Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:33:35.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel's Confrontation with the Sciences in ‘Observing Reason’: Notes for a Discussion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Cinzia Ferrini
Cinzia Ferrini*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Trieste, ferrini@units.it
Get access

Abstract

According to a well-known statement in Hegel's Encyclopaedia, what differentiates the philosophy of nature from physics is ‘the kind of metaphysics used by them both’ (W9: §246Z: 20, N: 11). In the same vein, recent scholarship has stressed that Hegel criticises the logical procedures and metaphysical presuppositions of the working scientist's activity, taking issue with their lack of awareness about the mental categories they use and the alleged consistency of their way of arguing. Put rather more critically, it is often claimed that Hegel's concerns were purely philosophical, and that he never entered into genuinely scientific debate. Unlike Schelling, who engaged in scientific debate, Hegel is thought to have confined himself to observing and judging it, demonstrating his ability to grasp its main features, on the basis of which later to build his philosophy of nature.

To combat the old tradition of negative assessment of Hegel's relation to the empirical sciences, which saw it as aprioristic, dogmatic, misleading and ill-informed, the editors of the critical edition of the Phenomenology retrace some of the contemporary scientific sources for Hegel's objections to description and classification in the natural sciences, and document his appreciation of new developments in electricity and chemistry. Through a primarily historical approach, Hegel's critical remarks on the attempt to fix laws for organic forces (sensibility, irritability, reproduction) and his critique of the scientific status of physiognomy and phrenology, all of which elucidate his allusions in ‘Observing Reason’, are shown to be rooted in contemporary scientific debates. Recendy, however, it has been contended that this kind of scholarship that identifies Hegel's active engagement with the science of his time, ‘tend[s] to reduce the text to a document for historians of nineteenth-century science’ (Stone 2005: xv). In Italy, a scholar has also made a subtle case for his claim that, in contrast to his mature system, Hegel's confrontation with the natural sciences in the Phenomenology is essentially and necessarily critical, aiming to reveal the partiality, one-sidedness, and inadequacy of forms of cognitive approach typical of the natural sciences, and that it forms part of Hegel's dissolution of all of consciousness's forms of externality.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 28 , Issue 1-2: number 55/56 , 2007 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle, (1955), Parts of Animals, trans. Peck, A.L.. London/Cambridge Ma.: Heinemann/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, T. (2006), ‘“Aber die organische Natur hat keine Geschichte …” Hegel und die Naturgeschiche seiner Zeit’, in Beuthan, R. ed., Geschichtlichkeit der Venunft beim Jenaer Hegel Heidelberg: Winter, 57–80.Google Scholar
Bell, D. (1984), Spinoza in Germany from 1670 to the Age of Goethe, Leeds: Maney & Son.Google Scholar
Bergk, J. A. (1803), Bemerkungen und Zweifel über die Gehirn–und Schädeltheorie des Dr. Gall in Wien. Leipzig: Wilhelm Rein.Google Scholar
Blumenbach, D. J. F. (1791), Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. Göttingen: J. C. Dieterich.Google Scholar
Blumenbach, D. J. F. (1795), De generis humani varietate nativa. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.10.5962/bhl.title.35972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgato, M. T. (2002), ‘Riccioli e la caduta dei gravi’, in Borgato, M. T. ed., Giambattista Riccioli e il merito scientifico dei gesuiti nell'età barocca. Firenze: Olschki, 79–118.Google Scholar
Brunner, J. (1803), Handbuch der Gebirgskunde für angebende Geognosten, Leipzig: Kleefeldsch.Google Scholar
Burbidge, J (1996), Real Process. How Logic and Chemistry Combine in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, A. (2000), ‘Hegel's Unresolved Contradiction: Experience, Philosophy and the Irrationality of Nature’, Dialogue XXXIX: 771–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagognet, F. (2007), ‘Sur la Philosophie de la nature de Hegel’, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 3:403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlstrom, D. (2005), ‘Rationality, Anthropomorphism, and Hegel's Metaphysics of Nature: Remarks on Alison Stone's Petrified Intelligence’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 51/52: 13–21.10.1017/S0263523200002160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlstrom, D. (2007), ‘Challenges to the rational Observation of Nature in the Phenomenology of Spirif’, The Owl of Minerva 38:1–2:35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinis, A. (2002), ‘Was Riccioli a Secret Copernican?’, in Borgato, M. T. ed., Giambattista Riccioli e il merito scientifico deigesuiti nell'età barocca. Firenze: Olschki, 49–77 Google Scholar
Emmerling, L.A. (1793), Lehrbuch der Mineralogie, Gießen: G. F. Heyer.Google Scholar
