Abstract

In the present thesis, I argue that Karen Ng’s attempt to draw on resources from Hegel’s Science of Logic to defend a naturalist interpretation of the Hegelian account of cognition is not as promising as she thinks it is. In the first section, I offer an overview of the debate between anti-naturalist and naturalist interpretations of the Hegelian logical space of reasons. I clarify some terms involved in the debate and locate Ng’s novel interpretation in a wider philosophical discussion. In the second section, I offer some arguments to resist Ng’s interpretation, according to which the Idea of Life is never overcome in later stages of the Science of Logic. I uncover Ng’s interpretive presuppositions and put pressure on her interpretation. Finally, I consider two potential objections to my arguments and sketch a different line of thought to approach Hegel’s Idea of Life.