Hegel: Philosophy of Nature, Misc

Abstract:This article provides a novel interpretation of the so-called transition to self-consciousness in The Phenomenology of Spirit, where Hegel argues that the failure of the protagonist consciousness to formulate an understanding of the world in terms of forces and laws necessitates the shift to an investigation of its own self-conscious subjectivity. The author argues that we can make sense of the transition by attending to Hegel's account of the metaphysical structure of forces and laws, on the one hand, and the (...) structure of self-consciousness, on the other. Following this approach, she argues that the transition represents the realization by the protagonist consciousness that the object of phenomenological inquiry must be metaphysically self-determining (or "infinite," in Hegel's terminology). The standpoint of self-consciousness accordingly emerges because the protagonist consciousness takes itself qua subject to exhibit the requisite self-determining structure. In addition to making sense of the transition to self-consciousness, this line of argumentation illuminates Hegel's subsequent focus on the activity of "desire.". (shrink)

Transzendental wird hier, abweichend von Kant, im Sinn transzendentaler Argumente verstanden. Im Kontext der Letztbegründungsdiskussion sind diese dadurch definiert, dass ihre Verneinung zu einem pragmatischen Widerspruch führt. Nun ist Hegels Philosophie auf die ‚logische Idee‘ gegründet, also auf die in Hegels Verständnis fundamentale dialektische Logik. Sein philosophischer Systementwurf hat dadurch, wie gezeigt wird, transzendentalen Charakter und schließt dementsprechend auch eine transzendentale Naturphilosophie ein. Gezeigt wird weiter, dass Grundbe- stimmungen der Natur, die üblicherweise einfach vorausgesetzt werden, in diesem Rahmen grundsätzlich erklärt (...) werden können: die Existenz der Natur und ihr (räumlich-zeitliches) Auseinandersein, ferner die Erkenn- barkeit der Natur, ihre Gesetzmäßigkeit, Kontingenz und immanente Idea- lisierungstendenz. Dass sich so auch konkrete Naturphänomene erschließen, wird an zwei Exempeln verdeutlicht: in der Begründung dimensionaler Raumstrukturen und in der Begründung des Relativitätsprinzips der Bewe- gung – letzteres mit der Pointe (im Sinn einer Philosophie der (speziellen) Relativitätstheorie), dass die Relativität der Körperbewegung und die Absolutheit der Lichtbewegung so als logisch zusammengehörende Momente kinematischer Relativität verstehbar werden. (shrink)

Ziel der Untersuchung ist zu zeigen, inwiefern Hegels Charakterisierung des Schönen als ‚das sinnliche Scheinen der Idee‘ auch für die Deutung des Naturschönen Erklärungswert hat. Vorausgesetzt ist die für den Idea- lismus Hegelscher Prägung zentrale Doktrin, derzufolge der Natur Ideel- les zugrunde liegt. Schön sind dann Naturphänomene, in denen jener ideelle Grund der Natur durchscheint. Das Erfassen von Ideellem scheint ein Privileg geistiger Wesen zu sein. Dem stehen evolutionsbiologische Argumente entgegen, die dem Schönen einen positiven Selektionswert, etwa bei der sexuellen (...) Partnerwahl, zusprechen. Auch der Mensch hat stammesgeschichtliche Wurzeln, die in ihm weiter wirken. Doch sobald der Geist auf der evolutionären Bühne erscheint, herrscht das Biologische nicht länger mit der uneingeschränkten Macht, die es im Rahmen natürli- cher Selektion hat. Hegels Deutung des Schönen, auch des Naturschönen, ist wesentlich bezogen auf den Geist. Ich verdeutliche dies an einigen Exempeln (Schneekristall, musikalische Harmonie, Abendhimmel, Ge- birgslandschaft, organische Blüten- und Körperformen). Aber wodurch sind Naturschönheit und Kunstschönheit dann voneinander unterschie- den? Die Hervorbringungen der Natur sind lediglich Zufallskonstellatio- nen. Allerdings, so Hegel, hat der Zufall es ‘recht’ gemacht, d.h. hat er etwas reizend Stimmiges gefügt, gewahrt der Geist darin das im Sinnli- chen durchscheinende Ideelle. Eben darin wird, mit Adorno gesprochen, die gemeinsame Wurzel des Kunstschönen und des Naturschönen erkennbar. Wer das Naturschöne preist, begebe sich „an den Rand der Afterpoe- sie“, des Kitsches, meint Adorno. Gleichwohl sei es wahr zu sagen, „die Landschaft der Toscana sei schöner als die Umgebung von Gelsenkirchen“ (Adorno 1993, 110, 112). In der Tat. Doch was meinen wir, wenn wir Landschaften, Blumen, Sonnenuntergänge ‘schön’ nennen, und welche Kriterien bringen wir dafür in Anschlag? Im Folgenden möchte ich darle- gen, inwiefern Hegels Charakterisierung des Schönen als „das sinnliche Scheinen der Idee“ diesbezüglich erhellend und klärend ist. Hinweise auf Adornos ästhetische Theorie ergänzen diese Überlegungen. Dem stehen evolutionsbiologische Argumente entgegen, die zunehmend Einfluss auf die ästhetische Diskussion gewinnen. (shrink)

