a version of the analytic/synthetic distinction—that, indeed, his version of the distinction deserves to be called Kantian. For both Kant and Hegel, the analytic/synthetic distinction can be explained in terms of the discursive character of cognition: insofar as our cognition is discursive, its most basic form can be articulated in terms of a genus/species tree. The structure of that tree elucidates the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. Second, I argue that (...) Hegel has an interesting and so far unexplored argument for the analytic/synthetic distinction: Hegel argues that the systematic relationship between concepts expressed in a genus/species tree can only be expressed through synthetic judgments. Third and finally, I explore some of the implications that the arguments in the first two parts of the essay have for understanding the way in which Hegel differs from Kant. I argue that Hegel accepts Kant's point that discursive cognition cannot be used to cognize the absolute. However, Hegel thinks that we can, nevertheless, cognize the absolute. I explore the character of this non-discursive cognition and argue that we can understand Hegel's glosses on this form of cognition—as simultaneously analytic and synthetic and as having a circular structure—through contrasting it with his account of discursive cognition. As a consequence, I argue that we must give up on attempts to understand ‘the dialectical method’ and ‘speculative cognition’ on the model of discursive cognition. (shrink)

Author: Thomas Sören Hoffmann. Translated by Pedro Sepúlveda Zambrano.

El presente artículo busca responder las siguientes preguntas: ¿Cómo fue que la idea del pensamiento infinito llegó a constituirse en el motivo central de la filosofía de Hegel?, y ¿cuál fue el derrotero que recorrió su pensamiento hasta alcanzar aquella concepción lógico-silogística de la filosofía, según la cual la Idea de esta Ciencia llega a ser la última determinación del Espíritu absoluto, y a su vez, este Espíritu absoluto se convierte en la unidad definitiva de la Ciencia enciclopédica? Una vía (...) plausible para responder a estas interrogantes consiste en poder caracterizar las configuraciones más importantes de aquella concepción de la filosofía, ocurridas al interior de la fase de pensamiento enciclopédico, a partir del seguimiento de sus conceptos culminantes –la Idea y el Espíritu absoluto. (shrink)

Este artículo busca responder a la siguiente pregunta: ¿Qué tipo de relación sostiene la Ciencia de la lógica con la tradición metafísica? Hay en ello un doble motivo de reflexión: por un lado, se trata de distinguir los sentidos de la crítica y los de la transformación científica de la metafísica tanto en Kant como en Hegel, y, por otro lado, de concebir el inicio [Anfang] y el principio [Prinzip] de la Lógica como dos modos de relación que permitirían hacer (...) tal distinción aunque únicamente de manera introductoria. El inicio de esta Lógica es así el primer fin de un círculo que vuelve a abrirse; anverso del límite, o estudio lógico de reverso fenomenológico; unidad de un carácter genitivo doble ‒de la Ciencia de la conciencia y del Concepto de la Ciencia‒, que hace del saber puro el fin del inicio fenomenológico, y al mismo tiempo el inicio de su propia exposición. Inicio inmanente al desarrollo de la Ciencia y que es por lo tanto un momento de saber-puro-ser. Es, dicho en breve, el inicio de una Lógica pura, objetiva y subjetiva, ya liberada de la oposición en sí/concepto, y que al ser el desarrollo del pensar objetivo se constituye en el “sistema de la razón pura”. (shrink)

Este artículo intenta elucidar el carácter dual de la razón que ha propuesto la filosofía de Hegel. A partir de ello investiga la coincidencia que logran estos dos momentos, la negatividad y la creatividad de la razón con la realidad efectiva [Wirklichkeit], proponiendo una serie de pares categoriales que nos permitan pensar este específico doble concepto de razón y su posible vínculo con la primera obra de Slavoj Žižek, El sublime objeto de la ideología. Abstract: This paper tries to clarify (...) the dual nature of reason proposed by Hegel's philosophy. Based on this research the coincidence that achieve these two moments, negativity and creativity of reason with actuality [Wirklichkeit], proposing a series of categorical couple that allow us to think this double specific concept of reason, and its possible link to the first work of Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology. (shrink)

