Centers have been out of intellectual and political fashion, because they have been often oppressive. We both celebrate and worry about postmodern fragmentation as we enact it in our technology, while fearing hidden centralization. But centering is important. I would like to mull over some issues concerning centers and criticism.

What follows are the introductory remarks and a series of questions that were raised for a discussion about what Hegel is doing in the paragraphs 669-71 of the Phenomenology of Spirit, with reference back to paragraphs 444 and 650-5. Broadly speaking, the issues concern the place and the nature of that self-consciousness that Hegel describes as the universal and mediating element in which spirit comes to itself. I also ask about the applicability of his dialectic of forgiveness to a particular (...) situation today. (shrink)

The goal or criterion of "authenticity" for judging a change in art or ethics or culture is notoriously vague and can be dangerous. This essay proposes a version of authenticity based on a quasi-Hegelian version of the process of development rather than on any specific patrimony to be preserved. Oddly enough, the proposed criterion has many similarities with one proposed by a staunch anti-Hegelian, Gilles Deleuze.

A comparison of the ways in which Hegel and Heidegger critique modernity.

The second part on the discussion of communal self discernment in seeking goals and values for making places and architectural planning.

Argument and myth, historical figure and archetype, Socrates dominates our image of inquiry. How did this come about and should it continue?

Frederick Neuhouser's The Foundations of Hegel's Social Theory expertly answers many standard objections to Hegel's theory, and offers a careful reading of its basic principles. However, questions remain whether Neuhouser can successfully reconstruct Hegel's theory while avoiding its links to Hegel's logic. Hegel's normative conclusions depend on logical principles about the self that are not adequately translated into Neuhouser's normative and consequentialist arguments.

The old spiritual masters told us to be in the world but not of it. We moderns have given this a secular twist. We are in our world — we have values, ways of life, world pictures — but not of it — we are to be aware of our freedom, aware of the contingency of our world and its dependence on factors many of which are or will be under our control. We both inhabit our world and enjoy the (...) status of distanced controllers. Or, if our lack of control and our dependence on historical and social factors is being emphasized, we are to inhabit our world with a certain knowing irony, since we understand the process by which it came about, even if we cannot change it. We hnave found ways to institutionalize this split-level identity. -/- Such institutions posit a separation of form and content. In the free market, in procedural justice, in free speech we live out that separation. This parallels cognitive and volitional theories of Kantian and Utilitarian descent, which make the same separation. All these give us freedom by having us seek our identity in a formal process above all content, but at the cost of introducing distance and irony. -/- Martin Heidegger's response to modernity often sounds like a romantic flight from modern distances. He clearly wants to overcome our split-level existence, the uneasy balance of facticity and freedom, which for him is but another manifestation of the will to power which he fines lurking behind our tradition. But to what degree is his own overcoming of modernity also susceptible to split-level living and ironic distance? (shrink)

A critique of Habermas is theory of the three worlds as a foundation for criticism and social philosophy.

A study of how for Hegel the relation of architecture to building function has varied throughout history. Architecture strives to liberate itself, never completely, from domination by function.

The essay offers a thought experiment to try to clarify our distinction between our naïve ancestors and our sophisticated moderns. The effect of the thought experiment is to cast doubt upon the distinction and examine further our own myths about our ancestors. And to wonder at what it means to be truly modern.

Hegel congratulated himself on noticing that the German verb aufheben embodied a speculative dialectic in the interrelation of its multiple meanings. Translators have been hard put to find an equivalent English word. I think I have found a similar word in English, which, if not exactly a translation, still shows a similar interaction among the contrasting motions of its different meanings.

The theses and program below ask about judgment and tradition in a self-consciously plural world. The little program points down a path I am exploring in a pair of texts, one on notions of identity in the history of philosophy, and one on the identity of buildings and places. The underlying issue of those texts is: what will replace the old notion of a particular identity? Places, persons, and communities do not and have never had such simple identities as our (...) concepts often made them out to have. But our world today defies the application of universal categories and judgments to fixed particulars. Our places and identities become complexly multiplied, they interpenetrate, the electronic no-place / all-place opens before us. Yet at the same time exclusions and particularities assert themselves everywhere. If universal judgment seems unlikely, relativism is one response, but relativism remains within the horizon of universals and particulars. What kinds of identity can provide standpoints for describing and judging today? (shrink)

discussion of the extent to which architects can float about history and the inevitable finitude of architectural possibilities from any historical standpoint.

An evaluation of David Burrell's theory of the nature of analogy in Thomas Aquinas.

What goes round at the end of history for the two Germans.

What does it mean to be a modern American today? These slides summarize the discussion from five lectures delivered in winter 2019 at the University of Oregon's Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. The lectures themselves are available on YouTube -/- Just how different is American from other cultural identities? We have thought of ourselves as the specially modern nation, spreading the revolutionary gospel of freedom from traditional restrictions. Some condemn this American exceptionalism, while others celebrate it. Don't take sides too quickly, (...) there are deep issues here. -/- -- The first lecture poses the question whether American identity is a rigid given set of traditional substantive values, or a free floating modern identity with at most a set of formal procedural values. -/- -- The second and third lectures dismantle these options, arguing that any substantive identity must include areas of inner freedom and mobility, and any formal procedural identity needs substantive style and content in order to exist at all. Personal and social identities are two leveled, with given values and projects plus inner self-reflection and space for revision. -/- -- The fourth lecture argues that what makes American identity special is neither its substantive values nor its modern formalism, which are shared with other modern nations, but rather the particular slant of its second level attitudes and practices towards first level substance. -/- -- The fifth lecture asks what America can learn and teach in an increasingly multicultural world. (shrink)

How the interpretation of architecture differs from that of other artworks.

