Abstract

Before sampling some of the treasures, I must register three objections: one unessential, the other two less so. Bern, in the eighteenth century, was not a ‘Canton’ - it became that in 1848 - but a sovereign state. And the French spelling ‘Berne’ is not used in the German-speaking Bern. Many repetitions of the same mistake do not make it more correct. Secondly, the author has taken over from Theodor Haering his contention that the unifying interest of the young Hegel was his concern for popular education. If there is one realm of value which Hegel did not cultivate, it would be just that. If one wants to know what it is for a man to concern himself with Volkserziehung, then he must get acquainted with Pestalozzi, who was at the height of his activity when Hegel resided in Switzerland. He did not notice him. In Glockner’s Hegel Lexicon there are only two references to Pestalozzi, both of them irrelevant. When Hegel speaks of education, it is always the humanistic and philosophical education of intellectuals. Finally, the author is aware of my criticism of the nineteenth century translation of ‘Verstand’ by ‘understanding’, and of ‘Vernunft’ by ‘reason’. But he ignores it and clings to the traditional nineteenth century mistake. But the equivalent of ‘understanding’ - hallowed perhaps by Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding - is nevertheless not ‘der Verstand’ but ‘das Verstehn’ - the felt apprehension of values or their lack in other souls. ‘Verstand’, in Hegel, is always ‘reason’, as defined by formal logic, and ‘Vernunft’ is never ‘reason’, but always self-conscious or reflective comprehensiveness.