I argue that the reception of Hegel in the sub-field of history and philosophy of science has been in part impeded by a misunderstanding of his mature metaphilosophical views. I take Alan Richardson’s influential account of the rise of scientific philosophy as an illustration of such misunderstanding, I argue that the mature Hegel’s metaphilosophical views place him much closer to the philosophers who are commonly taken as paradigms of scientific philosophy than it is commonly thought. Hegel is commonly presented as (...) someone who conceived of philosophy as a science that relied on the solitary genius of the individual thinker, and as a science whose propositions could not and should not be made accessible to “the common people”. Against this view, I argue that Hegel in fact thought that philosophy was a thoroughly anti-individualistic activity, and that he emphasized the importance of the intersubjective accessibility of philosophical discourse. I argue that when we carefully reconstruct Hegel’s reasons for his break with Schelling, and if we pay close attention to his explicit metaphilosophical pronouncements, we can see that he in fact adhered to what I call a “proto-modernist” conception of philosophy as a science. I conclude by pointing out how the mischaracterization of Hegel has served to obscure the existence of a strand of scientific philosophy that emerged by way of an immanent critique of Hegel, namely Marxist philosophy. (shrink)

Recent work in the philosophy of biology argues that we must rethink the biological individual beyond the boundary of the species, given that a key part of our essential functioning is carried out by the bacteria in our intestines in a way that challenges any strictly genetic account of what is involved for the biological human. The gut is a kind of ambiguous other within our understanding of ourselves, particularly when we also consider the status of gastro-intestinal disorders. Hegel offers (...) us theoretical tools to describe and understand our relationship to our gut. His description of our selves as continually mediated through otherness is strikingly compatible with the kind of structure contemporary biology presents us with. His accounts of digestion and habit, contextualized by his logic, help point toward an understanding of selfhood as porous and yet still capable of being sufficiently unified for us to make sense of ourselves, one which allows us to acknowledge otherness within us while still having enough unity for agency. (shrink)

Hegel famously criticizes Kant’s resolution of the antinomies. According to Sedgwick, Hegel primarily chastises Kant’s resolution for presupposing that concepts are ‘one-sided’, rather than identical to their opposites. If Kant had accepted the dialectical nature of concepts, then (according to Sedgwick) Kant would not have needed to resolve the antinomies. However, as Ameriks has noted, any such interpretation faces a serious challenge. Namely, Kant’s first antinomy concerns the universe’s physical dimensions. Even if we grant that the concept of the finite (...) is necessarily related to that of the infinite, the physical universe cannot both have and lack a temporal beginning. I argue that Hegel neither adopts Sedgwick’s view that Kant’s antinomies require no resolution nor absurdly accepts that the physical universe both has and lacks a temporal beginning. Instead, Hegel proposes a sophisticated resolution of Kant’s first antinomy (including its physical aspect) that depends on Hegel’s theory of the Absolute. (shrink)

In his Introduction to The Cambridge Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy (2008), entitled ‘The Puzzling Hegel Renaissance’, Frederick Beiser, the editor of the volume, claims that Anglophone Hegel research has been in the main deeply problematic and proceeds to offer a program of research for its rejuvenation. The paper argues that the reasons based on which he exercises his critique (antiquarianism and anachronism) fail on internal grounds and that, therefore, Hegelforschung should not be reduced to his proposed research program (...) (Konstellationsforschung). The argument is built around four Hegelian themes: (a) the nature of the Hegelian categories, (b) Hegel’s philosophy of nature, (c) the relation between antiquarianism and our culture, and (d) Hegel’s methodology. (shrink)

This paper deals with the problematic relationship between thought and nature in Hegel. This entails looking at the philosophy of nature and discovering to what extent it claims to incorporate natural otherness or contingency and how it does so. I briefly summarize other approaches to this question (Maker, Winfield, Braun, Wandschneider, Hoffheimer...) while putting forward my own solution. This is expressed in an argument articulated around the three Hegelian images (and their texts) in the paper’s title. We discover how the (...) relation between philosophy and nature is a dynamic one, mediated by the actual content of the positive natural sciences. In other words, thought and nature are mediated by the human activity of scientific knowing, within the systematic project of knowing all of nature. This raises the possibility of conceiving Hegel’s system as open to the future. (shrink)

Hegel clearly established himself against the concept of a Darwinian-type of evolution, i.e. evolution in the objective sense. We have to be mindful that for Hegel the Concept is the Reality of which Nature is the Appearance. So actual movement occurs in the Concept and is only reflected in Nature. For this reason we could not expect Hegel to ever agree with Darwin's theory. It is not that the evidence and theory were not existing during Hegel's time. He was well (...) aware of the existence of this type of thinking throughout history up until his own time. His disagreement is not based upon religious considerations, or considerations of State or politics. It is based upon the Concept as he explains in the Philosophy of Nature. -/- Just as one would not expect to be able to explain the movement of an image in a mirror on the basis of the molecules of the mirror, so too the apprearance of Spirit in Nature can never be decribed on the basis of purely natural considerations. Some indication of Spirit's nature can be found by empirical observation, and corroborated by the same. However, Nature, as thouroughly implicit Reason, i.e. as other than explicit Reason, has its moment of independence from Spirit, but it is not completely determined in that moment. Rather it is ultimately inseparable from Spirit (just as the North pole of a magnet is inseparable from its South pole), and certainly has no intrinsic movement independent of it. (shrink)

The original intention of my first article was to direct attention to the philosophical aspects of the theory of evolution. I think this is the most significant contribution we can make to this subject. Because we are dealing with Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature it may not be possible to deal with issues from a purely philosophical perspective since Nature necessarily implies that scientific evidences and arguments must be considered. Hegel’s philosophy and the rational necessity in the development of the Concept (...) guided him at every step in his interpretation of the broader stokes of Nature. The scientific evidences and laws established by scientists certainly help to formulate and serve to test such conceptual development. But ultimately it is in the Concept that completeness and consistency must be maintained. As Hegel recognizes, "the forms of nature cannot be brought into an absolute system…" (§ 370 add.) I would like to see Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature given a chance. His opposition to evolution is not unfounded even though it may go against the majority view. In this endeavor to understand what he has presented we may find an alternative to the creationist and evolutionist arguments that will satisfy both. (shrink)