Hegel: Philosophy of Right

What does it mean to be a person? And in what way is this connected to our finitude, i.e. to the properly human aspect of our existence? By analyzing some of the core features of our form of life (personal identity, self-consciousness, freedom, autonomy, responsibility), Michael Quante answers these questions arguing that it is possible to be a person and lead an authentically human life only within social relationships of recognition: only in these relationships, it is possible to know oneself (...) and act autonomously and responsibly. Through a close examination of the philosophies of Fichte and Hegel, on the one hand, and of the most recent debates on analytical ethics, on the other, Quante thus lays the foundations for a pragmatistic anthropology, that is, for a conception focused on the active nature of human existence. The volume is a revised version of the Lectures given by Michael Quante in 2017 at the PhD Course in Philosophy at the University of Padova. (shrink)

The paper discusses four different topics: (1.) the role of personality in Hegel's system; his definitions of both (2.) logical and (3.) realphilosophical personality; (4.) the tension between the two.

Neste artigo, trago a uma maior explicitação o conceito de direito da Filosofia do Direito de Hegel, buscando reabilitá-lo como alternativa às concepções jusnaturalistas e juspositivistas tradicionais. Busco uma resposta à questão “o que significa ter um direito?” a partir da Filosofia do Direito hegeliana. Questiono pela gênese e locus do direito e argumento que este se origina de uma relação de reconhecimento recíproco intersubjetivo, posteriormente consubstanciando-se objetivamente na eticidade, por meio das instituições sociais. A partir das conclusões de que (...) (i) ter um direito significa ser intersubjetivamente reconhecido como possuidor de uma reivindicação legítima a algo; e que (ii) tal reconhecimento intersubjetivo se torna progressivamente objetivo nas instituições, proponho a ideia de “título de reconhecimento” como definidora do conceito de direito. (shrink)

Der Beitrag, dessen Schwerpunkt auf metaphysischen Fragestellungen liegt, expliziert das Verhältnis zwischen Kants und Hegels Auffassungen der Person. Der Begriff der Person spielt eine wichtige Rolle in praktischer Philosophie Kants. Kant verneint dagegen die Auffassung der ontologischen Person. Nachkantischer deutscher Idealismus kann als Wiederherstellung der Personontologie erörtert werden. Persönliches Sein prägt auch Philosophie Hegels. Hegel thematisiert Person aber systematisch nur im Bereich der Philosophie des Rechts. Der Standpunkt des finnischen Hegelianers J.V. Snellman (1806–81) wird als Fortsetzung der Philosophie Hegels betrachtet. (...) Besonders sein Werk "Versuch einer spekulativen Entwicklung der Idee der Persönlichkeit" (1841) steht im Brennpunkt des Beitrags. (shrink)

Mark Alznauers Studie bietet eine ebenso konzise wie originelle Deutung von Hegels praktischer Philosophie. Sie erreicht dies, indem sie Hegels praktische Philosophie unter die überraschende Überschrift einer Theorie der „Verantwortung“ oder „Schuld“ („Theory of Responsibility“) stellt. Das ist zunächst überraschend, da weder Verantwortung noch Schuld zu den tragenden Grundbegriffen der Hegelschen Darstellung zu zählen scheinen. Alznauer will in seiner Studie aber zeigen, dass wir Hegels Behandlung seiner zentralen praktischen Begriffe – wie Wille, Person, Recht, Moralität, Sittlichkeit – nur dann angemessen (...) verstehen können, wenn wir sie im Ausgang vom Problem der Verantwortlichkeit verstehen: Hegel lasse sich in seiner praktischen Philosophie von der Frage leiten, was alles erforderlich ist, damit wir zu Wesen werden können, die für ihr Tun Verantwortung tragen. Die verschiedenen normativen Ordnungen, die Hegel herausarbeitet – das abstrakte Recht, die Moralität, die Sittlichkeit und schließlich die Weltgeschichte – ermöglichen uns auf jeweils unterschiedliche Weise, uns „schuldig“ zu machen: Handelnde zu werden, die durch ihr Tun geistig wirken und für das Getane einstehen können. Verantwortlichkeit ist nach dieser Deutung das große Desiderat der praktischen Philosophie Hegels: „Der Mensch soll schuldig sein, insofern er gut ist, soll er nicht sein, wie ein natürliches Ding gut ist, sondern es soll seine Schuld [...] sein“ (Hegel 1986b, S. 253). Damit dies möglich wird, ist deutlich mehr erforderlich, als es zunächst scheint: Wir müssen geistige Vermögen ausbilden, durch die wir unser Tun als Ausdruck unserer Gründe erfahren können; wir müssen in einer Welt leben, die uns ein Selbstverständnis als freie Wesen ermöglicht; und wir müssen schließlich – dies ist wohl das Überraschendste der von Alznauer reklamierten Erfordernisse – als ein anerkanntes Mitglied eines Staates leben (21). Dass der Mensch Schuld haben kann, ist in diesem Sinne kein triviales Vermögen, sondern „das Siegel der absoluten hohen Bestimmung des Menschen.“ (Hegel 1986a, S. 50). (shrink)

