The contribution of Sense-Certainty to the entire program of the Phenomenology of Spirit is in the proof of the inevitability of making differences. In the Introduction, the distinction between consciousness and object was presented, which justification and self-reflexive structure has to be developed in the course of the Phenomenology of Spirit. The first, elementary step is realized in the Sense-Certainty that – under the programmatic formula of “immediacy” – claims to dissolve the distinction between consciousness and object and even, more (...) generally, the very structure of distinction itself. It will be shown in what way this claim cannot be fulfilled. On the contrary, distinctions that male a difference – those, that separate the distinguished sides from one another – turn out to be inevitable. (shrink)

L’apport de la Certitude Sensible à l’ensemble du programme de Phénoménologie de l’Esprit est constitué par la preuve de l’inévitabilité de distinguer. L’Introduction présente la distinction entre conscience et l’objet , dont la légitimité et la structure auto-réflexive se déroulent par l’éxécution de Phénoménologie de l’Esprit. Le premier pas, qui est élémentaire, se réalise dans la Certitude Sensible. Suivant la formule programmatique du « immediat » la Certitude Sensible exige la dissolution de le distinction entre conscience et objet et même (...) de la structure de distinction soi-même. Il est montré pourquoi cette exigence ne peut pas être satisfait. Au contraire, les distinctions qui font une différencecelles qui séparent deux côtés différentes l’un de l’autre – sont inevitables. (shrink)

This paper reconsiders certain of Kierkegaard's criticisms of Hegel's theoretical philosophy in the light of recent interpretations of the latter. The paper seeks to show how these criticisms, far from being merely parochial or rhetorical, turn on central issues concerning the nature of thought and what it is to think. I begin by introducing Hegel's conception of "pure thought" as this is distinguished by his commitment to certain general requirements on a properly philosophical form of inquiry. I then outline Hegel's (...) strategy for resolving a crucial problem he takes himself to face. For his account of the nature of thought depends upon the idea of a form of inquiry in which nothing whatsoever is presupposed; but this idea appears basically paradoxical inasmuch as the mere act of beginning to inquire in a certain way embodies an assumption about how it is appropriate to begin. Turning to Kierkegaard, I consider a key objection to the effect that Hegel's strategy for resolving this paradox depends on the incoherent idea of a purely reflexive act of thinking. Finally, I draw out some central features of the alternative account of "situated" thought and inquiry which Kierkegaard presents as distinctively Socratic. (shrink)

The Kant-Hegel relation has a continuing fascination for commentators on Hegel, and understandably so: for, taking this route into the Hegelian jungle can promise many advantages. First, it can set Hegel’s thought against a background with which we are fairly familiar, and in a way that makes its relevance clearly apparent; second, it can help us locate Hegel in the broader philosophical tradition, making us see that the traditional ‘analytic’ jump from Kant to Frege leaves out a crucial period in (...) post-Kantian thought; third, it can show Hegel in a progressive light, as attempting to take that tradition further forward; fourth, it can help us locate familiar philosophical issues in Hegelian thought that otherwise can appear wholly sui generis; and finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, focusing on this relation can help raise and crystalise some of the fascinating ambiguities concerning Hegel’s outlook, regarding whether Hegel’s response to Kant shows him to have been a reactionary, Romantic, pre-critical thinker, who sought to turn the philosophical clock back to a time before Kant had written, or a modernist, Enlightened and essentially critical one, who remained true to the spirit if not the letter of Kant’s philosophy. (shrink)