Previously it was found that the Thing is both One Thing and another Thing at the same time. The Understanding rejects such a contradiction but Reason accepts what comes before it and allows the necessity in thought to proceed to its own conclusion. The attempt to maintain distinctions such as essential vs. unessential, singleness vs. universality, etc. may appeal to what is called ‘ordinary common sense,’ but it can now be seen that they are really only abstractions from the actual (...) truth that constitutes the entirety of perceptual consciousness. Those who do not have the presence of mind to rise above the being of the material of sense may proudly assert what they consider to be real and solid, while in truth it is only the play of abstractions that they deal with, so that such boasting is poorest where it fancies itself to be the richest. Rather than apprehending Truth, such an attitude sets itself against the Truth by calling it mere thought, ‘only in the mind’, etc. It is not possible for them to engage in scientific philosophy in which one result proceeds from another by rational necessity because they think that convincing by argument (holding one side against the other) is the natural process for winning Truth. But this is the definition of sophistry, directly the opposite of scientific philosophy in which Truth unveils itself by the rational necessity of its own dialectical development. In fact, Philosophy does also deal with mental entities but at the same time it recognizes thought as the pure essentiality that it is. It is the ignorance of our ‘scientific age’ that we neither appreciate, understand or even know how to comprehend the origin and nature of thought which is so fundamentally essential to human culture. Those who are the most neglectful of such knowledge are at the same time those who most vehemently propound sensuous materialism in the name of realism and seek to annul the place of thought altogether, thus sapping Truth of its own essence. Perceptual understanding holds on to mere abstract fixed essentialities without comprehending their specific determinations, i.e. it apprehends concepts as simple familiarities and therefore does not penetrate into the actual determinateness that constitutes such concepts. In that way it fails to master them; rather such abstract essentialities become the master of this understanding, constraining it to an endless bondage in opposing dualities. By holding on to only one determinateness as truth in opposition to its other and then turning to the opposite one (e.g., as we find in Kant’s antinomies) the ultimate unessentiality of both is established, yet it ignores this fact. What perceptual consciousness should do is accept the unessentiality of both sides and thereby recognize the sublimation of these opposing elements in a higher unity. Instead of doing that, however, it resorts to the in so far as and thus leads itself into abstractions and untruth. (shrink)

After two centuries of Kant interpretation there is still no general agreement over the nature of Kant’s most basic philosophical commitments. One issue in particular about which it is difficult to find consensus is his metaphilosophical attitude towards the very project of metaphysics itself. Recently, a type of deflationist reading of Kant has been appealed to in order to address the problems inherent in his more traditional construal as a metaphysical skeptic who denies us the capacity to have any knowledge (...) of “things in themselves”, but who nevertheless seems to centrally rely on the existence of just such things.1 But how is either deflationism or skepticism consistent with Kant’s avowed intention in the Critique of Pure Reason to put metaphysics on the path of science,2 or with his signaled but unfulfilled intention to write a “Metaphysics of Nature”? (shrink)

Attending closely to Hegel's social, political, and intellectual context, the book begins with Hegel's early concerns with a modern civil religion in the ...

Conceptual thinking is form and content simultaneously. It is not that thinking is going on outside of or external to some fixed material substance. That idea would be formalistic thinking – abstract thinking or material thinking. Hegel calls thinking that goes on in its own realm, outside of that which it is thinking about, reflective thinking or reflection. When you look into a mirror you see your own reflection. A reflection is something that comes back to you – the active (...) agent. Thinking that merely reflects on a particular object never penetrates into the object but just superficially glances off the object and comes back into itself as thinking. Thus reflective thinking is something that goes on only in the subjective mind – it doesn’t really ever leave itself and penetrate into the actual object before it. It stays only with itself. Thus in effect it creates a duality between itself as reflective thinking and the object or substance that it is reflecting on. Conceptual thinking is not like that. Conceptual thinking absorbs itself in the content, object or substance as its own thinking itself. Conceptual thinking is thus both the form and content, subject and object, subject and substance – the thought of thought, or the thinking of thinking. Furthermore conceptual thinking is the activity of the Concept itself, it is not something different from the Concept. The Concept differentiates itself because it is living, thinking or dynamic thought itself. That is why we said that the Concept IS the thing. It is not that there is a Concept and a thing that it is the concept of. Hegel is not a Kantian! (shrink)

We may call this the problem of thought and being, where thought represents the subjective and being the objective component in this interactive event. In order to resolve this problem we have to look more carefully at the situation to make sure we understand what is going on more clearly. Let us take the example of "seeing" as something that may be easier to understand. Between (1) "seeing" and the (2) "thing seen" we may at first think we have two (...) independent things. I have my subjective seeing capacity and there are objects in the world which are subject to my seeing capacity. Are these two really independent? Does it make any sense to speak of "things seen" unless the "seeing" capacity is already operating on them? Can we talk of an experience in such a way that what was experienced is different from the experience of it? We mean them to be different, their difference is not being denied. But are they independent or separable from one another? Whether we consider knowing, thinking, or whatever subjective activity we may come up with, it cannot be separated from the objective element that it is operating on. This interdependence of subjective and objective elements is crucial. Basically it is a situation where we have distinct elements inseparably connected to one another. This is not an extraordinary situation. It is rather most commonplace when we think about it. The sunshine is different from the Sun. No one would argue that when the Sun is shining in your room that the Sun is in your room. Distinct they are, but it would not be possible to separate the sunshine from the Sun and still have it be what we call the Sun. The point we are making is that Reality is not simply a matter of sensuous experience. Thought or conception is intimately tied up with our perception of Reality. As Kant explained, intuitions (perceptions) without conceptions are blind (indeterminate) and conceptions without intuitions are empty. Reality is a composite unity of both. (shrink)

In this appendix, I want to briefly reflect on some aspects addressed in the chapter ‘Logic and Metaphysics’ (Chapter 2) in Robert Pippin’s masterful »Hegel’s Realm of Shadows« for which there was no space in my review of the book. Below remarks are not fully worked out, rough ruminations that must be seen in that context. Pippin’s philosophically rich account warrants a more expansive exploration.