Abstract

It is almost unanimously acknowledged that the formation of Hegel’s philosophy was largely determined by the appropriation and further development of some fundamental achievements of Kant’s transcendental idealism - first of all his polemic against the “old metaphysics” or, as Hegel also said, the “empty metaphysics of the understanding”. The most decisive assumption of this metaphysics consisted, indeed, in the belief that the totality of our universe could be exhaustively resolved into a plurality of isolated entities, devoid of any “internal,” essential, mutual relations. Each entity was, as a consequence, considered to be only abstractly self-identical and so different from any other. In such a perspective, the absolute, the infinite, the divine, could not but be conceived as being substantially alien to the human mind’s innermost life and essence, as a merely motionless object, absolutely transcendent to the self-creative process in which our rational subjectivity essentially consists. Kant’s critique - especially by virtue of his conception of knowledge as an “a priori synthesis” of intuition and category, of experience and concept, which finds the ultimate condition of its possibility not in its conformity to a presupposed objectivity, but precisely in the original unity of self-consciousness, the “I-think-in general” - has certainly by now rendered unsustainable the strict dualism typical of such a metaphysics, and in particular its pretension of rationally “demonstrating” the existence and the most general properties of the alleged merely transcendent absolute. Whereas Kant’s idealism seems nevertheless to limit itself to the statement and foundation of this simply critical and negative outcome of the transcendental analysis of our knowledge, the ultimate aim of Hegel’s whole philosophy consists rather in the attempt explicitly and systematically to develop a conception of the universe, according to which the universe, far from dividing into a plurality of absolutely different and exclusive entities, instead constitutes itself as a unique, absolute, organic totality, in which any immediate difference and opposition tends to merge, to “reconcile” itself in a superior and deeper “dialectical” unity, which is both divine and human, infinite and finite, identical and different, ideal and real, eternal and in a process of becoming, transcendent and immanent. Every one of its determinate aspects and grades of development, every element into which it differentiates itself, thus turns out to be intimately immanent in, and connected with, every other, and finally in and with the absolute totality itself. Totum in toto et in qualibet parte. “Outside” of such unique, concrete totality, there appear to be but empty, irrational, unreal abstractions: first of all the A = A of formal logic and the absolutely transcendent God of the “old metaphysics.”