It is well known that Hegel’s earliest explicit mention of Adam Smith is to be found in the first set of the Jenaer Systementwurfe, a text previously known under J. Hoffmeister’s title Jenenser Realphilosophie I. In this text, Hegel sums up the example by which Smith illustrates the division of labor: the manufacturing of pins. In a marginal note to this exposition, the name “Smith” appears with a page reference. It is quite significant that his first reference to Smith is (...) not to some marginal or merely historical point of Smith’s analysis, but to the crucial treatment of the division of labor, upon which, as a modern commentator put it, “the discipline of economics was nurtured.” Other indications of the importance which Hegel ascribed to Smith’s treatment are. (shrink)

Author: Norbert Waszek. Translated by Pedro Sepúlveda Zambrano.

It is well known that Hegel’s earliest explicit mention of Adam Smith is to be found in the first set of the Jenaer Systementwurfe, a text previously known under J. Hoffmeister’s title Jenenser Realphilosophie I. In this text, Hegel sums up the example by which Smith illustrates the division of labor: the manufacturing of pins. In a marginal note to this exposition, the name “Smith” appears with a page reference. It is quite significant that his first reference to Smith is (...) not to some marginal or merely historical point of Smith’s analysis, but to the crucial treatment of the division of labor, upon which, as a modern commentator put it, “the discipline of economics was nurtured.” Other indications of the importance which Hegel ascribed to Smith’s treatment are. (shrink)

“In modern political economy the division of labor is a main aspect.”.

As a consequence of the successful 1984 meeting of these two research groups at Bochum - the proceedings of which have been published as Hegels Rechtsphilosophie im Zusammenhang der europäischen Verfassungsgeschichte, edited by Hans-Christian Lucas and Otto Pöggeler - this conference constituted a further step toward continuous cooperation between French and German Hegel scholars. It was held in Poitiers on December 3–5, 1986, at the CRDHM, which, since its founding in 1970 by Jacques D’Hondt, its first director, has coordinated the (...) translation of Hegel into French and published its Bulletin to provide information about all aspects of Hegel and Marx research. The conference was excellently organized by its host, Guy Planty-Bonjour, and by Hans-Christian Lucas and Otto Pöggeler on the German side, with funding from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and from the University of Poitiers. During the three full days of the meeting, about ten scholars from each side had a splendid opportunity to discuss not only the twelve papers presented, but also numerous other aspects of their work. (shrink)

Die Beitrage dieses Bandes verdeutlichen die Rolle Spinozas als Denkfigur, als Anreger und als Anstoss - bis hin zum Feindbild - in der deutschen Geistesgeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts, indem sie die divergenten Aspekte seiner Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte ergrunden.

Eduard Gans, einer der unbestrittenen Führer der Hegelschen Schule, verwendet den Begriff der Anerkennung vorzugsweise in Texten seiner juristischen Spezialisierung und Disziplin. Genauer benutzt er den Begriff einerseits an der Schnittstelle von Rechts- und Geschichtsphilosophie, andererseits im Kontext seiner Ausführung zum Völkerrecht, wenn er die Frage der Anerkennung von Staaten durch andere erörtert.

Eduard Gans remains a rather neglected thinker, although he was probably the most gifted and, perhaps, in the few years that he outlived him, the most influential of Hegel’s immediate followers. In the English speaking countries in particular, the reception of Gans has been hindered, if not prevented, by the formidable obstacle that his writings, with the exception of his additions to Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, are not available in English translation. In his native Germany, too, a full appreciation of (...) Gans has not yet been achieved. Serious study of Gans has only started in the wake and as a sideline of the post–1945 Hegel renaissance. Given this belated start to the discussion, it is not very surprising that even the main tenets of Gans’ political philosophy are still subject to controversial interpretations. The most important result of Gans research to date is to be found in the editorial efforts of Horst Schröder and Manfred Riedel which, for the first time, make some of Gans’ lectures available to the scholarly community at large. A consideration of Gans’ publication record may, to some extent, explain the long neglect of this notable philosopher. It may also account for the significance of the recently published lecture notes. Though the number of his books and articles is considerable, Gans did not bring together and publish details of the aspects in which his views differ from those of Hegel. This may have been due to Gans’ untimely death. Alternatively, from personal loyalty to Hegel or respect for Hegel’s system, Gans may have thought it inappropriate to publish anything critical of his patron and friend. Or, and this seems likely from the manner and context in which he presents his arguments, Gans did not perceive these differences as amounting to any substantial disagreement or even criticism, but considered them to be no more than interpretation or application of given principles to new conditions and phenomena. Suspending descision on the plausibility of these options, the fact remains that Gans did not publish a critique of Hegel, and it is in this respect, apart from their other merits, that Gans’ lectures attract our attention, for, while they appear to be merely expounding Hegel’s doctrines, they also examine them critically. In the light of these lectures, then, the differences between the views of Hegel and Gans can now be studied in much greater detail than was previously possible. That Gans’ lectures from both the pre- and post–1830 periods are now available has the additional advantage of enabling us to perceive significant developments in his views and convictions. (shrink)

