Search

According to a major trend in Hegel scholarship, Hegel advocates a McDowell-style transformativist conception of the human mind. Central to this conception is a methodological dualism, according to which phenomena belonging to the rational mind, in contrast to those belonging to non-rational nature, must be accounted for from within the 'space of reasons.' In this paper I argue, by contrast, that Hegel rejects methodological dualism. For Hegel, a constitutive aspect of the rational mind is the activity of expression. I show how Hegel's philosophy of mind adequately accounts for low-level forms of expressivity without appealing to capacities connected to conceptual thought and judgment, and that he does so by drawing on methods similar to those employed within the empirical sciences of his time. Thus, for Hegel, the sphere of the rational mind is broader than the McDowellian space of reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reevaluates Adorno's theory of non-identity following from a critical examination of his reading of Hegel. The main discussion revolves around two theses central to both philosophers: 1. Conceptual thinking forms the centre of philosophical thought (identification). 2. Philosophical thought aspires to become everything (totality). The analysis of two distinct interpretations, one stricter and one more moderate, demonstrates that Adorno takes the hardline view. With the moderate view, however, not only do the limits of Hegelian philosophy become more pronounced, they also reveal novel systematic connections with pivotal concepts inherent to Critical Theory – connections that have notably lacked substantial consideration within relevant research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tourism policy traditionally focuses on the nexus of tourist-resident interaction and has the duty to balance the often-conflicting interests. In policy practice and academia alike, the evaluation of the nexus seems to be dominated by utilitarian ideas and concepts focusing on the objective outcome. This perspective is closely linked to a Hegelian-induced philosophy of an objective mind. In contrast to that, the paper advocates for an imperative-based perspective, as proposed by Kant, to ensure a more humanistic approach. To facilitate that approach, it derives the ideas from the legal science technique of practical concordance to balance the freedoms and interests of all parties involved without proclaiming superior knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kant-Studien is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the Winter semester of 1925/26 Heidegger gave what appears to have been his first seminar on Hegel. Still unpublished in any form, this neglected seminar is of extraordinary importance, and not only for the in-depth and critical reading it pursues of Hegel's Logic I, a critique that charges Hegel with not knowing how or where to begin. The seminar is also important for its attempt to demonstrate that Hegel's philosophy was thoroughly Greek. In the class of 25 November 1925, Heidegger is reported to have said: "Therefore am I in the habit of saying that Hegel is the most radical Greek there ever was. With the means that were pre-formed in Greek ontology as if in a seed, the means that lay at the roots of Greek ontology, Hegel mastered something (roughly speaking: spirit, history) that in this form was never experienced by the Greeks. This is only asserted here. Proof of this thesis is naturally very difficult." Heidegger therefore turns towards the end of the seminar to Aristotle's account of time in the Physics to show that both this understanding of time and the conception of being it presupposes are also Hegel's. Yet Heidegger entrusts the initial presentation of Aristotle's conception of time to a student whose reading is at odds with his own, so much so that Heidegger accuses the student of turning everything on its head. The student's name is H.-G. Gadamer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Owl of Minerva only spreads its wings at dusk. This Hegelian realization might also apply to the last days of Donald Trump in office which brought about many a precedent in the relationship not only between the then President of the United States and its constitution but also between him and his main means of communication: Twitter. The president's tumultuous communication surrounding the transition of power climaxed in an angry mob storming the Capitol in a vain attempt to – dependent on whose narrative one credits – either restore or abolish democracy. Twitter's subsequent decision to ban Trump from using its services for arguably inciting or at least condoning the insurrection quickly led to heated discussions rooted in the issue of the allocation of power within contemporary societies. At the core of these discussions lie two central elements: freedom and the (legitimate) power to restrict it. One side argued that the platform operators had infringed Trump's freedom of speech. In contrast, the other side claimed that abridging Trump's ability to communicate whatever came to his mind was an inevitable step to protect the American constitutional order and thus liberal democracy. Meanwhile, attention has gradually been focused on the larger underlying issues. One common aspect is that both positions seem to presuppose a concept of freedom that is all too formalistic. On a more abstract level, the events also boil down to a clash of two separate claims to power: Social media operators opposing the head of state's claim to do as he wishes. Thus, the paper aspires to analyze the sources of legitimacy for the actions taken by platform operators and their respective counterparts. The analysis is based on Hegel's Philosophy of Right. In particular, Hegel's understanding of freedom, the ideal state and of possible legitimate sources for