Cite this entry Search the SEP Advanced Search Tools RSS Feed Table of Contents What's New

New Archives Projected Contents Editorial nfor!ation Abo"t the SEP Editorial #oard $ow to Cite the SEP S%ecial Characters S"%%ort the SEP Contact the SEP & 'eta%hysics Research (ab) CS( ) Stanford *niversity

+%en access to the SEP is !ade %ossible by a world,wide f"ndin- initiative. Please Read $ow /o" Can $el% 0ee% the Encyclo%edia Free

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

First published Thu Feb 13, 1997; substantive revision Mon Jun 26, 2006 Alon- with 1. 2. Fichte and F. W. 1. von Schellin-) $e-el 34556,47849 belon-s to the %eriod of :2er!an idealis!; in the decades followin- 0ant. The !ost syste!atic of the %ost,0antian idealists) $e-el atte!%ted) thro"-ho"t his %"blished writin-s as well as in his lect"res) to elaborate a co!%rehensive and syste!atic ontolo-y fro! a :lo-ical; startin- %oint. $e is %erha%s !ost well,<nown for his teleolo-ical acco"nt of history) an acco"nt which was later ta<en over by 'ar= and :inverted; into a !aterialist theory of an historical develo%!ent c"l!inatin- in co!!"nis!. For !ost of the twentieth cent"ry) the :lo-ical; side of $e-el's tho"-ht had been lar-ely for-otten) b"t his %olitical and social %hiloso%hy contin"ed to find interest and s"%%ort. $owever) since the 4>56s) a de-ree of !ore -eneral %hiloso%hical interest in $e-el's syste!atic tho"-ht has also been revived.

4. (ife) Wor<) and nfl"ence ?. $e-el's Philoso%hy o ?.4 The traditional :!eta%hysical; view of $e-el's %hiloso%hy o ?.? The non,traditional or :%ost,0antian; view of $e-el 8. $e-el's Wor<s

8.4 Pheno!enolo-y of S%irit 8.? Science of (o-ic 8.8 Philoso%hy of Ri-ht #iblio-ra%hy o Collected Wor<s o En-lish Translations of 0ey Te=ts@ o Secondary (iterat"re +ther nternet Reso"rces Related Entries
o o o

1. Life, Work, and Influence

#orn in 4556 in St"tt-art) $e-el s%ent the years 4577,45>8 as a theolo-y st"dent in nearby TAbin-en) for!in- friendshi%s there with fellow st"dents) the f"t"re -reat ro!antic %oet Friedrich $Blderlin 34556,47C89 and Friedrich von Schellin- 3455D,47DC9) who) li<e $e-el) wo"ld beco!e one of the !ajor fi-"res of the 2er!an %hiloso%hical scene in the first half of the nineteenth cent"ry. These friendshi%s clearly had a !ajor infl"ence on $e-el's %hiloso%hical develo%!ent) and for a while the intellect"al lives of the three were closely intertwined. After -rad"ation $e-el wor<ed as a t"tor for fa!ilies in #ern and then Fran<f"rt) where he was re"nited with $Blderlin. *ntil aro"nd 4766) $e-el devoted hi!self to develo%inhis ideas on reli-io"s and social the!es) and see!ed to have envisa-ed a f"t"re for hi!self as a ty%e of !odernisin- and refor!in- ed"cator) in the i!a-e of fi-"res of the 2er!an Enli-hten!ent s"ch as (essin- and Schiller. Aro"nd the t"rn of the cent"ry) however) %ossibly "nder the infl"ence of $Blderlin) his interests t"rned !ore to the iss"es in the :critical; %hiloso%hy of !!an"el 0ant 345?C,476C9 that had enth"sed $Blderlin) Schellin-) and !any others) and in 4764 he !oved to the *niversity of 1ena to join Schellin-. n the 45>6s 1ena had beco!e a centre of both :0antian; %hiloso%hy and the early ro!antic !ove!ent) and by the ti!e of $e-el's arrival Schellin- had already beco!e an established fi-"re) ta<in- the a%%roach of 1. 2. Fichte 345E?,474C9) the !ost i!%ortant of the new 0antian,styled %hiloso%hers) in novel directions. n late 4764) $e-el %"blished his first %hiloso%hical wor<) The Differen e bet!een Fi hte"s and # hellin$"s #%ste& of 'hilosoph%) and "% "ntil 4768 wor<ed closely with Schellin-) with who! he edited the (riti al Journal of 'hilosoph%. n his :Differen e; essay $e-el had ar-"ed that Schellin-'s a%%roach s"cceeded where Fichte's failed in the %roject of syste!atisin- and thereby co!%letin- 0ant's transcendental idealis!) and on the basis of this ty%e of advocacy ca!e to be do--ed for !any years by the re%"tation of bein- a :!ere; follower of Schellin- 3who was five years his j"nior9. #y late 476E $e-el had co!%leted his first !ajor wor<) the 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit 3%"blished 47659) which showed a diver-ence fro! his earlier) see!in-ly !ore Schellin-ian) a%%roach. Schellin-) who had left 1ena in 4768) inter%reted a barbed criticis! in the 'heno&enolo$%'s %reface as ai!ed at hi!) and their friendshi% abr"%tly ended. The occ"%ation of 1ena by Na%oleon's troo%s as $e-el was co!%letin- the

!an"scri%t closed the "niversity and $e-el left the town. Now witho"t a "niversity a%%oint!ent he wor<ed for a short ti!e) a%%arently very s"ccessf"lly) as an editor of a news%a%er in #a!ber-) and then fro! 4767,474D as the head!aster and %hiloso%hy teacher at a :-y!nasi"!; in N"re!ber-. F"rin- his ti!e at N"re!ber- he !arried and started a fa!ily) and wrote and %"blished his # ien e of )o$i . n 474E he !ana-ed to ret"rn to his "niversity career by bein- a%%ointed to a chair in %hiloso%hy at the *niversity of $eidelber-. Then in 4747) he was offered and too< "% the chair of %hiloso%hy at the *niversity of #erlin) the !ost %resti-io"s %osition in the 2er!an %hiloso%hical world. While in $eidelber- he %"blished the *n % lopaedia of the 'hilosophi al # ien es) a syste!atic wor< in which an abbreviated version of the earlier # ien e of )o$i 3the :Encyclo%aedia (o-ic; or :(esser (o-ic;9 was followed by the a%%lication of its %rinci%les to the 'hilosoph% of +ature and the 'hilosoph% of #pirit. n 47?4 in #erlin $e-el %"blished his !ajor wor< in %olitical %hiloso%hy) *le&ents of the 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht) based on lect"res -iven at $eidelber- b"t "lti!ately -ro"nded in the section of the Encyclo%aedia 'hilosoph% of #pirit dealin- with :objective s%irit.; F"rinthe followin- ten years "% to his death in 4784 $e-el enjoyed celebrity at #erlin) and %"blished s"bseG"ent versions of the *n % lopaedia. After his death versions of his lect"res on %hiloso%hy of history) %hiloso%hy of reli-ion) aesthetics) and the history of %hiloso%hy were %"blished. After $e-el's death) Schellin-) whose re%"tation had lon- since been ecli%sed by that of $e-el) was invited to ta<e "% the chair at #erlin) re%"tedly beca"se the -overn!ent of the day had wanted to co"nter the infl"ence that $e-elian %hiloso%hy had e=erted on a -eneration of st"dents. Since the early %eriod of his collaboration with $e-el) Schellinhad beco!e !ore reli-io"s in his %hiloso%hisin- and criticised the :rationalis!; of $e-el's %hiloso%hy. F"rin- this ti!e of Schellin-'s ten"re at #erlin) i!%ortant for!s of later critical reaction to $e-elian %hiloso%hy develo%ed. $e-el hi!self had been a s"%%orter of %ro-ressive b"t non,revol"tionary %olitics) b"t his followers divided into :left,; and :ri-ht,win-; factionsH fro! o"t of the for!er circle) 0arl 'ar= was to develo% his own :scientific; a%%roach to society and history which a%%ro%riated !any $e-elian ideas into 'ar='s !aterialistic o"tloo<. 3(ater) es%ecially in reaction to orthodo= Soviet versions of 'ar=is!) !any :Western 'ar=ists; re,incor%orated f"rther $e-elian ele!ents bac< into their for!s of 'ar=ist %hiloso%hy.9 'any of Schellin-'s own criticis!s of $e-el's rationalis! fo"nd their way into s"bseG"ent :e=istentialist; tho"-ht) es%ecially via the writin-s of 0ier<e-aard) who had attended Schellin-'s lect"res. F"rther!ore) the inter%retation Schellin- offered of $e-el d"rin- these years itself hel%ed to sha%e s"bseG"ent -enerations' "nderstandin- of $e-el) contrib"tin- to the orthodo= or traditional "nderstandin- of $e-el as a :!eta%hysical; thin<er in the %re,0antian :do-!atic; sense. n acade!ic %hiloso%hy) $e-elian idealis! "nderwent a revival in both 2reat #ritain and the *nited States in the last decades of the nineteenth cent"ry. n #ritain) where %hiloso%hers s"ch as T. $ 2reen and F. $. #radley had develo%ed !eta%hysical ideas which they related bac< to $e-el's tho"-ht) $e-el ca!e to be one of the !ain tar-ets of attac< by the fo"nders of the e!er-in- :analytic; !ove!ent) #ertrand R"ssell and 2. E. 'oore. For R"ssell) the revol"tionary innovations in lo-ic startin- in the last decades of