Dass sich Hegel und Hermann Cohen trotz scheinbarer Gegensatze miteinander versohnen lassen, ist eine Grunduberzeugung des Werkes von Myriam Bienenstock, welches sich stets durch die doppelte Ausrichtung auf Hegel und das judische Denken auszeichnete. Mit diesem Band wird Myriam Bienenstock, seit 1997 Professorin fur Philosophie an der Universitat Francois Rabelais in Tours, anlasslich ihres 70. Geburtstages geehrt. Mit Beitragen von Dominque Bourel, Bernard Bourgeois, Christophe Bouton, Pierfrancesco Fiorato, Jean-Francois Goubet, Dana Hollander, Helmut Holzhey, Gerhard Kurz, Claudia Melica, Wolfdietrich Schmied-Kowarzik, Ludwig (...) Siep, Guy Stroumsa und Norbert Waszek. (shrink)

The critical edition of Hegel’s works in preparation at the Hegel-Archiv in Bochum is making good progress. The most recent and biggest volume published so far is the 1830 Encyclopedia, edited, with the collaboration of Udo Rameil, by Wolfgang Bonsiepen and Hans-Christian Lucas. As the two scholars had already prepared the 1827 version of the Encyclopedia and are now close to finishing the edition of the so-called “Heidelberg Encyclopedia”, the time seemed ripe to mark the event by a wide discussion (...) of Hegel’s entire “encyclopedic” system and, more particularly, of the way in which this system developed from 1817, via 1827, to 1830. The Marburg conference was organized with this double aim in mind. (shrink)

A historical account of Hegel’s reception in Japan would have to deal with the European impact on the Japanese Enlightenment of the years that preceeded and prepared the Meiji era, then with the switch over from British and French to German trends marked by the Imperial Constitution, and would finally have to center on the efforts of the Nishida school to combine eastern, especially Zen, wisdom with German Idealism. That cannot here be attempted. Such a task would require a Japanese (...) scholar or, at least, somebody with an intimate knowledge of Japanese history and the history of its philosophy, not to mention, of course, the Japanese language. The author of these remarks cannot pretend to such a knowledge; all he can offer is what the subtitle specifies: impressions of a recent visit, augmented, perhaps, by some subsequent reflections; both, no doubt, highly subjective. (shrink)

A historical account of Hegel’s reception in Japan would have to deal with the European impact on the Japanese Enlightenment of the years that preceeded and prepared the Meiji era, then with the switch over from British and French to German trends marked by the Imperial Constitution, and would finally have to center on the efforts of the Nishida school to combine eastern, especially Zen, wisdom with German Idealism. That cannot here be attempted. Such a task would require a Japanese (...) scholar or, at least, somebody with an intimate knowledge of Japanese history and the history of its philosophy, not to mention, of course, the Japanese language. The author of these remarks cannot pretend to such a knowledge; all he can offer is what the subtitle specifies: impressions of a recent visit, augmented, perhaps, by some subsequent reflections; both, no doubt, highly subjective. (shrink)

Tradução de "The Shifting Contours of Philosophy. In the wake of Hegel”. In: Rinaldi, G.; Cerretani, G. Etica, Politica, Storia universale. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Urbino, 24-27 ottobre 2018). Canterano: Aracne editrice, 2020, p. 135-156.

O presente texto apresenta o panorama da formação em Hegel do conceito de economia política dentro da evolução de seu pensamento. Para tanto são analisadas as suas obras publicadas em vida em relação com aquelas publicadas após a sua morte. Espera-se portanto, apresentar um panorama seguro do lugar e da importância da economia política na filosofia de Hegel.

