Hegel: Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences

The article reflects on Heidegger’s “metaphysical” interpretation of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. This interpretation is driven by two theses Heidegger holds: (1) that the Phenomenology is a necessary part of Hegel’s “system of science” and (2) that the Phenomenology is metaphysics. These two theses contrast with Houlgate’s “epistemological” interpretation, which claims that the Phenomenology is not a necessary part of Hegel’s system of science and that it is not metaphysics. The article shows that while Heidegger has an argument that establishes, (...) contra Houlgate, that the Phenomenology is metaphysics, this very argument has consequences that undermine Heidegger’s thesis that the Phenomenology is a necessary part of Hegel’s system of science. (shrink)

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the central role of the notion of " habit " (Gewohnheit) in Hegel's theory of " embodiment " (Verleiblichung) and to show that the philosophical outcome of the Anthropology is that habit, understood as a sensorimotor life form, is not only an enabling condition for there to be mindedness, but is more strongly an ontological constitutive condition of all its levels of manifestation. Moreover, I will argue that Hegel's approach somehow makes a (...) model of embodied cognition available which offers a unified account of the three main senses of embodiment understood as both a physiological, a functional, and a phenomenological process. In this sense Hegel's approach to habit can make a useful contribution to the contemporary debate on embodiment in philosophy of mind, the cognitive sciences, and action theory. For a long time habit in 20th century philosophy and science has been mostly read in a negative way, identified with mechanical and repetitive routine. The reconstruction of Hegel’s approach is particularly relevant here and can fruitfully contribute to this discussion, since it offers us not only a model that assigns to habit a positive constitutive role in the formation of embodied human mindedness but which also overcomes the dualism between habitual motor routine and intentional activities that is prevalent nowadays in the cognitive sciences and in action theory, and allows for some sense of natural agency as belonging to animal life. Furthermore, Hegel’s approach cuts across the great divide between associationist and holistic approaches to habit that has for a long time dominated the philosophical debate on habit and still shapes the current opposition between classical cognitive science and embodied cognitive science. (shrink)

In the paragraphs of the Encyclopedia (1830) dedicated to the «Third position of thought towards objectivity» Hegel critically examines Jacobi’s ‘immediate knowing’. My aim is to reconstruct the main arguments of these paragraphs, still little studied today, while trying to shed light on three issues: (a) the relevance given here to Jacobi’s philosophy; (b) the problems that arise within the epistemological models of immediacy; (c) the passage from the analysis of immediate knowing to the speculative thinking of the Logic.

The first part of the final section of Hegel's Science of Logic, the section on "The Idea", is titled "Life". Logic being the science of thought for Hegel, this section presents Hegel's account of the form of thought peculiar to thinking about living beings as living. Hegel's full account of this form of thought holds that a living being is (1) a functionally organized totality of members (2) that maintains itself in and through its environment (3) in the manner of (...) some particular species. I develop Hegel's account in critical conversation with Kant's more limited principle, in the Critique of the Power of Judgement, for judging about internally purposive "natural ends" as beings in which every part is both means and end to every other. I argue that Hegel's view rationally develops from attempting to think through Kant's principle, retaining what is valuable in Kant's insights without treating the life sciences with skepticism. (shrink)

Logiikan ja reaalifilosofian suhde on keskeisimpiä Hegelin filosofian herättämiä kysymyksiä. Hegelin mukaan hänen systeeminsä ensimmäinen osa eli logiikka ja toisen ja kolmannen osan muodostava reaalifilosofia vastaavat toisiaan. Hegelin tuotannossa on kuitenkin aineksia monenlaisille tulkinnoille tästä vastaavuudesta. -/- Yleensä ajatellaan, ettei Hegel ei tarjonnut tyydyttävää selitystä logiikan ja reaalifilosofian suhteesta. Jos otamme tämän tulkinnan lähtökohdaksi, on kysyttävä, miltä osin Hegelin lupaama vastaavuus ei toteudu. Toiseksi on kysyttävä vastaavuusvaatimuksen merkitystä Hegelin filosofialle ylipäänsä. Johtaako luopuminen logiikan ja reaalifilosofian vastaavuudesta absoluuttisen idealismin hylkäämiseen?

Von einem Leben der Freiheit zu sprechen hat eine doppelte Bedeutung. Auf der einen Seite legt diese Wendung nahe, dass schon dem Leben das Merkmal der Freiheit zukommt. Zum anderen deutet der Ausdruck darauf hin, dass die Freiheit ein ihr eigenes Leben besitzen mag. In diesem doppelten Genitiv wird so ein Übergang angedeutet von der Freiheit, die dem Leben als solchem zukommt, zu dem eigenen Leben, das die Freiheit führt. Inwiefern aber ist schon das Leben frei und inwiefern besitzt auch (...) die Freiheit immer noch ein Leben? Warum mag es unserem Verständnis der Freiheit und des Lebens dienen, ihren inneren Zusammenhang zu begreifen? Und in welchem Sinne genau sind Leben und Freiheit aufeinander zu beziehen? -/- Die folgenden Überlegungen werden drei aufeinander bezogene Weisen erläutern, in denen Freiheit und Leben in einem wesentlichen Zusammenhang stehen: (1) Freiheit ist ein Vermögen, das sich nur in lebenden Wesen herausbilden kann. (2) Um die Form der Freiheit zu verstehen, müssen wir die Form des Lebens verstehen. (3) Um die Wirklichkeit der Freiheit zu begreifen, müssen wir verstehen, inwiefern die Freiheit ein Leben eigener Art gewinnt. In diesem Sinne sind wir auf den Lebensbegriff verwiesen, um die Genese, die Form und die Wirklichkeit der Freiheit zu verstehen. Um diese drei Gedanken zu entwickeln, wendet sich dieses Buch zwei Autoren zu, die zwar als Philosophen der Freiheit geläufig sind, wohl aber kaum als »Lebensphilosophen« gelten können: Kant und Hegel. (shrink)

This article introduces a cross-cultural comparative study on Hegel’s Western triad of Being-Nothing-Becoming and I-Ching (including Tao-Teh-Ching, TTK)’s Eastern triad of Yin-Yang-I (Change). The study exposes the similarities and differences between the two triads in three aspects: concept, internal motivation, and external manifestation. Results include: (1) Hegel’s “Tao” is not identical to that of the Yin-Yang paradigm; (2) Hegel’s envision of Becoming is intrinsically far away from the essence of I-Ching’s I.