the nineteenth cent"ry had destroyed $e-el's !eta%hysics by overt"rnin- the Aristotelian lo-ic on which it was based) and in line with this dis!issal) $e-el ca!e to be seen within the analytic !ove!ent as an historical fi-"re of little -en"ine %hiloso%hical interest. To so!e de-ree) analo-o"s thin-s co"ld be said of $e-el's rece%tion fro! within the twentieth cent"ry pheno&enolo$i al tradition which develo%ed in continental E"ro%e) b"t altho"-h !ar-inaliIed within s"ch core areas of !ainstrea! acade!ic %hiloso%hy) $e-el nevertheless contin"ed to be a fi-"re of interest within other %hiloso%hical !ove!ents s"ch as e=istentialis! and 'ar=is!. n France) a version of $e-elianis! ca!e to infl"ence a -eneration of thin<ers) incl"din- 1ean,Pa"l Sartre and the %sychoanalyst) 1acG"es (acan) lar-ely thro"-h the lect"res of Ale=andre 0ojJve. $owever) a later -eneration of French %hiloso%hers co!in- to %ro!inence in the late 4>E6s and after tended to react a-ainst $e-el in ways analo-o"s to those in which early analytic %hiloso%hers had reacted a-ainst the $e-el who had infl"enced their %redecessors. n 2er!any) havin- la%sed in the second half of the nineteenth cent"ry) interest in $e-el was revived at the t"rn of the twentieth with the historical wor< of Wilhel! Filthey) and i!%ortant $e-elian ele!ents were incor%orated within the a%%roaches of thin<ers of the Fran<f"rt School) s"ch as Theodor Adorno) and later) 1Ar-en $aber!as) as well as within the $eide--er,infl"enced :her!ene"tic; a%%roach of $.,2. 2ada!er. n $"n-ary) si!ilar $e-elian the!es were develo%ed by 2eor- ("<Kcs and later thin<ers of the :#"da%est School.; n the 4>E6s the 2er!an %hiloso%her 0la"s $art!ann develo%ed what was ter!ed a :non,!eta%hysical; inter%retation of $e-el which) to-ether with the wor< of Fieter $enrich and others) %layed an i!%ortant role in the revival of interest in $e-el in acade!ic %hiloso%hy in the second half of the cent"ry. Within En-lish,s%ea<in%hiloso%hy) the final G"arter of the twentieth cent"ry saw so!ethin- of a revival of serio"s interest in $e-el's %hiloso%hy) es%ecially in North A!erica) with i!%ortant wor<s a%%earin- s"ch as those by $. S. $arris) Charles Taylor) Robert Pi%%in and Terry Pin<ard. #y the close of the twentieth cent"ry) even within core lo-ico,!eta%hysical areas of analytic %hiloso%hy) a n"!ber of individ"als s"ch as Robert #rando! and 1ohn 'cFowell had started to ta<e $e-el serio"sly as a si-nificant !odern %hiloso%her) altho"-h $enerall% within analytic circles a favo"rable reassess!ent of $e-el has still a lon- way to -o.

2. Hegel's Philosophy
$e-el's own %ithy acco"nt of the nat"re of %hiloso%hy -iven in the :Preface; to his *le&ents of the 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht ca%t"res a characteristic tension in his %hiloso%hical a%%roach and) in %artic"lar) in his a%%roach to the nat"re and li!its of h"!an co-nition. :Philoso%hy); he says there) :is its own ti!e raised to the level of tho"-ht.; +n the one hand we can clearly see in the %hrase :its own ti!e; the s"--estion of an historical or c"lt"ral conditionedness and variability which a%%lies even to the hi-hest for! of h"!an co-nition) %hiloso%hy itself. The contents of %hiloso%hical <nowled-e) we !i-ht s"s%ect) will co!e fro! the historically chan-in- contents of conte!%orary c"lt"re. +n the other) there is the hint of s"ch contents bein- :raised; to so!e hi-her level) %res"!ably hi-her than other levels of co-nitive f"nctionin- L those based in everyday %erce%t"al e=%erience) for e=a!%le) or those characteristic of other areas of

c"lt"re s"ch as art and reli-ion. This hi-her level ta<es the for! of :tho"-ht); a ty%e of co-nition co!!only ta<en as ca%able of havin- :eternal; contents 3thin< of Plato and Fre-e) for e=a!%le9. This antithetical co!bination within h"!an co-nition of the te!%orally,conditioned and the eternal) a co!bination which reflects a broader conce%tion of the h"!an bein- as what $e-el describes elsewhere as a :finite,infinite); has led to $e-el bein- re-arded in different ways by different ty%es of %hiloso%hical readers. For e=a!%le) an historically, !inded %ra-!atist li<e Richard Rorty) distr"stf"l of all clai!s or as%irations to the :2od's,eye view); co"ld %raise $e-el as a %hiloso%her who had introd"ced this historically reflective di!ension into %hiloso%hy 3and settin- it on the characteristically :her!ene"tic; %ath which has %redo!inated in !odern continental %hiloso%hy9 b"t who had "nfort"nately still re!ained bo--ed down in the re!nants of the Platonistic idea of the search for ahistorical tr"ths. Those ado%tin- s"ch an a%%roach to $e-el tend to have in !ind the 3relatively9 yo"n- a"thor of the 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit and have tended to dis!iss as :!eta%hysical; later and !ore syste!atic wor<s li<e the # ien e of )o$i . n contrast) the #ritish $e-elian !ove!ent at the end of the nineteenth cent"ry) for e=a!%le) tended to i-nore the 'heno&enolo$% and the !ore historicist di!ensions of his tho"-ht) and fo"nd in $e-el a syste!atic !eta%hysician whose )o$i %rovided a syste!atic and definitive %hiloso%hical ontolo-y of an idealist ty%e. This latter traditional :!eta%hysical; view of $e-el do!inated $e-el rece%tion for !ost of the twentieth cent"ry) b"t has over the last few decades been contested by !any $e-el scholars who have offered an alternative :%ost,0antian; view of $e-el.

2.1 he !radi!ional "me!aphysical# $ie% of Hegel's philosophy

2iven the "nderstandin- of $e-el that %redo!inated at the ti!e of the birth of analytic %hiloso%hy to-ether with the fact that early analytic %hiloso%hers were rebellin- %recisely a-ainst :$e-elianis!; so "nderstood) the :$e-el; enco"ntered in disc"ssions within analytic %hiloso%hy is often that of the late nineteenth,cent"ry inter%retation. n this %ict"re) $e-el is seen as offerin- a !eta%hysico,reli-io"s view of 2od -ua :Absol"te S%irit; which has !"ch in co!!on with the ty%e of elaborate idealist and theo,centric !eta%hysics fo"nd in (eibniI. n as !"ch as (eibniI had e=e!%lified the :do-!atic; !eta%hysics a-ainst which 0ant had rebelled) "nderstood in this way $e-el is !"ch !ore a pre, than post,0antian thin<er. ndeed) $e-el often see!s to invo<e i!a-ery consistent with the ty%es of neo,Platonic conce%tions of the "niverse that had been co!!on within Christian !ysticis!) es%ecially in the 2er!an states) in the early !odern %eriod. The %ec"liarity of $e-el's for! of idealis!) on this acco"nt) lies in his idea that the !ind of 2od beco!es act"al only via its %artic"lariIation in the !inds of :his; finite creat"res. Th"s) in o"r conscio"sness of 2od) we so!ehow serve to realiIe his o!n self, conscio"sness) and) thereby) his own %erfection. With its dar< !ystical roots) and its overtly reli-io"s content) it is hardly s"r%risin- that the %hiloso%hy of $e-el so "nderstood is re-arded as bein- very distant to the lar-ely sec"lar and :scientific; conce%tions of %hiloso%hy that have been do!inant in the twentieth cent"ry.

