Pure serendipity got me involved in the HSA. I was in my first month of graduate school, had already decided to write my M.A. thesis on Hegel, and had begun to study the Philosophy of Right in preparation for this work. Then I learned from a posting on a bulletin board that some outfit called the “Hegel Society of America” - which I had never heard of - was about to have a meeting just two miles down the road. My (...) thesis advisor strongly encouraged me to attend - so I went, but with no idea what to expect. (shrink)

The process of optimizing psychical distance to achieve the best possible aesthetic effect has been well-known among philosophers of art ever since Edward Bullough formulated the concept in 1912. Although it is typically analyzed as a one-way process, it nevertheless becomes a reciprocal or intersubjective process when the object of our aesthetic perception is our “other.” This is equally true for animal “others” as for our fellow human “others.” Anything animate can fix us in its gaze and thereby prompt or (...) even force us toward self-confrontation as an object of someone or something else’s perception. This reciprocity may be manifest as a sort of psychological pas de deux between the two confronting subjects, each confronting the other as object, each recognizing the other as subject, and each confronting its own self as recognizer of this relationship and recipient of this attention. The level of our awareness of our being an object for some “other” subject has a proportionately significant impact on our aesthetic perception of this “other, ” i.e., the fact that an “other” perceives us adds a dimension of “unnatural” intersubjectivity which changes our aesthetic appreciation of that “other.”. (shrink)

The transition from self-consciousness as the unhappy consciousness to reason as the critique of idealism is among the most important in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Yet this transition is implicit and not readily discernible. This paper investigates (1) whether we can discover and describe any roadblock that the unhappy consciousness is able to knock down, or despite which it is able to maneuver, and so become reason; or (2) whether the unhappy consciousness arrives at an impassable dead end and either (...) manages to create a detour around it or just begins again, unexplained and unexplainably, almost ex nihilo, as reason; or (3) whether, despite its implicitness, there exists a continuous, tenable, and unimpeded path from self-consciousness to reason. (shrink)

Presents the basic elements of the philosophy of religion tradition in a new and provocative way as original philosophical narrative interspersed with rich selections from Plato, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Pascal, Descartes, Paley, Leibniz, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Mill, Stephen, Royce, James, and Clifford. The history and concepts of philosophy of religion emerge more clearly through this integration and interrelation of classical texts with modern summary and interpretation.

This paper argues for the primacy of language over vision as a means of communication. Words convey information more clearly, accurately, reliably, and profoundly than images do. Images by themselves give only impressions; they do not denote, unless accompanied by some sort or level of description. Also, any visual image, whether physical or mental, unless it is eidetic, must involve some degree of interpretation, interpolation, or description for it to be capable of conveying information, having meaning, or even being intelligible. (...) Pictorialism is the theory that mental imagery is visual, while descriptionalism holds that mental imagery is nonvisual. As an epistemology, pictorialism supports representationalism as a philosophy of art. The poverty and limitations of representational theories of art militate against pictorialism. Descriptionalism as an epistemology supports several versions of symbolist theories of art. The richness and versatility of symbolic interpretations of art works support descriptionalism. Pictorialism fails the test of consistency unless eidetic imagery exists. Any pictorialism that claims support from noneidetic imagery or invokes the photographic fallacy is in fact a crypto- or quasi-descriptionalism. Since the photographic fallacy denies eidetic imagery, it is invalid and misbegotten as a defense of pictorialism. The interplay between the richness of visual images and the precision of verbal descriptions is a key element in developing a comprehensive pedagogy of aesthetics. (shrink)

The three theories considered here, real continuous time, real serial time, and unreal time, are each in some sense a reaction to Hume’s theory of serial or “spatialized” time. Hence, Hume’s theory is elaborated on as a foundation for the discussion and comparison of the subsequent three. This brief excursion into the nature of time may help to illuminate the differences among these three and to suggest some of their possible implications, particularly with regard to the existential difference between intuited (...) or transcendent time and experienced or immanent time and the qualitative or ontological difference between the eternal and the temporal. (shrink)