Im §4 der Einleitung zu den Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts charakterisiert Hegel die Seinsweise, in der das »Reich der verwirklichten Freiheit« gegeben ist, als die einer zweiten Natur. Obwohl Hegel die spezifische Formel von der »zweiten Natur« hier nur noch ein weiteres Mal (GPhR § 151,301) direkt wieder aufnimmt, markiert sie eine ebenso grundlegende wie weitreichende Neubestimmung der Wirklichkeit der Freiheit, die in der zeitgenössischen Diskussion von erheblicher Bedeutung ist. Um genauer zu verstehen, welchen Sinn diese Bestimmung der Form (...) der Freiheit hat, ist es hilfreich, eine grundlegende Form zweiter Natur - die Gewohnheit - zu untersuchen, die Hegel in einem Abschnitt zur Anthropologie in der Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften näher charakterisiert. Ich möchte im Folgenden die Form der Gewohnheit näher bestimmen, indem ich sie als einen besonderen Typ von Wiederholung charakterisiere, der sich im Ausgang von den Wiederholungen des Triebs verstehen lässt. Durch diese Bestimmung kann deutlich werden, wie die Gewohnheit dadurch, dass sie eine lebendige Form wiederholt, den Übergang von Natur zu Geist ermöglicht, diesen Übergang jedoch zugleich stets bedroht. Diese doppelte Struktur von Ermöglichung und Gefährdung behält noch für das »Reich der Sittlichkeit« (PhdG, 264) Gültigkeit und qualifiziert die Art und Weise, in der dieses als zweite Natur existiert. Die Form der Praxis lässt sich in diesem Sinne einerseits nur im Ausgang von der Form des Lebens verstehen, hängt aber andererseits zugleich von dem Abstand ab, den die Wiederholungen der Praxis gegenüber denen des Lebens gewinnen. (shrink)

Hegel argues that madness should not be understood as it had been traditionally, viz. ‘sleeping while awake,’ the intrusion of sleep or unconsciousness on waking, conscious life, but that rather madness must be understood as an inescapable possibility of waking life, and a constitutive part of consciousness itself.

Why does Hegel change “Dreaming Soul” to “Feeling Soul” in the 1830 edition of the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit? By tracing the content of the Dreaming Soul section, through Hegel’s 1794 manuscript on psychology, to sources such as C.P. Moritz’s Magazin zur Erfahrungsseelenkunde, the paper shows how the section embraces a late Enlightenment mission: combating supposedly supernatural expressions of spiritual enthrallment by explaining them as pathological conditions of the soul. Responding to perceived attacks on the 1827 edition of the Encyclopedia (...) by Schleiermacher, Hegel alters the section and its heading, thereby including the pastor’s religion of feeling in the pathology of Schwärmerei. (shrink)

The paper investigates philosophical conceptions of the living that were articulated in Kantian and Hegelian philosophy. The paper argues that in Kant and post-Kantian philosophy the conception of the living serves as a hinge or joint in order to mediate between conceptions of the realm of nature and conceptions of the realm of freedom. In opposition to the Cartesian tradition that had tried to grasp living beings in terms of organized machines, Kant characterizes living beings not only as organized, but (...) as self-organizing beings. Living beings thus do not depend on a conception of their whole external to them (a conception present in the mind of a putative creator). They rather determine themselves. If one understands freedom as being under self-given laws as Kant and his successors did, then living beings as self-organizing entities seem structurally akin to the form of autonomy. The paper argues that it is this kinship that explains the interest that Kant and his successors have taken in the subject matter of the living. In conceiving of living entities in terms of self-organizing beings, some elements of nature seem to be graspable in terms of an inner purposiveness that makes intelligible how freedom might be actualized in nature. Although Kant has not fully developed and deployed the analogy of living self-organization and practical self-determination, it had a crucial impact on post-Kantian philosophy. The paper tries to delineate this impact by turning to Hegel who has deepened the analogy without annihilating the difference between living self-organization and practical self-determination. (shrink)

The relation between nature and spirit in Hegel is not as simple as slogans such as "nature has no history" or a simple interior/exterior dichotonmy would suggest.

Hegel’s “Anthropology” considers components of an agent’s practical identity that are not chosen but rather inherited: components such as the agent’s temperament, talents, and ethnic background. Through a discussion of habit and happiness, Hegel explores how these inherited traits can become part of the agent’s self-determination. I argue that this process provides a model for explaining how we are obligated within roles we do not choose—roles for instance within the family or as citizens of a state. Through evaluation of an (...) inherited role itself and assessment of her own place in it, the agent earns and eventually comes to own her actions within the role. In this way an inherited role, like an inherited trait, can contribute to an agent’s freedom. (shrink)

An interpretation of Hegel's Philosophy of Subjective Spirit showing its continued relevance to contemporary issues in the philosophy of mind.