An i!%ortant conseG"ence of $e-el's !eta%hysics) so "nderstood) concerns history and the idea of historical develo%!ent or %ro-ress) and it is as an advocate of an idea concernin- the lo-ically,necessitated teleolo-ical co"rse of history that $e-el is !ost often derided. To !any critics) $e-el had not only advocated a disastro"s %olitical conce%tion of the state and the relation of its citiIens to it) a conce%tion %refi-"rintwentieth,cent"ry totalitarianis!) b"t he had also tried to "nder%in s"ch advocacy with d"bio"s lo-ico,!eta%hysical s%ec"lations. With his idea of the develo%!ent of :s%irit; in history) $e-el is seen as literalisin- a way of tal<in- abo"t different c"lt"res in ter!s of their :s%irits); of constr"ctin- a develo%!ental seG"ence of e%ochs ty%ical of nineteenth, cent"ry ideas of linear historical %ro-ress) and then envelo%in- this story of h"!an %ro-ress in ter!s of one abo"t the develo%in- self,conscio"s of the cos!os,2od itself. As the botto! line of s"ch an acco"nt concerned the evol"tion of states of a !ind 32od's9) s"ch an acco"nt is clearly an idealist one) b"t not in the sense) say) of #er<eley. The %antheistic le-acy inherited by $e-el !eant that he had no %roble! in considerin- an objective outer world beyond any %artic"lar s"bjective !ind. #"t this objective world itself had to be "nderstood as conce%t"ally infor!ed@ it was ob.e tified s%irit. Th"s in contrast to #er<eleian :s"bjective idealis!; it beca!e co!!on to tal< of $e-el as incor%oratin- the :objective idealis!; of views) es%ecially co!!on a!on- 2er!an historians) in which social life and tho"-ht were "nderstood in ter!s of the conce%t"al or :s%irit"al; str"ct"res that infor!ed the!. #"t in contrast to both for!s of idealis!) $e-el) accordin- to this readin-) %ost"lated a for! of absolute idealis! by incl"din- both s"bjective life and the objective c"lt"ral %ractices on which s"bjective life de%ended within the dyna!ics of the develo%!ent of the self,conscio"sness and self,act"alisation of 2od) the :Absol"te S%irit.; Fes%ite this see!in-ly do!inant theolo-ical the!e) $e-el was still seen by !any as an i!%ortant %rec"rsor of other !ore characteristically sec"lar strands of !odern tho"-ht s"ch as e=istentialis! and 'ar=ist !aterialis!. E=istentialists were tho"-ht of as ta<inthe idea of the finit"de and historical and c"lt"ral de%endence of individ"al s"bjects fro! $e-el) and as leavin- o"t all %retensions to the :absol"te); while 'ar=ists were tho"-ht of as ta<in- the historical dyna!ics of the $e-elian %ict"re b"t reinter%retin- this in !aterialist rather than idealist cate-ories. As for "nderstandin- $e-el hi!self) the traditionally M!eta%hysicalM view re!ained the do!inant inter%retative a%%roach of $e-el scholars thro"-ho"t the twentieth cent"ry) and different as%ects of it can be seen reflected in the conte!%orary a%%roaches of Frederic< #eiser and Rolf,Peter $orst!ann) for e=a!%le. n the last G"arter of the cent"ry) however) it ca!e to be vi-oro"sly G"estioned) and inter%reters s"ch as Robert Pi%%in) Terry Pin<ard and $enry S. $arris %"t forward very different acco"nts of the basic nat"re of $e-el's %hiloso%hical %roject. While a variety of %hiloso%hical inter%retations of $e-el have e!er-ed d"rin- this %eriod in an effort to acG"it hi! of i!%la"sible !eta%hysico,theolo-ical views) one co!!on tendency has been to stress the contin"ity of his ideas with the :critical %hiloso%hy; of !!an"el 0ant.

2.2 he non&!radi!ional or "pos!&'an!ian# $ie% of Hegel

(east controversially) it has been clai!ed that either %artic"lar wor<s s"ch as the 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit) or %artic"lar areas of $e-el's %hiloso%hy) es%ecially his ethical and %olitical %hiloso%hy) can be "nderstood as standin- inde%endently of the ty%e of "nacce%table !eta%hysical syste! s<etched above. So!ewhat !ore controversially) it has also been ar-"ed that the traditional %ict"re is si!%ly wron- at a !ore -eneral :!eta%hysical; level) and that $e-el is in no way co!!itted to the biIarre :s%irit !onis!; that has been traditionally attrib"ted to hi!. While %ro%onents of these latter views often differ a!on- the!selves and contin"e to ta<e e=ce%tion to vario"s as%ects of $e-el's act"al wor<) they co!!only a-ree in re-ardin- $e-el as a :%ost,0antian; who had acce%ted that as%ect of 0ant's critical %hiloso%hy which has been the !ost infl"ential) his critiG"e of traditional :do-!atic; !eta%hysics. Th"s while the traditional view sees $e-el as e=e!%lifyin- the very ty%e of !eta%hysical s%ec"lation that 0ant s"ccessf"lly criticised) the %ost,0antian view re-ards hi! as both acce%tin- and e=tendin- 0ant's critiG"e) "lti!ately t"rnin- it a-ainst the resid"al :do-!atically !eta%hysical; as%ects of 0ant's own %hiloso%hy. To see $e-el as a %ost,0antian is to re-ard hi! as e=tendin- that :critical; t"rn that 0ant saw as settin- his %hiloso%hy on a scientific footin- in a way analo-o"s to the wor< of Co%ernic"s in cos!olo-y. With his Co%ernican analo-y 0ant had co!%ared the way that the %ositions of the s"n and earth were reversed in Co%ernic"s' transfor!ation of cos!olo-y to the way that the %ositions of <nowin- s"bject and <nown object were reversed in his own transcendental idealis!. +bjectivity co"ld no lon-er be tho"-ht as a !atter of !ental re%resentations :corres%ondin-; to an object :in itself.; $avin- %osed the G"estion of the -ro"nd of the relation of a re%resentation to an object) 0ant had answered that where a re%resentation was not !ade %ossible by the %rocess of sensory affection) it co"ld be j"stified as objective only if thro"-h it it beca!e %ossible to o$nise so!ethin- as an ob.e t. Fro! the ti!e of its first a%%earance) 0ant's %hiloso%hy had been s"bjected to objections !ade fro! a variety of %oints of view. n res%onse) 0. (. Reinhold) effectively the first :%ost,0antian; %hiloso%her) had tried to "nify 0ant's syste! by -ro"ndin- it in a for!"la !eant to ca%t"re the representational nat"re of conscio"sness) and followin- hi! the -eneral %roject of "nifyin- and :co!%letin-; the 0antian syste! was then ta<en "% in their own ways by Fichte) Schellin-) and $e-el. n $e-el) the non,traditionalists ar-"e) one can see the a!bition to brin- to-ether the "niversalist di!ensions of 0ant's transcendental %ro-ra! with the c"lt"rally %artic"larist conce%tions of his !ore historically and relativistically,!inded conte!%oraries) res"ltin- in his controversial conce%tion of :s%irit); as develo%ed in his 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit. With this notion) it is clai!ed) $e-el was essentially atte!%tin- to answer the 0antian G"estion of the conditions of rational h"!an :!indedness); rather than bein- concerned with -ivin- an acco"nt of the develo%in- self,conscio"sness of 2od. #"t while 0ant had li!ited s"ch conditions to :for!al; str"ct"res of the !ind) $e-el e=tended the! to incl"de as%ects of historically and socially deter!ined for!s of e!bodied h"!an e=istence.

(. Hegel's Works

(.1 Phenomenology of )piri!

The ter! :%heno!enolo-y; had been coined by the 2er!an scientist and !athe!atician 3and 0ant corres%ondent9 1. $. (a!bert 345?7,45559) and in a letter to (a!bert) sent to acco!%any a co%y of his : na"-"ral Fissertation; 345569) 0ant had %ro%osed a :-eneral %heno!enolo-y; as a necessary :%ro%aede"tic; %res"%%osed by the science of !eta%hysics. S"ch a %heno!enolo-y was !eant to deter!ine the :validity and li!itations; of what he called the :%rinci%les of sensibility); %rinci%les he had 3he tho"-ht9 shown in the acco!%anyin- wor< to be i!%ortantly different to those of conce%t"al tho"-ht. The ter! clearly s"ited 0ant as he had distin-"ished the :%heno!ena; <nown thro"-h the fac"lty of sensibility fro! the :no"!ena; <nown %"rely conce%t"ally. This envisioned :%heno!enolo-y; see!s to coincide ro"-hly with what he was to event"ally entitle a :critiG"e of %"re reason); altho"-h 0ant's tho"-ht had -one thro"-h i!%ortant chan-es by the ti!e that he ca!e to %"blish the wor< of that na!e 34574) second edition 45759. Perha%s beca"se of this he never a-ain "sed the ter! :%heno!enolo-y; for G"ite this %"r%ose. There is clearly so!e contin"ity between this 0antian notion and $e-el's %roject. n a sense $e-el's %heno!enolo-y is a st"dy of :%heno!ena; 3altho"-h this is not a real! he wo"ld contrast with that of :no"!ena;9 and $e-el's 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit is li<ewise to be re-arded as a ty%e of :%ro%aede"tic; to %hiloso%hy rather than an e=ercise in itLa ty%e of ind"ction or ed"cation of the reader to the :stand%oint; of %"rely conce%t"al tho"-ht of %hiloso%hy itself. As s"ch) its str"ct"re has been co!%ared to that of a :/ildun$sro&an; 3ed"cational novel9) havin- an abstractly conceived %rota-onistLthe bearer of an evolvin- series of :sha%es of conscio"sness; or the inhabitant of a series of s"ccessive %heno!enal worldsLwhose %ro-ress and set,bac<s the reader follows and learns fro!. +r at least this is how the wor< sets o"t@ in the later sections the earlier series of :sha%es of conscio"sness; beco!es re%laced with what see! !ore li<e confi-"rations of h"!an social e=istence) and the wor< co!es to loo< !ore li<e an acco"nt of interlin<ed for!s of social e=istence and tho"-ht) the series of which !a%s onto the history of western E"ro%ean civiliIation fro! the 2ree<s to $e-el's own ti!e. The fact that it ends in the attain!ent of :Absol"te 0nowin-); the stand%oint fro! which real %hiloso%hy -ets done) see!s to s"%%ort the traditionalist readin- in which a :tri"!%halist; narrative of the -rowth of western civiliIation is co!bined with the theolo-ical inter%retation of 2od's self,!anifestation and self,co!%rehension. When 0ant had broached the idea of a %heno!enolo-ical %ro%aede"tic to (a!bert) he hi!self had still believed in the %roject of a %"rely conce%t"al !eta%hysics achievable by the "se of the re-ressive or :analytic; !ethod. #"t this %roject conceived as an e=ercise in theoretical reason was j"st what 0ant in his later critical %hiloso%hy had co!e to disavow. Traditional readers of $e-el th"s see the 'heno&enolo$%'s telos as attestin- to $e-el's :%re,0antian; 3that is) :%re,critical;9 o"tloo<) and his e!brace of the !eta%hysical %roject that 0ant fa!o"sly ca!e to dis!iss as ill"sory. S"%%orters of the non,!eta%hysical $e-el obvio"sly inter%ret this wor< and its telos differently. For e=a!%le) so!e have ar-"ed that what this history trac<s is the develo%!ent of a ty%e of social e=istence which enables a "niG"e for! of rationality) in that in s"ch a society all do-!atic bases of tho"-ht have been -rad"ally re%laced by a syste! in which all clai!s