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)

The paper investigates the Kantian idea that a rational life is a life of “mere form”—a life in which a “mere form” is the force or spring of action. I start by developing Kant’s practical notion of life—the capacity to be the cause of what one represents. In a second step, I investigate the way in which Kant characterizes a rational life—the capacity to act in accordance with the representation of laws and to determine ourselves by the mere form of (...) a practical rule. In the third section, I point to some of the attractions and some of the problems of such an account. I close by considering a Hegelian alternative: the notion that a rational life is not the life of “mere,” but of “absolute form.”. (shrink)

In diesem Buch geht es um eine Philosophie, die aus einer unermüdlichen Kritik entstand: Die Philosophie, die ihre Konstitution überhaupt dem Verbinden der Kritiken an anderen Philosophien zu verdanken scheint. Es ist die Hegels. Hegel ist bekannt als ein Denker, der die für seine Philosophie konstitutiven und wichtigen Ansätze aus der kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit seinen Vorgängern, deren monumentale Leistungen in der Geschichte der Philosophie anerkannt wurden, gewonnen hat. Ausgehend von dieser Überzeugung rekonstruiert dieses Buch Hegels Sittlichkeitsidee durch die intensive Analyse (...) seiner zweistelligen Kritiken an den ethischen Gesetzesmodellen (bei Kant und Antigone), neuzeitlichen Naturrechtstheorien (von Hobbes und Fichte), und politischen Regierungsformen (der antiken Ungleichheitsidee und der modernen abstrakten Gleichheitsidee). (shrink)

Features original articles by some of the most distinguished contemporary scholars of Hegel's thought, The most comprehensive collection of Hegel scholarship available in one volume, Examines Hegel's writing in a chronological order, from his very first published works to his very last, Includes chapters on the newly edited lecture series Hegel conducted in the 1820s Book jacket.

On Hegel's problem of poverty as a problem of alienation affecting rich and poor.

The objective of this article is to compare and contrast the influential notion of natural and property rights created by John Locke in his "Second Treatise on Government" (1689) to the posterior notion of abstract right expressed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in his "Elements of the Philosophy of Right". Said analysis is particularly pertinent given the complexity of Hegel’s political philosophy, and, perhaps more importantly, seeing as Hegel’s abstract right was (allegedly and in part) intended to point out the (...) shortcomings of Locke’s theory of natural and property rights, in order to further the human understanding of the world. More specifically, this article will examine the two rights theories in terms of their respective amounts of emphasis on individualism, or lack thereof. It will reveal three areas in which Lockean rights are more geared towards the primacy of the individual than Hegelian rights: (1) in their respective understandings of what it means to be a person, (2) in their conduciveness to individual wellbeing through the obligations each theory entails, and (3) in the extent of the rights themselves in relation to the state. (shrink)

