The idea and development of political sovereignty among the North American peoples represents a radical departure from the older European politics of the nation state. Developments in American and Canadian history, as well as the burden of contemporary political debates in these countries, are understood philosophically as the working out of the implications of a commitment to the idea of the state as the foundation and mainstay of a universal human freedom.

Two translations into English of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature have appeared in the same year a century after the other parts of the Encyclopaedia—the Logic and the Philosophy of Mind—had been translated. The Victorian translator passed by the Philosophy of Nature, unconscious that to omit the middle part of a systematic work must certainly conceal the sense of the whole. He finds it a sufficient explanation that “for nearly half a century the study of nature has passed almost completely out (...) of the hands of the philosophers into the care of the specialists of science.” Revived for a few years by Schelling and then Hegel, Philosophy of Nature only recalled “a time of hasty enthusiasms and over-grasping ambition of thought which, in its eagerness to understand the mystery of the universe, jumped to conclusions on insufficient grounds, trusted to bold but fantastic analogies, and lavished an unwise contempt on the plodding industry of the mere hodman of facts and experiments.” This modest retreat of philosophy before the specialists is not thought to need explanation, even though it was not only from the seeming extravagance of Schelling and Hegel but from the general preoccupation of philosophers since Bacon and Descartes with natural philosophy. (shrink)

While taking its departure from James Doull's review of my The Religious Dimension in Hegel's Thought, the present note is not intended to be an author's reply to a reviewer—always in bad taste, and in this case quite unwarranted when the review in question shows all the fair-mindedness and care any author could ask for. My note is much rather part of a dialogue, agreed on in advance by both participants, in which Hegel, not a book on Hegel, is the (...) subject. (shrink)

This book has the modest and practical intention of providing students with “a readable paraphrase” of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and of Marx’s Critique of it. In this the assumption is made that the Ph.R. is difficult beyond need and that it was a reasonable desire of Marx, unfortunately unfulfilled, “to present the philosophy of Hegel in a form comprehensible to the ‘average man’. Hegel certainly had no thought that it was either possible to make speculative philosophy popular or that (...) the “average man” had any need of philosophy, having his appropriate knowledge of the speculative in the form of religion. Hegel looked back to the 18th century as a time when philosophy was popular, the interest of “enlightened” princes and burghers; it could be popular because it was an abstract reason related to a material presupposition and taking its concreter content underived from a tradition it was mostly bent on destroying. Marx is on the whole a man of the Enlightenment who has learned from Hegel to give his materialism a teleological form somewhat in the manner of the Stoics. He is sure Hegel has perversely reversed the true relation of ideas to individual human beings and that it would be a useful work to purge his philosophy of such “mystification”. Kainz’s paraphrase must be thought a similar transposition of Hegel to a more “natural” standpoint. In one way this is not to be thought objectionable since to students in, or barely emerging from, an Anglo-American empirical tradition Hegel is hardly accessible at all unless through Marxism or else Platonism. In another way the loss is very great: the immanent dialectical development of the Ph.R., in which Hegel placed the philosophical importance of the work, is obscured and rendered unintelligible. Instead one has a loose empirical succession which is easier to follow because plausible reasoning replaces what Hegel would think philosophical proof. (shrink)