beco!e o%en to rational self,correction) by beco!in- e=%osed to de!ands for conce%t"ally,artic"lated j"stifications. So!ethin- of $e-el's %heno!enolo-ical !ethod !ay be conveyed by the first few cha%ters) which are %erha%s a!on- the !ore conventionally %hiloso%hical %arts. Cha%ters 4 to 8 effectively follow a develo%!ental series of distinct :sha%es of conscio"sness;L jointly e%iste!olo-ical and ontolo-ical attit"des artic"lated by criteria which are) re-arded fro! one direction) criteria for certain <nowled-e) and fro! the other) criteria for inde%endent objecthood. n cha%ter 4) the attit"de of :sense,certainty; ta<es i!!ediately -iven sin-"lar %erce%t"al contentsLthe sort of role %layed by :sense data; in so!e early twentieth,cent"ry a%%roaches to e%iste!olo-y) for e=a!%leLas the f"nda!ental objects <nown. #y followin- this for! of conscio"sness's atte!%ts to !a<e these i!%licit criteria e0pli it) we are !eant to a%%reciate that any s"ch contents) even the a%%arently !ost :i!!ediate; ones) in fact contain i!%licit conce%t"ally artic"lated %res"%%ositions) and so) in $e-el's ter!inolo-y) are :!ediated.; +ne !i-ht co!%are $e-el's %oint here to that e=%ressed by 0ant in his well <nown clai! that witho"t conce%ts) those sin-"lar and i!!ediate !ental re%resentations he calls :int"itions; are :blind.; n !ore recent ter!inolo-y one !i-ht tal< of the :conce%t,; or :theory, ladenness; of all e=%erience) and the lessons of this cha%ter have been li<ened to that of Wilfrid Sellars's fa!o"s criticis! of the :!yth of the -iven.; #y the end of this cha%ter o"r %rota-onist conscio"sness 3and by i!%lication) we the a"dience to this dra!a9 has learnt that the nat"re of conscio"sness cannot be as ori-inally tho"-ht@ rather than bein- i!!ediate and sin-"lar) its contents !"st have so!e i!%licit "niversal 3conce%t"al9 as%ect to the!. Conscio"sness th"s now co!!ences anew with its new i!%licit criterionLthe ass"!%tion that since the contents of conscio"sness are :"niversal; they !"st be %"blicly -ras%able by others as well. $e-el's na!e for this ty%e of %erce%t"al realis! in which any individ"al's idiosyncratic %rivate a%%rehension will always be in %rinci%le correctable by the e=%erience of others is :%erce%tion; 31ahrneh&un$Lin 2er!an this ter! havin- the connotations of ta2in$ 3neh&en9 to be true 3!ahr99. n contrast to the object of :sense,certainty;) the object of :%erce%tion; is first conceived in a G"asi,Aristotelian wayLit is internally co!%le= s"ch that so!e "nderlyin- self,identical s"bstrate is tho"-ht of as the bearer of accidental and chan-eable %ro%erties. As in the case of :sense,certainty); here a-ain) by followin- the %rota-onist conscio"sness's efforts to !a<e this i!%licit criterion e=%licit) we see how the criterion -enerates contradictions which event"ally "nder!ine it as a criterion for certainty. n fact) s"ch colla%se into a ty%e of self,-enerated sce%ticis! is ty%ical of all the :sha%es; we follow in the wor<) and there see!s so!ethin- inherently s<e%tical abo"t s"ch refle=ive co-nitive %rocesses. #"t $e-el's %oint is eG"ally that there has always been so!ethin- positive that has been learned in s"ch %rocesses) and this learnin- is !ore than that which consists in the !ere eli!ination of e%iste!olo-ical dead,ends. Rather) as in the way that the internal contradictions that e!er-ed fro! sense,certainty had -enerated a new sha%e) %erce%tion) the colla%se of any -iven attit"de always involves the e!er-ence of so!e new i!%licit criterion which will be the basis of a new e!er-ent attit"de. n the case of :%erce%tion); the e!er-ent new sha%e of conscio"sness $e-el calls :"nderstandin-;La sha%e which he identifies with scientific co-nition rather than that of

the !ore everyday :%erce%tion.; F"rther!ore) the %rocess reveals so!ethin- abo"t the nat"re of all s"ch objects of conscio"snessLthe fact that they ne essaril% chan-e into so!ethin- other than the!selves. n $e-el's ter!inolo-y) they are :contradictory); an iss"e we will to"ch on below in relation to his lo$i al tho"-ht. The transition fro! Cha%ter 8 to Cha%ter C) :The Tr"th of Self,Certainty); also !ar<s a !ore -eneral transition fro! :conscio"sness; to :self,conscio"sness.; t is in the co"rse of Cha%ter C that we find what is %erha%s the !ost well,<nown %art of the 'heno&enolo$%) the acco"nt of the :str"--le of reco-nition; in which $e-el e=a!ines the inters"bjective conditions which he sees as necessary for any for! of :conscio"sness.; This is a to%ic that had first been ta<en "% by Ale=andre 0ojJve) and which has been a%%ealed to in non,0ojJvean ways recently by a n"!ber of non, traditional inter%reters in order to -ive a G"ite different acco"nt of $e-el's notion of :s%irit.; (i<e 0ant) $e-el thin<s that one's ca%acity to be :conscio"s; of so!e e=ternal object as so!ethin- distin t fro! oneself reG"ires the refle=ivity of :self,conscio"sness); that is) it reG"ires one's awareness of oneself as a s"bject for !ho& so!ethin- distinct) the object) is %resented as 2no!n. $e-el -oes beyond 0ant) however) and e=%andin- on an idea fo"nd in Fichte) !a<es this reG"ire!ent de%endent on one's reco-nition 3or ac<nowled-!entL3ner2ennun$9 of other self,conscio"s s"bjects as self,conscio"s s"bjects) and) !oreover) on one's reco-nition of the! as si!ilarly reco-niIin- oneself as a self,conscio"s s"bject. S"ch %atterns of !"t"al reco-nition constit"in- :objective s%irit; thereby %rovide the !atri= within which individ"al self,conscio"snesses can e=ist as s"ch. t is in this way that the 'heno&enolo$% can chan-e co"rse) the earlier trac<inof :sha%es of conscio"sness; effectively co!in- to be re%laced by the trac<in- of distinct %atterns of :!"t"al reco-nition; between s"bjects) sha%es of :s%irit; itself. t is th"s that $e-el has effected the transition fro! a %heno!enolo-y of :s"bjective !ind); as it were) to one of :objective s%irit); tho"-ht of as c"lt"rally distinct %atterns of social interaction analysed in ter!s of the %atterns of reci%rocal reco-nition they e!body. 3:4eist; can be translated as either :!ind; or :s%irit); b"t the latter) allowin- a !ore c"lt"ral sense) as in the %hrase :s%irit of the a-e; 3:5eit$eist;9) see!s a !ore s"itable renderin- for the title.9 #"t this is only wor<ed o"t in the te=t -rad"ally. We L the readin-) :%heno!enolo-ical; we L can see how %artic"lar sha%es of self,conscio"sness) s"ch as that of the other,worldly reli-io"s self,conscio"sness 3:"nha%%y conscio"sness; 9 with which Cha%ter C ends) de%end on certain instit"tionalised for!s of !"t"al reco-nition) in this case one involvin- a %riest who !ediates between the self,conscio"s s"bject and that s"bject's 2od. #"t !e are seein- this fro! the :o"tside); as it were@ we still have to learn how real in situ self,conscio"snesses co"ld learn this of the&selves. So we have to see how the %rota-onist self,conscio"sness co"ld achieve this insi-ht. t is to this end that we f"rther trace the learnin- %ath of self,conscio"sness thro"-h the %rocesses of :reason; 3in Cha%ter D9 before :objective s%irit; can beco!e the e0pli it s"bject !atter of Cha%ter E 3#pirit9.