Erxleben, J.C.P. (1777), Systema regni animalis per classes, ordines, genera, species, varietates, cum synonymia et historia animalium. Classis I. Mammalia. Lipsiae: Weygand.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, A. (1998), ‘Aristotelian and Newtonian Models in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature’ in Cohen, R. S. and Tauber, A. I. eds., Philosophies of Nature: the Human Dimension. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrini, C. (2004), ‘Being and Truth in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature’, Hegel-Studien 37:6990.Google Scholar
Ferrini, C. (2008), ‘Fenomenologia dell'oggetto nel pensiero scientifico moderno: Fidealismo della ragione osservativa in Hegel’, in Vescovini, G. Federici and Vinti, C. eds., Oggetto e Spazio. Fenomenologia dell'oggetto, forma e cosa, dal XVI al XVII secolo Proceedings of the Perugia/Todi Congress, 09 8–10, 2005. Firenze: Galluzzi, 269–286.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (1967), Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems. Drake, S., Berkeley, University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gren, F. A. C. (1797), Grundriß der Naturkhre. Halle: Hemmerde & Schwetschke.Google Scholar
Hahn, S. S. (2007), Contradiction in Motion: Hegel's Organic Concept of Life and Value. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halper, E. C. (2002–2003), ‘The Idealism of Hegel's System’, The Owl of Minerva 34:1:19–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2005), An Introduction to Hegel. Freedom, Truth and History, 2 nd. ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Illetterati, L. (1995), Natura e Ragione. Sullo sviluppo dell'idea di natura in Hegel. Trento: Pubblicazioni di Verifiche.Google Scholar
Lasius, G. S. O. (1789), Beohachtungen über die Harzgebirge, nebst einem Profilrisse, als ein Beytrag zur Mineralogischen Naturkunde, Part I, Hannover: In der Helwingischen Hofbuchandlung.Google Scholar
Lauer, C. (2007), ‘The Place of Schellingian Childness in the Phenomenology's Dialectic of Reason’, The Owl of Minerva 38:1–2:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1979), ‘Nuovi saggi sull'intelletto umano dell'autore del sistema dell'armonia prestabilita’, in Leibniz, G. W., Scritti Filosofici, Vol. II, Bianca, D. O. ed. Torino: UTET, 166–672.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (2004), Saggio sull'intelletto umano. Testo inglese a fronte, Cicero, V. and D'Amico, M. G. trans.,[bilingual edition of the 4th ed., An Essay concerning Humane Understanding (1700), Nidditch, P. H. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975]. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Marmasse, G., and Posch, T., eds. (2002), Hegel, Vorlesung über Naturphilosophie. Berlin 1821/22. Nachschrift von Boris von Uexküll. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Marmasse, G. (2000), Vorlesung über Naturphilosophie. Berlin 1823/24. Nachschrift von K.G.J. v. Griesheim, Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Mittelstraß, J. (1972), ‘The Galileian Revolution. The Historical Fate of a Methodological Insight’, in: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, II, 1972, 297–328.Google Scholar
Moiso, F. (1998), ‘La scoperta dell'osso intermascellare e la questione del tipo osteologico’, in Giorello, G. and Grieco, A. eds., Goethe sciensdato. Torino: Einaudi, 298–337.Google Scholar
Moiso, F. (2002), ‘ Experientia/experimentum nel Romanticismo’, in Veneziani, M. ed., Experientia. Firenze: Olschki, 435–522.Google Scholar
Moll, P. (2004), ‘The Purposive Purposelessness of Hegel's Physiognomy’, in Arndt, A. ed., Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes heute I, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Sonderband 8 Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretto, A. (2004), Filosofia della matematica e della meccanica nel sistema hegeliano, 2nd. ed., Verona: Il Poligrafo.Google Scholar
Morton, A. G. (1981), History of Botanical Science. An Account of the Development of Botany from Ancient Times to the Present Day. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Poggi, S. (2000), Il genio e l'unità della natura. La scienza della Germania romantica (1790–1830). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Posch, T., and Hegel, G. Marmasse eds. (2005), Hegel. Vorlesungen ueber Philosophie der Natur, Berlin WS 1825/26. Frankfort a. M.: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Renault, E. (2001), Hegel. La naturalisation de la dialectique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Richards, R. J. (2002), The Romantic Conception of Life. Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, J. J. (1969), Emile ou de l'Education, in vol 4., Oeuvres Complètes, Gagnebin, B. and Raymond, M. eds. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Stone, A. (2005), Petrified Intelligence. Nature in Hegel's Philosophy, Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasi, G. (1997) Significare con le forme. Valore simbolico del bello ed espressività della pittura in Kant. Ancona: Il Lavoro Editoriale.Google Scholar
Treviranus, G. R. (1802) Biologie, oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur für Naturforscher und Aerzte, vol 1. Göttingen: J.F. Röwer.Google Scholar
Verra, V (1997), La filosofia della natura, in: Cesa, C. ed., Guide ai filosofi. Hegel. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 83–122.Google Scholar