Introduction to a volume on Hegel, asking why his thought continues to be relevant today.

This essay argues against global plans and hierarchical systems, whether in urban planning or art and life.

The year 1989 marked the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Martin Heidegger. What has happened to his thought in America? This essay offers a perspective on what I take to be the main trends and some representative works in Heidegger studies on the American side of the Atlantic (with perforce some simplifications both within and among the trends I mention).

Three kinds of concepts can be distinguished in Plato and Aristotle, empirical genera and species, “transcendental” concepts such as being and unity, and polarized “meanings of being” such as power and actuality. Both Kant and Hegel break with the traditional dominance of polarized meanings of being, but they do so in different ways which are at work as competing trends inside both Continental and analytic philosophy today.

This essay discusses the situation of philosophy today in an era of mixed modern, postmodern, and traditional values and social patterns. It argues, with reference to postmodern architecture and to the German philosophers Hegel and Heidegger, that we should reject polarizing conceptual dualities, and that we need to seek out new kinds of less centered and less hierarchical unities that take advantage of the internal tensions and spacings within intellectual and cultural formations. It concludes with a discussion of the promises (...) and problems of dialogue between Eastern and Western philosophies in today’s world. (shrink)

Explores the relationships among hypertext, rhetoric, and philosophy.

A discussion of the pressure hypertext and linear prose put on each other when a long work is being composed in both media simultaneously.

Hegel wrote that “Die Architektur ... ist die Kunst am \usserlichenﾓ (A 14.271).1 We might translate this as "Architecture is art in the external." But since all art is sensuous externalization, perhaps we should translate Hegel as saying "Architecture is the art of the external." Architecture is art at its most external. Let us ask what this ﾒexternalityﾓ might be that is so important to architecture. There are more dimensions to the answer than may at first appear. We might say (...) that architecture is “external” because architecture constructs in physical space “out there” and uses external material such as wood and stone and steel. But other arts, for instance sculpture and painting, do the same. There are kinds of externality more specific to architecture. I will discuss first architecture’s special relation to gravity, then the unorganic externality of architectural purpose, the outward architectonic act, and the externality of meaning in symbolic art. My conclusion will suggest going beyond Hegel on this topic by following his directions. (shrink)

Stephen Houlgate has written an introduction to Hegel that is more than historical. For him, “Hegel’s is still a viable philosophical endeavour with extremely important things to contribute to modern debates, particularly the debates about historical relativism, poverty and social alienation, the nature of freedom and political legitimacy, the future of art, and the character of the Christian faith”. This ambitious book is clearly written and very thoughtful. By concentrating on a number of central themes, Houlgate avoids giving us another (...) numbing summary of the whole Hegelian system, yet he conveys a general idea and feel for the overall project. He also provides fresh looks at areas of Hegel’s thought not usually treated by those in his wing of Hegel interpretation. (shrink)

A review of Simon Lumsden's book on self consciousness in Hegel and in Postmodern authors.

This provocative book questions whether contemporary humanity can face death in any of the traditional ways, since the events of our century have created a new selfhood and a new death. Wyschogrod describes the “death event” and the “death world”; these refer to the Holocaust but also to the destructive bombings in World War II, and most importantly to the death-in-life of the Nazi and Stalinist concentration and labor camps. Her thesis is.

In this book Berry provides a useful summary and comparison of the positions of Hegel and Hume on human nature and its relation to social diversity. After a general introduction, Berry discusses the Enlightenment, Herder’s reaction, Kant, then Hume and Hegel. Most of the comparisons of the latter two are made during the treatment of Hegel. For each thinker Berry asks about the unity of human nature and its relation to social diversity: What is the kind of unity involved, what (...) causes historical and social differences, and is history crucial to a study of human nature? Along the way various topics such as language and property are studied for their bearing on the more basic issues. Berry discusses the intellectual milieu of his two thinkers with respect to his themes; this provides useful background on the Enlightenment and Romantic conceptions, especially in Berry’s discussion of Herder’s reaction to the Enlightenment theories of an ahistorical human nature. (shrink)

These lectures of Heidegger on Hegel’s Phenomenology were given in the winter semester 1930–1931 in Freiburg. This was only a few years after the publication of Being and Time and Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics; much of the language harks back to those works. The lectures predate by twelve years the essay “Hegel’s Concept of Experience” and by about twenty-seven years the discussions of Hegel in Identity and Difference and “Hegel and the Greeks.” As is the case with Heidegger’s (...) course lectures, these are easier reading than the essays and books. It would be unfortunate, however, if their greater length and comparative clarity were to give them a special prominence among Heidegger’s views on Hegel, since the later treatments are more sophisticated. (shrink)