$e-el's disc"ssion of s%irit starts fro! what he calls :#ittli h2eit; 3translated as :ethical order; or :ethical s"bstance; L :#ittli h2eit; bein- a no!inaliIation fro! the adjectival 3or adverbial9 for! :sittli h); :c"sto!ary); fro! the ste! :#itte); :c"sto!; or :convention.;9 Th"s $e-el !i-ht be seen as ado%tin- the view%oint that since social life is ordered by c"sto!s we can a%%roach the lives of those livin- in it in ter!s of the %atterns of those c"sto!s or conventions the!selves L the conventional %ractices) as it were) constit"tin- s%ecific) shareable for&s of life !ade act"al in the lives of %artic"lar individ"als who had in t"rn internali6ed s"ch -eneral %atterns in the %rocess of acc"lt"ration. t is not s"r%risin- then that his acco"nt of s%irit here starts with a disc"ssion of reli-io"s and civic law. *ndo"btedly it is $e-el's tendency to no!inalise s"ch abstract conce%ts in his atte!%t to ca%t"re the on rete nat"re of s"ch %atterns of conventional life) to-ether with the tendency to then personif% the! 3as in tal<in- abo"t :s%irit; beco!in- :self,conscio"s;9 that lends %la"sibility to the traditionalist "nderstandin- of $e-el. #"t for non,traditionalists it is not obvio"s that $e-el is in any way co!!itted to any !eta%hysical s"%ra,individ"al conscio"s bein- with s"ch "sa-es. To ta<e an e=a!%le) in the second section of the cha%ter :S%irit); $e-el disc"sses :c"lt"re; as the :world of self,alienated s%irit.; The idea see!s to be that h"!ans in society not only interact) b"t that they collectively create relatively end"rin- c"lt"ral %rod"cts 3stories) dra!as) and so forth9 within which they can reco-nise their own %atterns of life as reflected. We !i-ht find intelli-ible the idea that s"ch %rod"cts :hold "% a !irror to society; within which :the society can re-ard itself); witho"t thin<in- we are thereby co!!itted to so!e s"%ra,individ"al social :!ind; achievin- self, conscio"sness. F"rther!ore) s"ch c"lt"ral %rod"cts the!selves %rovide conditions allowin- individ"als to ado%t %artic"lar co-nitive attit"des. Th"s) for e=a!%le) the ca%acity to ado%t the ty%e of objective view%oint de!anded by 0antian !orality 3disc"ssed in the final section of S%irit9 L the ca%acity to see thin-s) as it were) fro! a :"niversal; %oint of view L is bo"nd "% with the attit"de i!%licitly ado%ted in en-a-inwith s%irit's :alienations.; We !i-ht thin< that if 7ant had written the 'heno&enolo$%) he wo"ld have ended it at Cha%ter E with the !odern !oral s"bject as the telos of the story. For 0ant) the %ractical <nowled-e of !orality) orientin- one within the nou&enal world) e=ceeds the sco%e of theoretical <nowled-e which had been li!ited to %heno!ena. $e-el) however) tho"-ht that %hiloso%hy had to "nify theoretical and %ractical <nowled-e) and so the 'heno&enolo$% has f"rther to -o. A-ain) this is seen differently by traditionalists and revisionists. For traditionalists) Cha%ters 5) :Reli-ion; and 7) :Absol"te 0nowin-); testify to $e-el's disre-ard for 0ant's critical li!itation of theoretical <nowled-e to e!%irical e=%erience. Revisionists) on the other hand) tend to see $e-el as f"rtherin- the 0antian critiG"e into the very coherence of a conce%tion of an :in,itself; reality which is beyond the li!its of o"r theoretical 3b"t not %ractical9 co-nition. Rather than "nderstand :absol"te <nowin-; as the achieve!ent of so!e "lti!ate :2od's,eye view; of everythin-) the %hiloso%hical analo-"e to the connection with 2od so"-ht in reli-ion) revisionists see it as the accession to a !ode of self,critical tho"-ht that has finally abandoned all non, G"estionable !ythical :-ivens); and which will only co"ntenance reason,-ivinar-"!ent as j"stification. $owever we "nderstand this) absol"te <nowin- is the stand%oint to which $e-el has ho%ed to brin- the reader in this co!%le= wor<. This is the

:stand%oint of science); the stand%oint fro! which %hiloso%hy %ro%er co!!ences) and it co!!ences in $e-el's ne=t boo<) the # ien e of )o$i .

(.2 )cience of Logic

$e-el's # ien e of )o$i ) the three constit"ent :boo<s; of which a%%eared in 474?) 4748) and 474E res%ectively) is a wor< that few conte!%orary lo-icians wo"ld reco-nise as a wor< of lo$i ) b"t it is not !eant as a treatise in for!al 3or :-eneral; 9 lo-ic. Rather) its %rovenance is to be fo"nd in what 0ant had called :transcendental lo-ic); and in this sense it stands as a s"ccessor to 0ant's :transcendental ded"ction of the cate-ories; in the (riti-ue of 'ure ,eason in which 0ant atte!%ted to :ded"ce; a list of those non, e!%irical conce%ts) the :cate-ories); which he believed to be %res"%%osed by all e!%irical j"d-!ents !ade by finite) disc"rsive <nowers li<e o"rselves. A -lance at the table of contents of # ien e of )o$i reveals the sa!e triadic str"ct"rinnoted a!on- the :sha%es of conscio"sness; in the 'heno&enolo$%. At the hi-hest level of its branchin- str"ct"re there are three :boo<s); devoted to the doctrines of :bein-); :essence); and :conce%t; res%ectively. n t"rn) each boo< has three sections) each section containin- three cha%ters) and so on. n -eneral each of these nodes deals with so!e %artic"lar cate-ory or :tho"-ht deter!ination); so!eti!es the first s"bheadin- "nder a node havin- the sa!e na!e as the node itself. n fact) $e-el's cate-orial triads a%%ear to re%eat 0ant's own triadic way of artic"latin- the cate-ories in the :Table of Cate-ories); in which the third ter! in the triad in so!e way inte-rates the first two. 3 n $e-el's later ter!inolo-y) one wo"ld say that the first two were :s"blated; Nauf$ehobenO in the third9. $e-el's later treat!ent of the syllo-is! fo"nd in #oo< 8) in which he follows Aristotle's own three,ter!ed sche!atis! of the syllo-istic str"ct"re) re%eats the triadic str"ct"re as does his analysis of conce%ts into the !o!ents of :"niversality); :%artic"larity); and :sin-"larity.; $e-el's lo-ical triads are often re-arded as e=%ressions of an artificial and f"nctionless for!alis!) b"t it sho"ld be re!e!bered that in the later nineteenth cent"ry) no less a lo-ician than Charles Sanders Peirce ca!e to a si!ilar idea abo"t the f"nda!entally trinar% str"ct"re of the cate-ories of tho"-ht. Readin- into the first cha%ter of #oo< 4) :#ein-); it is G"ic<ly seen that the )o$i re%eats the !ove!ents of the first cha%ters of the 'heno&enolo$%) now) however) at the level of :tho"-ht; rather than conscio"s e=%erience. Th"s) :bein-; is the tho"-ht deter!ination with which the wor< co!!ences beca"se it at first see!s to be the !ost :i!!ediate); f"nda!ental deter!ination characterisin- any %ossible tho"-ht content at all. t a%%arently has no internal str"ct"re 3in the way that :bachelor); say) has a str"ct"re containin- f"rther conce%ts :!ale; and :"n!arried;9. A-ain %arallel to the 'heno&enolo$%) it is the effort of tho"-ht to !a<e s"ch contents e=%licit that both "nder!ines the! and brin-s abo"t new contents. :#ein-; see&s to be both :i!!ediate; and si!%le) b"t reflection reveals that it itself is) in fact) only !eanin-f"l in o%%osition to another conce%t) :nothin-.; n fact) the atte!%t to thin< :bein-; as i!!ediate) and so as not &ediated by its o%%osin- conce%t :nothin-); has so de%rived it of any deter!inacy or !eanin- at all that it effectively be o&es nothin-. That is) on reflection it is -ras%ed as havin$ passed over into its :ne-ation; . Th"s) while :bein-; and :nothin-; see& both

absol"tely distinct and o%%osed) fro! another %oint of view they a%%ear the sa&e as no criterion can be invo<ed which differentiates the!. The only way o"t of this %arado= is to %osit a third cate-ory) :beco!in-); which see!s to save thin<in- fro! %aralysis beca"se it acco!!odates both conce%ts@ :beco!in-; contains :bein-; and :nothin-; since when so!ethin- :beco!es; it %asses) as it were) between nothin-ness and bein-. That is) when so!ethin- be o&es it see!s to %ossess as%ects of both bein$ and nothin$ness) and it is in this sense that the third cate-ory of s"ch triads can be "nderstood as containin- the first two as s"blated :!o!ents.; n -eneral this is how the )o$i %roceeds@ see<in- its !ost basic and "niversal deter!ination) tho"-ht %osits a cate-ory to be reflected "%on) finds then that this colla%ses d"e to a :contradiction; -enerated) b"t then see<s a f"rther cate-ory with which to !a<e retros%ective sense of that contradiction. This new cate-ory is !ore co!%le= as it has internal str"ct"re in the way that :beco!in-; contains :bein-; and :nothin-; as &o&ents. #"t in t"rn the new cate-ory will -enerate so!e f"rther contradictory ne-ation and a-ain the de!and will arise for a f"rther conce%t which will reconcile these o%%osed conce%ts by incor%oratin- the& as !o!ents. S"ch a !ethod invo<in- :deter!inate ne-ation; is often described as derivin- fro! S%inoIa's clai! that :all deter!ination is ne-ation); b"t it can be j"st as readily seen as a conseG"ence of $e-el's "se of Aristotle's ter! lo-ic. n ter! lo-ics) ne-ation is "nderstood as a relation e=istin- %ri!arily between ter&s of the sa!e ty%e@ a colo"r conce%t s"ch as :red); for e=a!%le) will be "nderstood as !eanin-f"l in as !"ch as it stands in o%%osition to an array of contrary colo"r ter!s s"ch as :bl"e) ; :-reen) ; and so on. n contrast) in lo-ics which ta<e the proposition as the f"nda!ental se!antic "nit 3s"ch as the classical %redicate calc"l"s derivin- fro! Fre-e and acce%ted by !ost analytic %hiloso%hers9) ne-ation is ty%ically re-arded as a%%lyin- %ri!arily to whole %ro%ositions rather than to s"b,sentential "nits. $e-el e=%loits the role of ne-ation at a variety of levels. For e=a!%le) the relation between the bare de!onstratives :this; and :that; instantiates the relation of deter!inate ne-ation) as does that between G"alitative %redicates) as for e=a!%le) :red; and :-reen: as instances of the "niversal colo"r. Ty%ically) %roble!s of deter!ination at one level are resolved by invo<in- the ne=t !ore co!%le= level@ even if we co"ld indicate contrastively what we !eant by :this; by invo<in- a contrastin- :that); we will be reliant on the %res"%%osed ability to refer to the 2ind of thin- we have in !ind) as when we refer to :this colo"r; or :this sha%e; and so on. n this way) then) the cate-orical infrastr"ct"re of tho"-ht is s"%%osed to be able to be "n%ac<ed with only the "se of those reso"rces available to tho"-ht itself@ its ca%acity to !a<e its contents deter!inate 3effectively what had earlier been tho"-ht in ter!s of renderin- ideas :clear and distinct;9) as well as its ref"sal to tolerate contradiction. As has been !entioned) $e-el's lo-ic !i-ht best be considered as a :transcendental; not a :for!al; lo-ic. Rather than treatin- the %"re :for!; of tho"-ht that has been abstracted fro! any %ossible content) transcendental lo-ic treats tho"-ht that already %ossesses a certain ty%e of content that 0ant had called 3%redictably9 :transcendental content.; #"t if $e-el's is a transcendental lo-ic) it is clearly different to that of 0ant's. For 0ant) transcendental lo-ic was the lo-ic -overnin- the tho"-ht of finite thin<ers li<e o"rselves) whose co-nition was constrained by the necessity of a%%lyin- -eneral disc"rsive

