Abstract

Pinkard characterizes his interpretation of Hegel's philosophy as "by no means a straightforward and noncontroversial" reading. This is a fair characterization as his recent exchange with Robert Pippin indicates. The book presents Hegelian philosophy as essentially an explanatory project aiming at achieving a coherent set of beliefs about experience: "A philosophical problem arises when two basic beliefs both seem to be true but seem also to be inconsistent with each other; both seem to be true, but it also seems that both cannot be true". Philosophical problems on this reading have the form of Kantian antinomies. Philosophical explanation takes the form of transcendental as opposed to metaphysical argumentation. Metaphysical explanations answer the question "how is x possible?" by positing the existence of some entity. Transcendental explanations claim that we must conceive of experience in terms of certain categories if we are to think about it in an intelligible way. What distinguishes a Hegelian speculative argument from a Kantian transcendental argument, in Pinkard's view, is that it cannot claim to present the conditions of the possibility of experience. A Hegelian speculative argument "cannot claim its solutions are unique or necessary".