universal rules shall be put to use. The first point of contact in Hegel's Philosophy of Right is his view of the head of state, his relation to the law, especially to the constitution, and to his constituents. Against this backdrop, it shall be determined how power is distributed in Hegel's state. Then, an attempt shall be made to transfer the underlying ideas and considerations to the power structure and the legitimizing factors as they are laid down in the US Constitution. Furthermore, the paper examines the state's possibilities to react to possibly problematic behavior of the head of state. The focus will be placed on the possibility of holding them accountable for actions directed against the state itself or its constitutional order. Particularly against the backdrop of the questionable efficacy of impeachment procedures in deeply divided nations, the question arises as to whether private actors can legitimately intervene. Concretely, whether social media operators may legitimately bar heads of state from using their platforms in order to protect the state, the legal system or democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kant-Studien is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recent discussions of Hegel's conception of second nature, specifically focused on Hegel's notion of habit, have greatly advanced our understanding of Hegel's views on embodied normativity. This essay examines Hegel's account of embodied normativity in relation to his assessment of good and bad habits. Engaging Hegel's account of the rabble in the Philosophy of Right and Frank Ruda's assessment of Hegel's rabble, this essay traces the relation between ethicality, idleness and race in Hegel. In embodying a position of refusal in its affirmation of idleness, the rabble disallows the progressive revision of the project of modernity central to Hegel's philosophy. Hegel's discussion of the rabble is thus key to assessing the production of race within Hegel's notion of ethical life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With Hegel's metaphysics attracting renewed attention, it is time to address a long-standing criticism: Scholars from Marx to Popper and Habermas have worried that Hegel's metaphysics has anti-individualist and authoritarian implications, which are particularly pronounced in his Philosophy of History, since Hegel identifies historical progress with reason imposing itself on individuals. Rather than proposing an alternative non-metaphysical conception of reason, as Pippin or Brandom have done, this article argues that critics are broadly right in their metaphysical reading of Hegel's central concepts. However, they are mistaken about what Hegel's approach entails, when one examines the specific types of states discussed (and rejected) by the philosopher in his Philosophy of History. Even on a traditional metaphysical reading, Hegel is not only non-authoritarian; he also makes a powerful argument concerning freedom, whereupon the freest society involves collective oversight and the shaping of social structures so as to ensure that they benefit everybody. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there is a broad agreement among Kierkegaard's scholars that Assessor Wilhelm is an ethical thinker, the agreement on what kind of ethics his standpoint represents has been much harder to come by. The suggestions range from Schiller to Aristotle and from Kant to Hegel. The article contends that the apparent lack of a coherent ethical theory on Assessor Wilhelm's part is in fact part of a deliberate ethical strategy. Based on Vigilius Haufniensis' distinction between first and second ethics, it is argued that Assessor Wilhelm occupies a space in between, in which he attempts to create a dynamic for A in the direction of the so-called second ethics, and this by mainly using ironic means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through an enumeration of six theses this article argues that there was indeed a system of thought in ancient Babylonia that we can call philosophy, despite what the famous mid-twentieth century AD book Before Philosophy. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man maintained. We can discover the principles of systematic thought in the numerous lists that Babylonians and other writers of cuneiform in the ancient Near East used. The key to philosophical understanding lay in the idea that writing produced a truth of its own, distinct from what was observable in physical reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite criticism, the thought of G. W. F. Hegel has been highly influential in theology. This article contributes to the debate on the heritage of Hegel from a historical perspective, by studying the theological movement of Vermittlungstheologie. It is demonstrated how Hegelianism provided these theologians with the tools to transform insights from confessional and “Schleiermacherian” theology into a comprehensive worldview. Special attention is paid to the construction of a system of theology with the incarnation at its heart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article presents the Danish theologian Andreas Frederik Beck and provides an English translation of his book review of Philosophical Fragments. In Kierkegaard's time, Beck was a proponent of left Hegelianism and a follower of Bruno Bauer and David Friedrich Strauss. As a student of the University of Copenhagen, Beck was acquainted with Kierkegaard personally and had a special interest in The Concept of Irony, which he reviewed in 1842. In 1845 Beck published an anonymous book review in German of Philosophical Fragments in a theological journal in Berlin. This review, which appears here in English translation for the first time, provides some insight into the contemporary reception of this important work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]