on epts to the sin-"lar contents -iven in sensory intuitions) and he <e%t o%en the %ossibility that there co"ld be a <ind of thin<er not so constrained L 2od) whose tho"-ht co"ld a%%ly directly to the world in a ty%e of :intellect"al; int"ition. A-ain) o%inions divide as to how $e-el's a%%roach to lo-ic relates to that of 0ant. Traditionalists see $e-el as treatin- the finite tho"-ht of individ"al h"!an disc"rsive intellects as a ty%e of :distrib"ted; vehicle for the classically conceived infinite and intuitive tho"-ht of 2od. Non,traditionalists) in contrast) see the %ost,0antians as re!ovin- the last resid"al re!nant of the !ythical idea of transcendent -odly tho"-ht fro! 0ant's a%%roach. +n their acco"nt) the very o%%osition that 0ant has between finite h"!an tho"-ht and infinite -odly tho"-ht is s"s%ect) and the re!oval of this !ythical obstacle allows an e=%anded role for :transcendental content.; Re-ardless of how we inter%ret this however) it is i!%ortant to -ras% that for $e-el lo-ic is not si!%ly a science of the for& of o"r tho"-hts b"t is also a science of act"al :content; as well) and as s"ch is a ty%e of ontolo$%. Th"s it is not j"st abo"t the conce%ts :bein-); :nothin-); :beco!in-; and so on) b"t abo"t bein$) nothin$) be o&in$ and so on) the&selves. This in t"rn is lin<ed to $e-el's radically non,re%resentationalist 3and in so!e sense :direct realist; 9 "nderstandin- of tho"-ht. The world is not :re%resented; in tho"-ht by a ty%e of :%ro=y; standin- for it) b"t rather is %resented) e=hibited) or !ade !anifest in it. 3 n recent analytic %hiloso%hy) 1ohn 'cFowell in his Mind and 1orld has %resented an acco"nt of tho"-ht with this ty%e of character) and has e=%licitly drawn a %arallel to the a%%roach of $e-el.9 'oreover) $e-el see!s to believe that the variety of !eta%hysical %ositions fo"nd in the history of %hiloso%hy can be "nderstood in ter!s of the tendency to %rioritiIe one %artic"lar level of content. For e=a!%le) Plato when thin<in- of thin-s as b"ndles or :envelo%es; of individ"al %ro%erty instances 3the white) the hot) and so on9) and Aristotle) when thin<in- of thin-s as the individ"al s"bstances within which accidental %ro%erties inhere) wo"ld be %rivile-in- those contents that wo"ld be %ic<ed o"t by bare de!onstratives on the one hand) and :this s"ch; ty%e e=%ressions) on the other. The tho"-ht deter!inations of #oo< 4 lead event"ally into those of #oo< ?) :The Foctrine of Essence.; Nat"rally the str"ct"res i!%licit in :essence; thin<in- are !ore develo%ed than those of :bein-; thin<in-. Cr"cially) the contrastin- %air :essence; and :a%%earance; allow the tho"-ht of so!e "nderlyin- reality which !anifests itself thro"-h a different overlyin- a%%earance) a relation not able to be ca%t"red in the si!%ler :bein-; str"ct"res. #"t distinctions s"ch as :essence; and :a%%earance; will the!selves instantiate the relation of deter!inate ne-ation) and the !eta%hysical tendency to thin< of reality as !ade "% of so!e "nderlyin- s"bstrates in contrast to the s"%erficial a%%earances will itself co!e to -rief with the discovery that the notion of an :essence; is only !eanin-f"l in contrast to the :a%%earance; that it is !eant to e=%lain away. For $e-el it is the co!%le= !odern) b"t %re,0antian) versions of s"bstance !eta%hysics li<e those of S%inoIa and (eibniI that brin- o"t in the !ost develo%ed way the inherent contradictory nat"re of this for! of tho"-ht. #oo< 8) :The Foctrine of Conce%t); effects a shift fro! the :+bjective (o-ic; of #oo<s 4 and ?) to :S"bjective (o-ic); and !eta%hysically coincides with a shift to the !odern

s"bject,based ontolo-y of 0ant. 1"st as 0antian %hiloso%hy is fo"nded on a conce%tion of objectivity sec"red by conce%t"al coherence) Conce%t,lo-ic co!!ences with the conce%t of :conce%t; itselfP While in the two boo<s of objective lo-ic) the !ove!ent had been between %artic"lar conce%ts) :bein-); :nothin-); :beco!in-; etc.) in the s"bjective lo-ic) the conce%t"al relations are -ras%ed at a !eta,level) s"ch that the conce%t :conce%t; treated in Cha%ter 4 of section 4 3:S"bjectivity; 9 %asses over into that of :j"d-!ent; in Cha%ter ?) as j"d-!ents are the lar-er wholes within which conce%ts -ain their %ro%er content. When the anti,fo"ndationalis! and holis! of the 'heno&enolo$% is recalled) it will co!e as no s"r%rise that the conce%t of j"d-!ent %asses over into that of :syllo-is!.; For $e-el j"st as a conce%t -ains its deter!inacy in the conte=t of the j"d-!ents within which it is a%%lied) so too do j"d-e!ents -ain their deter!inacy within lar-er %atterns of inferen e. When $e-el declares the syllo-is! to be :the tr"th; of the j"d-!ent) he !i-ht be tho"-ht) as has been s"--ested by Robert #rando!) to be advocatin- a view so!ewhat a<in to conte!%orary :inferentialist; a%%roaches to se!antics. +n these a%%roaches) an "tterance -ains its se!antic content not fro! any co!bination of its already !eanin-f"l s"b,sentential co!%onents) b"t fro! the %artic"lar inferential :co!!it!ents and entitle!ents; acG"ired when it is offered to others in %ractices %res"%%osin- the as2in$ for and $ivin$ of reasons. Tho"-ht of in ter!s of the fra!ewor< of 0ant's :transcendental lo-ic); $e-el's %osition wo"ld be a<in to allowininferen es L :syllo-is!s; L a role in the deter!ination of :transcendental content); a role which inference definitely does not have in 0ant. We !i-ht see then how the different ways of a%%roachin- $e-el's lo-ic will be reflected in the inter%retation -iven to the %"IIlin- clai! in #oo< 8 concernin- the syllo-is! beco!in- :concrete; and :%re-nant with; a content that has necessary e=istence. n contrast with 0ant) $e-el see!s to -o beyond a :transcendental ded"ction; of the for&al conditions of e=%erience and tho"-ht and to a ded"ction of their &aterial conditions. Traditionalists will see here so!ethin- a<in to the :ontolo-ical ar-"!ent; of !edieval theolo-y in which the e0isten e of so!ethin- see!s to have been necessitated by its conce%t L an ar-"!ent "nder!ined by 0ant's criticis! of the treat!ent of e0isten e as a %redicate. n $e-el's version) it wo"ld be said) the objective e=istence that 2od achieves in the world has been necessitated by his essential self,conscio"sness. The revisionist readin-) in contrast) wo"ld have to inter%ret this as%ect of $e-el's lo-ic differently. As already noted) for $e-el) the lo-ic of inferen e has a :transcendental content; in a way analo-o"s to that %ossessed by the lo-ic of .ud$&ent in 0ant's transcendental lo-ic. t is this which is behind the idea that the treat!ent of the for!al syllo-is!s of inference will lead to a consideration of those syllo-is!s as :%re-nant with content.; #"t for lo-ic to be tr"ly ontolo-ical a f"rther ste% :beyond; 0ant is necessary. For the %ost,0antians) 0ant had been !ista<en in restrictin- the conditions of e=%erience and tho"-ht to a :s"bjective; stat"s. 0ant's idea of o"r <nowled-e as restricted to the world as it is for us reG"ires "s to have a conce%t of the no"!enal as that which cannot be <nown) the conce%t :no"!enon; %layin- the %"rely ne$ative role of -ivin- a deter!inate sense to :%heno!enon; by s%ecifyin- its li!its. That is) for 0ant we need to be able to thin< of o"r e=%erience and <nowled-e as finite and conditioned) and this is achieved in ter!s of a conce%t of a real! !e annot 2no!. #"t) as the %rinci%le of deter!inate ne-ation