Yovel is a prolific, diligent, and sagacious Israeli scholar who has published extensively on Maimonides, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche, and who holds named chairs in philosophy at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the New School for Social Research. That such a prominent Jewish intellectual has created a perceptive book-length analysis of an important topic which frequently inspires articles and books by non-Jews is a welcome addition to the literature on German philosophy. It is all the more welcome since (...) Yovel’s study is philosophical rather than political or ideological, applies an accurate comparative reading of a wide variety of Hegel’s and Nietzsche’s texts, and sees their separate estimations of the Jews respectively in the light of each’s entire philosophical project. (shrink)

Lofts’s purpose is to interpret Cassirer in the light of francophone post-structuralist thought, particularly that of Jacques Lacan. Portraying a cautious neo-Kantian as a proto-post-structuralist may seem almost perverse, but the notion has potential. Unfortunately, the book reads as if it were still in rough draft. Its sections are disconnected, its arguments and insights are truncated or aphoristic, its style is careless, and it is poorly edited. Orthographical and typographical errors abound, even to the point of printing Lofts’s own name (...) wrong once. The long note about Hegel repeats previous text. Lofts’s analysis does not flow with the stream of the history of philosophy, but rather leaps from stone to stone in that stream, lingering too long on some stones and avoiding others. Dilthey, Gadamer, and Habermas, for example, are conspicuously absent from the discussion. Originally presented as Lofts’s dissertation, this book seems not yet to have proceeded far enough beyond that phase to warrant wider distribution. (shrink)

One notices immediately that this is a very well organized piece of work, complete with both name and subject indices. The six-page analytic table of contents helpfully distinguishes Angehrn’s various digressions, chiefly into Marxian thought, from the mainstream of his argument. The bibliography is generally an excellent brief sampling of the pertinent Hegelian literature of the last fifteen or twenty years; although, as one might easily expect, since Angehrn earned his doctorate with this work at Heidelberg in 1976, there is (...) perhaps a disproportionate emphasis on the contributions of his dissertation director, Michael Theunissen. (shrink)

A book on this topic is long overdue. It is high time that a competent Hegel scholar recognized and assessed the danger posed to Hegel’s whole system by the skeptical tradition, argued that Hegel’s Jena writings, culminating in the Phenomenology, are primarily works of epistemology rather than metaphysics, examined Hegel’s own views on ancient and modern skepticism, identified and criticized Hegel’s own strategies for defending his thought against the skeptical threat, and took Hegel seriously as an epistemologist. Forster does all (...) this and more, and does it very well. (shrink)

The purpose of this book is the exegesis and criticism of §§ 387-482 of the Encyclopedia. DeVries is skillful at this task, coloring his portrait of subjective spirit with understandings of relevant sections of Hegel’s other texts, notably the Phenomenology and the two Logics. The result is worth reading, for it proves to offer several new and - as the author himself expressly wishes - “controversial” ways of looking at the philosophy of spirit.

Miklowitz’s central historical thesis is that Hegel’s “bold claims of metaphysics were burst into fragments under blows from Nietzsche’s hammer”. This thesis fails to account for the many profitable readings of Hegel as an epistemologist rather than a metaphysician. In Miklowitz’s reading, Hegel seems to fit the Schopenhauerian caricature of the pompous Schwabian concocting “grandiose... hubristic” pretensions to absolute knowledge “that would have made even Faust blush”.

This is the right book done wrong. Stewart has perceived a genuine gap in the published English Hegel translations, but has filled it in a way that does not enhance anglophone Hegel scholarship. He has instead produced a so-called “non-book,” i.e. has only slapped together a bunch of previously published and readily available translations with a new introduction, bibliography, and index. Moreover, he has failed to include many of Hegel’s most important essays and reviews.

This is a lucid and ambitious book. It is about Heidegger, not Hegel. Boer recognizes that her “wide-ranging” endeavor to “give a systematic interpretation of Heidegger’s entire thinking” is a difficult project that “entails risks”. She meets the challenge head on, considering not only the usually expected texts in Heidegger’s corpus, but also devoting “considerable attention to texts that have only been available for a few years”.