Although personal being plays an important role in G.W.F. Hegel's (1770–1831) philosophy he never provided a comprehensive definition of personality. Within the framework of his works it is thus possible to formulate different definitions of person and personality, and several conflicting definitions were presented among Hegelians during the 1830s and 1840s. In this paper I examine the role of personality in Hegel's system and discuss the relationship between personality and metaphysics. The question shall be analyzed in the context of various (...) works by Hegel and contrasted with two important precursors of Hegel, I. Kant (1724–1804) and J.G. Fichte (1762–1814). I shall also put the philosophy of Finnish Hegelian J.V. Snellman (1806–81) under scrutiny. The paper will indicate the importance of logic for Hegelian metaphysics and for Hegelian conception of personality. (shrink)

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's Moral Corporation is about two versions of a corporation, one business oriented and dedicated to shareholder-value and profit-maximisation and one dedicated to moral life, Sittlichkeit, in Hegelian terms. In contrast to more general books on management, this book examines one single institution of management, corporations, from the standpoint of a specific philosopher. The book presents somewhat of a critical extension of Hegelian moral philosophy on corporations, reaching well beyond Hegel's outlines of Hegelian corporations in the early 19th century. In (...) other words, it is not Hegelian but Neo-Hegelian in its approach because it does not remain within the confines of Hegel but applies his philosophy to the corporations of the 21st century. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to clarify the role wrong plays in Hegel ’s system of right, as both a form of freedom and the transition to morality. Two approaches will be examined to explore wrong in practical philosophical terms: First, one could take the transition to be descriptive in nature. The transition describes wrong as a realized fact of the human condition that one inherits from the outset. Second, one could see it as prescriptive. Actual wrongdoing would be (...) essential for the subject’s progression to becoming moral. Though both are most likely the case, emphasis is given to the latter since it represents the actualization of potential. Furthermore, it will be suggested that wrong plays a similar role as that which alienation does in the Phenomenology of Spirit; both bridge the will as abstract personality with the moral point of view. (shrink)

Thom Brooks'sHegel's Political Philosophy: A Systematic Reading of the Philosophy of Rightpresents a very clear and methodologically self-conscious series of discussions of key topics within Hegel's classic text. As one might expect for a ‘systematic’ reading, the main body of Brooks's text commences with an opening chapter on Hegel's system. Then follow seven chapters, the topics of which are encountered sequentially as one reads through thePhilosophy of Right. Brooks's central claim is that too often Hegel's theories or views on any (...) of these topics are misunderstood because of a tendency to isolate the relevant passages from the encompassing structure of thePhilosophy of Rightitself, and, in turn, from Hegel's system of philosophy as a whole, with its logical underpinnings. Brooks is clearly right in holding that Hegel hadintendedthePhilosophy of Rightto be read against the background of ‘the system’ and the ‘logic’ articulating it —nobody doubts that— but there is a further substantive issue here.Shouldcontemporary readers heed Hegel's advice? Brooks's answer is emphatically in the affirmative, and what results is a series of illuminating discussions in which he makes a case for his own interpretations on the basis of systematic considerations, presented against a range of alternatives taken from the contemporary secondary literature, which is amply covered, often in the extensive endnotes to the book. (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)

Warum muss Strafe sein? Die Beiträge betreffen zunächst aktuelle Strafbegründungstheorien, insbesondere solche, die in der Strafe einen Tadel sehen. Eine klare Unterscheidbarkeit zwischen absoluten und relativen Straftheorien wird heute nicht selten bezweifelt.