i!%lies) if the conce%t :no"!enon; is to %rovide so!e sort of bo"ndary to that of :%heno!enon); then it cannot be the !erely ne$ative conce%t that 0ant s"%%osed. +nly a conce%t !ith a ontent can deter!ine the li!its of the content of so!e other conce%t 3as when o"r e!%irical conce%t of :river); for e=a!%le) is !ade deter!inate by o%%osine!%irical conce%ts li<e :strea!; or :cree<;9. The %ositin- of a no"!enal real! !"st be the %ositin- of a real! abo"t which we can have so&e "nderstandin-. This need felt by the %ost,0antians for havin- a contentf"l conce%t of the :no"!enal; or the :in itself; can also be seen fro! the inverse %ers%ective. For 0ant) sensation testifies to the e=istence of an objective no"!enal world beyond "s) b"t this world cannot be <nown as su h@ we can only <now that world as it a%%ears to "s fro! within the constraints of the s"bjective conditions of o"r e=%erience and tho"-ht. #"t for $e-el) this attrib"tes to a wholly inadeG"ate for! of co-nition 3sensation or feelin-9 a %ower that is bein- denied to a !"ch better for! L that artic"lated by on epts. To thin< that o"r inartic"late sensations or feelin-s -ive "s a truer acco"nt of reality than that of which we are ca%able via the scientific e=ercise of conce%t"alised tho"-ht indicates a ty%e of irrationalist %otential l"r<in- within 0antian tho"-ht) a %otential that $e-el tho"-ht was bein- realised by the a%%roach of his ro!antic conte!%oraries. The rational <ernel of 0ant's a%%roach) then) had to be carried beyond the li!its of a !ethod in which the conditions of tho"-ht and e=%erience were re-arded as &erel% s"bjective. Rather than restrict its sco%e to :for!al; conditions of e=%erience and tho"-ht) it had to be "nderstood as ca%able of revealin- the ob.e tive or !aterial conditions. Transcendental lo-ic !"st thereby beco!e ontolo-ical. t !ay be si-nificant here that) as so!e recent st"dies of 0ant's own later wor< 3the 8pus 'ostu&u&9 s"--est) 0ant hi!self see!s to have revised his own a%%roach s"ch that so!ethin- li<e a ded"ction of the !aterial conditions of tho"-ht was now considered as le-iti!ate within transcendental %hiloso%hy. A-ain) it loo<s as if $e-el !"st rela%se into a :%re,critical; for! of !eta%hysics) one fro! which 0ant hi!self never G"ite s"ceeded in esca%in-) b"t once !ore) even here ele!ents of $e-el's %osition can be inter%reted as contin"in- or radicaliIin- 0ant's "nfinished brea< with :do-!atic; !eta%hysics) ele!ents that co!e into foc"s when $e-el's %ec"liar %osition on :contradiction; is ta<en into acco"nt. Thro"-ho"t the s"ccession of transitions between sha%es of %heno!enal objectivity in the 'heno&enolo$%) or between different :tho"-ht deter!inations; in the )o$i ) $e-el a%%eals to the :ne-ativity; involved when tho"-ht's objects t"rn into their deter!inino%%osites. As $e-el %oints o"t) the sense,certaintist's certainty in the objectivity of what is %resent to her :here; and :now; beco!es confo"nded when what is :here; and :now; beco!es so!ethin- :there; and :then.; This contradiction ref"tes the sense,certaintist's criteria of objectivity) b"t it also) for $e-el) reveals a truth abo"t reality@ it reveals its f"nda!entally self9ne$atin$ character. That a content that is no! beco!es so!ethinthen is not so!e accidental fact abo"t s"ch contents. This !i-ht now be tho"-ht to coincide with $e-el's %ec"liar attit"de to the :antino!ies; within which) accordin- to 0ant) reason beco!es entan-led when it tries to -ive content to its %ro%erly :re-"lative; ideas. For 0ant) it reveals the li!its beyond which :%"re reason); in its theoretical "se) cannot -oH for $e-el) it reveals the contradictory nat"re of reason's proper ob.e ts. Th"s while in a certain sense $e-el a-rees with 0ant's dia-nosis of internally contradictory

nat"re of %"re reason itself) his inter%retation of the si-nificance of this %heno!enon is radically different to that -iven by 0ant. A-ain this wor<s at a variety of levels. Consider the attit"de towards objectivity ro"-hly correlatin- with :%erce%tion; in which the stability of the identity of so!e individ"al s"bstance is %"rchased by !a<in- a distinction between its essential and accidental %ro%erties) for e=a!%le. Th"s) while we initially thin< of the wa= as white) solid) cold and so on) on reflection we co!e to thin< of that wa= as that which end"res thro"-ho"t chan-es in s"ch %ro%erties@ it is essentially) then) neither white nor colo"rless) solid nor liG"id) and so on. Fro! Aristotle's ontolo-ical stand%oint) the essence,accident distinction had been invo<ed to deal with the :contradiction; involved in thin<in-) for e=a!%le) that a %iece of wa= was both white and colo"rless) both solid and liG"id. #"t) as was s"--ested earlier) the introd"ced essence,accident or reality,a%%earance distinction to which a%%eal is !a<e here will) fro! an $e-elian %oint of view) itself instantiate the relation of deter!inate ne-ation. That is) the s"bstrate "nderlyin- the %ro%erties L the thin- which bears the %ro%erties L cannot be so!e : <now not whatH; it !"st itself have so!e thin<able content. This will lead tho"-ht to the %ositin- of forces or %owers that are the tr"e definin- essences of s"ch individ"al s"bstances) b"t this !ove in t"rn !eans that what it is that !a<es the wa= what it is can no lon-er be re-arded as so!ethin- that is stable and self,identical beneath its s"%erficial chan-es. Forces and %owers cannot be tho"-ht of in this way. They are for!s of objectivity that we %osit only in as !"ch as they have effects and) !oreover) they are s"ch that they) in so!e sense) dissi%ate the!selves in their effects. t is with his critiG"e of :the law of identity); and the %ost"lation of his version of the :law of contradiction; 3the law that everythin- is contradictory9 that $e-el's controversial attit"de to lo-ical contradiction co!es to the fore. A-ain in !"st be re!e!bered) however) that $e-el's lo-ic is not a for!al one b"t a transcendental one@ he is not) it wo"ld see!) clai!in- that the conj"nct of a %ro%osition and its ne-ation can be tr"e. $owever) it does see! that he is denyin- that the law of non,contradiction can stand as a nor!ative law for act"al thin<in-. The law of non,contradiction) it wo"ld see!) %res"%%oses the abstract self,identity and end"rin- nat"re of the contents that are tho"-ht) and this) as we have seen) a%%ears to be inco!%atible with the very %rocess of deter!inate ne-ation thro"-h which tho"-ht achieves its deter!inate contents.

(.( Philosophy of *igh!

(i<e the # ien e of )o$i ) the *n % lopaedia of the 'hilosophi al # ien es is itself divided into three %arts@ a )o$i H a 'hilosoph% of +atureH and a 'hilosoph% of #pirit. The sa!e triadic %attern in the 'hilosoph% of #pirit res"lts in the %hiloso%hies of sub.e tive s%irit) ob.e tive s%irit) and absolute s%irit. The first of these constit"tes $e-el's %hiloso%hy of !ind) the last) his %hiloso%hy of art) reli-ion) and %hiloso%hy itself. The %hiloso%hy of ob.e tive spirit concerns the objective %atterns of social interaction and the c"lt"ral instit"tions within which :s%irit; is objectified. The boo< entitled *le&ents of the 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht which $e-el %"blished as a te=tboo< for his lect"res at #erlin

essentially corres%onds to a !ore develo%ed version of the section on :+bjective S%irit; in the 'hilosoph% of #pirit. The 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht 3as it is !ore co!!only called9 can be) and has been) read as a %olitical %hiloso%hy which stands inde%endently of the syste!) b"t it is clear that $e-el intended it to be read a-ainst the bac<-ro"nd of the develo%in- conce%t"al deter!inations of the )o$i . The te=t %ro%er starts fro! the conce%tion of a sin-"lar willin- s"bject 3-ras%ed fro! its own first,%erson %oint of view9 as the bearer of :abstract ri-ht.; While this conce%tion of the individ"al willin- s"bject with so!e <ind of f"nda!ental ri-ht is in fact the startin- %oint of !any !odern %olitical %hiloso%hies 3s"ch as that of (oc<e) for e=a!%le9 the fact that $e-el co!!ences here does not testify to any ontolo-ical ass"!%tion that the conscio"sly willin- and ri-ht,bearin- individ"al is the basic ato& fro! which all society can be "nderstood as constr"cted L an idea at the heart of standard :social contract; theories. Rather) this is !erely the !ost :i!!ediate; startin%oint of $e-el's %resentation and corres%onds to analo-o"s startin- %laces of the )o$i . 1"st as the cate-ories of the )o$i develo% in a way !eant to de!onstrate that what had at the start been conceived as si!%le is in fact only !ade deter!inate in virt"e of its bein- %art of so!e lar-er str"ct"re or %rocess) here too it is !eant to be shown that any si!%le willin- and ri-ht,bearin- s"bject only -ains its deter!inacy in virt"e of a %lace it finds for itself in a lar-er so ial) and "lti!ately histori al) str"ct"re or %rocess. Th"s even a contract"al e=chan-e 3the !ini!al social interaction for contract theorists9 is not to be tho"-ht si!%ly as an occ"rrence conseG"ent "%on the e=istence of two bein-s with nat"ral wants and so!e nat"ral calc"lative rationalityH rather) the syste! of interaction within which individ"al e=chan-es ta<e %lace 3the econo!y9 will be treated holistically as a c"lt"rally,sha%ed for! of social life within which the act"al wants of individ"als as well as their reasonin- %owers are -iven deter!inate for!s. $ere too it beco!es a%%arent that $e-el follows Fichte in treatin- %ro%erty in ter!s of a re o$nitive analysis of the nat"re of s"ch a ri-ht. A contract"al e=chan-e of co!!odities between two individ"als itself involves an i!%licit act of reco-nition in as !"ch as each) in -ivin- so!ethin- to the other in e=chan-e for what they want) is thereby reco-niIinthat other as a %ro%rietor of that thin-) or) !ore %ro%erly) of the inalienable value attachin- to it. #y contrast) s"ch %ro%rietorshi% wo"ld be denied rather than reco-nised in fra"d or theft L for!s of :wron-; 3:nre ht9 in which ri-ht is ne-ated rather than ac<nowled-ed or %osited. Th"s what differentiates %ro%erty fro! !ere possession is that it is -ro"nded in a relation of reci%rocal reco-nition between two willin- s"bjects. 'oreover) it is in the e=chan-e relation that we can see what it !eans for $e-el for individ"al s"bjects to share a :co!!on will; L an idea which will have i!%ortant i!%lications with res%ect to the difference of $e-el's conce%tion of the state fro! that of Ro"ssea". S"ch an interactive constit"tion of the o&&on !ill !eans that for $e-el s"ch an identity of will is achieved be ause of not in spite of a co,e=istin- differen e between the %artic"lar wills of the s"bjects involved@ while contractin- individ"als both :will; the sa&e e=chan-e) at a !ore concrete level) they do with different ends in !ind. Each wants so!ethin- different fro& the e=chan-e.