That devout Marxists would not cast a kind eye on my The Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account of “Civil Society” is to be expected, for one of the aims of my study was to free the research into Hegel’s social and economic views from the ideological fetters of the past. However, it was a matter of surprise and regret to me to see that, of all journals, The Owl, the journal of the Hegel Society of America, chose to publish a (...) one-sided “Marxist” account of my book, almost a verbatim copy of what appeared in the 1990–91 issue of Science and Society. The ideological nature of this attack upon my book will have been obvious to the attentive reader, for the only authority quoted at any length was neither Hegel nor Ferguson, Hume, Smith, Steuart, nor any of the other thinkers with whom my book is primarily concerned, but Karl Marx. These must be difficult times for hard-line Marxists and this situation should explain if not excuse the bad temper of the attack. For example, the insulting adjective “daft” was applied to my research. This, I think, is unsuitable for any scholarly discussion. I also hold the opinion that a review should try to give some idea of the content of the book under consideration before plunging into violent polemics. Those who would like to get a less dogmatic and more informative account of my study might turn to Hegel-Studien, 1989 ; American Historical Review, 1990 ; Journal of the History of Philosophy, 1991. (shrink)

“In modern political economy the division of labor is a main aspect.”.

Those who have attended any Hegel congress in Stuttgart in the past may remember disappointment on seeing the house in which Hegel was born. I well remember my own embarrassment, a few years ago, taking a group of Italians to the 400 years-old house at No. 53 Eberhardstraße. We found nothing to remind us of the philosopher but a miserable plaque. Worse, the ground floor of the building was apparently occupied by a firm specializing in bathroom equipment. This sad and (...) unsatisfactory situation was all the more surprising, given that this house was among the few old buildings not destroyed during World War II. (shrink)

Résumé Avant de devenir l’un des pères fondateurs de l’école de Marbourg, Hermann Cohen avait rédigé un article dans lequel il cherchait à mettre en évidence les liens entre Heinrich Heine et le judaïsme. L’article révèle une double préoccupation : théologico-philosophique et politico-philosophique. Cohen affirmait que le panthéisme de Heine, inspiré de Spinoza, serait compatible avec le monothéisme juif, et que c’est ce panthéisme qui aurait mené Heine vers les « idées socialistes » que, comme Heine, il acceptait. Cohen changea (...) ensuite d’attitude envers Spinoza mais il demeura, sa vie durant, un grand admirateur de Heine, alors que Rosenzweig, qui pourtant se présenta comme l’héritier et le successeur de Cohen en pensée juive, développa une forte aversion contre le poète, ce qui ne peut être expliqué que si l’on prend en considération son propre engagement religieux. (shrink)

Hegel’s views on the family and civil society, the topic of this meeting, attracted participants from more than 20 countries and a total of almost 100 contributions. The activities of this conference were divided into “plenary sessions” that brought together all participants in order to discuss the long papers and “sectorial sessions,” i.e., smaller groups — up to five groups would meet simultaneously — in which the short papers were presented. There were also three evening lectures, a general meeting of (...) the members, and a reception, in other words, an extensive and varied program. The conference was formally opened with addresses from the society’s chairman, the principal of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, and the mayor of Rotterdam. As the introductory session swiftly moved on to the papers of Rudolf Meyer and Rudolf Siebert, the tributes paid to Hegel in the opening addresses were soon complemented by the more active appreciation that is implied in research work. Rudolf Meyer, one of the executive chairpeople of the society, set the ground for the whole conference by a clear exposition of the relevant sections of the Philosophy of Right, drawing particular attention to the problems of transition in general, and to the implicitly attempted mediation from bourgeois to citoyen in particular. Rudolf Siebert insisted against Ernst Bloch that Hegel has not betrayed the future, but that his philosophy can help modern men and women to comprehend and to act out the options for the future: “To try to mitigate at least Future I, to resist Future II, and to promote as passionately as possible Future III. Rudolf Siebert’s highly topical discussion had a lasting impact on the conference: subsequent references to the future frequently made use of his gripping abbreviations. Leaving the opening session behind, I can only comment on a small selection of papers. As attendance at one “sectorial session” meant absence from the papers read simultaneously, my choice is highly subjective and should not be taken as a value judgment on any of the papers. (shrink)