This essay analyses Hegel’s use of the metaphor of «the cross and the rose», not only in the Preface to the Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, which all major interpretations refer to, but also in two other texts: Wer denkt abstrakt? of 1807 and the 1829 review of Schubart's and Garganico’s Über Philosophie überhaupt... In Wer denkt abstrakt? Hegel criticizes a sentimental, as equivalent to a «non concrete», interpretation of the figure; in the Preface he claims that «reason is the (...) rose in the cross of the present», assimilating the image to a platonic idea of State; in the review of 1829 he criticizes a naïve interpretation of the figure. In the light of these observations, it is possible to conclude that Hegel sees the figure as the specific image of the relation of the platonic and the critical element, typical of dialectical rationality. The Hegelian use of the figure thus results, in this perspective, by far more subtle than the one envisaged by its “political” interpretations. (shrink)

This essay analyses Hegel’s use of the metaphor of «the cross and the rose», not only in the Preface to the Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, which all major interpretations refer to, but also in two other texts: Wer denkt abstrakt? of 1807 and the 1829 review of Schubart's and Garganico’s Über Philosophie überhaupt... In Wer denkt abstrakt? Hegel criticizes a sentimental, as equivalent to a «non concrete», interpretation of the figure; in the Preface he claims that «reason is the (...) rose in the cross of the present», assimilating the image to a platonic idea of State; in the review of 1829 he criticizes a naïve interpretation of the figure. In the light of these observations, it is possible to conclude that Hegel sees the figure as the specific image of the relation of the platonic and the critical element, typical of dialectical rationality. The Hegelian use of the figure thus results, in this perspective, by far more subtle than the one envisaged by its “political” interpretations. (shrink)

Mark Bevir's The Logic of the History of Ideas has received considerable attention recently. This article highlights a new problem with his weak intentionalism. Bevir's weak intentionalism holds that on occasion the meanings readers ascribe to texts may trump the meanings the authors express in texts. The article uses the example of Hegel's theory of punishment. The received wisdom is that Hegel is a pure retributivist. Yet, this strays far from his text and stated views. We might think we should (...) keep to this text to uncover Hegel's views. However, Bevir's weak intentionalism has us side with how he has been read over what Hegel has said. This view is problematic as our meanings may well stray far from the texts, words or spirit. Thus, Bevir's weak intentionalism can fall victim to straying from the text when trying to interpret it. (shrink)

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.

Hegel’s account of conscience at the conclusion to the chapter on morality in the Philosophy of Right has had more than its share of detractors. Theunissen tries to explain why the account is “so meager,” Findlay deems it “thoroughly scandalous,” and Tugendhat goes so far as to label it the pinnacle of a “no longer merely conceptual, but rather moral perversion.” Even commentators committed to rescuing Hegel’s discussion of conscience from such extreme reproaches agree that it is “one-sided” and “problematic.” (...) The source of this widespread conclusion about Hegel’s political incorrectness is not difficult to discern. In the wake of the nationalistic excesses and horrors of the last two centuries, there is an understandable suspicion about the motivations underlying claims that “the state cannot recognize conscience in its distinctive. form, that is, as subjective knowing”. When Hegel declares that the “formal subjectivity” of conscience, as the final achievement of morality, is “on the verge of turning into something evil”, he seems clearly out of step with the reigning liberal political traditions, traditions that regard the individual’s freedom to abide by his or her conscience as both an unassailable right and an inherent good. (shrink)

The most valuable political theoretical contribution made by Marx's idea of socialism is towards the resolution of the seeming opposition of mass democracy and rational government. Marx follows Hegel's redefinition of political rationalization as the actualization of the nascent self?consciousness of the existing ethical world when he uses socialism as a statement of those tendencies of bourgeois society that will create the perspectives of social awareness that allow mass democracy. This thesis is made against aspects of the interpretation of Marx's (...) relation to Hegel in Bolshevik political theory. I claim that the Bolshevik idea of socialism as the militant political intervention of the dictatorship of the proletariat develops, through Engels, a position taken with respect to Hegel's philosophy of right in Marx's Rhenish Journal articles. This idea is, however, pre?Hegelian in the sense that it is open to a democratic criticism based on the philosophy of right understood in an alternative fashion. In his writings after leaving the Rhenish Journal and up to the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts Marx makes this alternative available, and the notion of socialism he arrives at here turns on an awareness of the contradictions which make the militant political imposition of freedom impossible. Whereas for Bolshevism socialism is to be imposed on existing society, for Marx it is more the development within that society that makes possible mass democratic freedom. (shrink)