$e-el %asses fro! the abstract individ"alis! of :Abstract Ri-ht; to the social deter!inacies of ;#ittli h2eit< or :Ethical (ife; via considerations first of :wron-; 3the ne-ation of ri-ht9 and its %"nish!ent 3the ne-ation of wron-) and hence the :ne-ation of the ne-ation; of the ori-inal ri-ht9) and then of :!orality); conceived !ore or less as an internalisation of the e=ternal le-al relations. Consideration of $e-el's version of the retrib"tivist a%%roach to %"nish!ent affords a -ood e=a!%le of his "se of the lo-ic of :ne-ation.; n %"nishin- the cri!inal the state !a<es it clear to its !e!bers that it is the ac<nowled-!ent of ri-ht per se that is essential to develo%ed social life@ the si-nificance of :ac<nowled-in- another's ri-ht; in the contract"al e=chan-e cannot be) as it at first !i-ht have a%%eared to the %artici%ants) si!%ly that of bein- a way of each -ettin- what he or she wants fro& the other. $e-el's treat!ent of %"nish!ent also brin-s o"t the contin"ity of his way of conceivin- of the str"ct"re and dyna!ics of the social world with that of 0ant) as 0ant too) in his Metaph%si s of Morals had e!%loyed the idea of the state's %"nitive action as a ne$atin$ of the ori-inal cri!inal act. 0ant's idea) conceived on the !odel of the %hysical %rinci%le of action and reaction) was str"ct"red by the cate-ory of :co!!"nity; or reci%rocal interaction) and was conceived as involvin- what he called :real o%%osition.; S"ch an idea of o%%osed dyna!ic forces see!s to for! so!ethin- of a !odel for $e-el's idea of contradiction and the startin- %oint for his conce%tion of reci%rocal re o$nition. Nevertheless) clearly $e-el artic"lates the str"ct"res of reco-nition in !ore co!%le= ways than those derivable fro! 0ant's cate-ory of co!!"nity. First of all) in $e-el's analysis of #ittli h2eit the ty%e of sociality fo"nd in the !ar<et, based :civil society; is to be "nderstood as de%endent "%on and in contrastive o%%osition with the !ore i!!ediate for! fo"nd in the instit"tion of the fa!ily L a for! of sociality !ediated by a G"asi,nat"ral inter,s"bjective reco-nition rooted in senti!ent and feelin-@ love. $ere $e-el see!s to have e=tended Fichte's le$all% characteriIed notion of reco-nition into the ty%es of h"!an inters"bjectivity earlier broached by $Blderlin. n the fa!ily the %artic"larity of each individ"al tends to be absorbed into the social "nit) -ivinthis !anifestation of #ittli h2eit a one,sidedness that is the inverse of that fo"nd in !ar<et relations in which %artici%ants -ras% the!selves in the first instance as se%arate individ"als who then enter into relationshi%s that are e=ternal to the!. These two o%%osite b"t interloc<in- %rinci%les of social e=istence %rovide the basic str"ct"res in ter!s of which the co!%onent %arts of the !odern state are artic"lated and "nderstood. As both contrib"te %artic"lar characteristics to the s"bjects involved in the!) %art of the %roble! for the rational state will be to ens"re that each of these two %rinci%les !ediates the other) each thereby !iti-atin- the one9sidedness of the other. Th"s) individ"als who enco"nter each other in the :e=ternal; relations of the !ar<et %lace and who have their s"bjectivity sha%ed by s"ch relations also belon- to fa!ilies where they are s"bject to o%%osed infl"ences. 'oreover) even within the ense!ble of %rod"ction and e=chan-e !echanis!s of civil society individ"als will belon- to %artic"lar :estates; 3the a-ric"lt"ral estate) that of trade and ind"stry) and the :"niversal estate; of civil servants9) whose internal for!s of sociality will show fa!ily,li<e feat"res.

Altho"-h the act"al details of $e-el's :!a%%in-; of the cate-orical str"ct"res of the )o$i onto the 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht are far fro! clear) the -eneral !otivation is a%%arent. As has been !entioned above) $e-el's lo-ical cate-ories can be read as an atte!%t to %rovide a sche!atic acco"nt of the !aterial 3rather than for!al9 conditions reG"ired for develo%ed self,conscio"sness. Th"s we !i-ht re-ard the vario"s :syllo-is!s; of $e-el's #ub.e tive )o$i as atte!%ts to chart the s<eletal str"ct"res of those different ty%es of reco-nitive inter,s"bjectivity necessary to s"stain vario"s as%ects of rational co-nitive and conative f"nctionin- 3:self,conscio"sness;9. Fro! this %ers%ective) we !i-ht see his :lo-ical; sche!atisation of the !odern :rational; state as a way of dis%layin- j"st those sorts of instit"tions that a state !"st %rovide if it is to answer Ro"ssea"'s G"estion of the for! of association needed for the for!ation and e=%ression of the :-eneral will.; Concretely) for $e-el it is re%resentation of the estates within the le-islative bodies that is to achieve this. As the estates of civil society -ro"% their !e!bers accordin- to their co!!on interests) and as the de%"ties elected fro! the estates to the le-islative bodies -ive voice to those interests within the deliberative %rocesses of le-islation) we !i-ht see how the o"tco!e of this %rocess !i-ht be considered to -ive e=%ression to the -eneral interest. #"t $e-el's :re%"blicanis!; is here c"t short by his invocation of the fa!ilial %rinci%le@ s"ch re%resentative bodies can only %rovide the ontent of the le-islation to a onstitutional &onar h who !"st add to it the for! of the royal decree L an individ"al : will Q.; To declare that for $e-el the !onarch %lays only a :sy!bolic; role here is to !iss the f"nda!entally idealist co!%le=ion of his %olitical %hiloso%hy. The e=%ression of the -eneral will in le-islation cannot be tho"-ht of as an o"tco!e of so!e G"asi, !echanical %rocess@ it !"st be !illed. f le-islation is to e=%ress the -eneral will) citiIens !"st reco-niIe it as e=%ressin- their willsH and this !eans) reco-nisin- it as willed. The !onarch's e=%licit : will; is th"s needed to close this reco-nitive circle) lest le-islation loo< li<e a !echanical co!%ro!ise res"ltin- fro! a clash of interests) and so as actively !illed by nobody. Th"s while $e-el is critical of standard :social contract; theories) his own conce%tion of the state is still clearly a co!%licated transfor!ation of those of Ro"ssea" and 0ant. Perha%s one of the !ost infl"ential %arts of $e-el's 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht concerns his analysis of the contradictions of the "nfettered ca%italist econo!y. +n the one hand) $e-el a-reed with Ada! S!ith that the interlin<in- of %rod"ctive activities allowed by the !odern !ar<et !eant that :s"bjective selfishness; t"rned into a :contrib"tion towards the satisfaction of the needs of everyone else.; #"t this did not !ean that he acce%ted S!ith's idea that this :-eneral %lenty; %rod"ced thereby diffused 3or :tric<led down; 9 tho"-h the rest of society. Fro! within the ty%e of conscio"sness -enerated within civil society) in which individ"als are -ras%ed as :bearers of ri-hts; abstracted fro! the %artic"lar concrete relationshi%s to which they belon-) S!ithean o%ti!is! !ay see! j"stified. #"t this si!%ly attests to the one,sidedness of this ty%e of abstract tho"-ht) and the need for it to be !ediated by the ty%e of conscio"sness based in the fa!ily in which individ"als are -ras%ed in ter!s of the way they belon$ to the social body. n fact) the "nfettered o%erations of the !ar<et produ es a class ca"-ht in a s%iral of %overty. Startin- fro! this analysis) 'ar= later "sed it as evidence of the need to abolish the individ"al %ro%rietorial ri-hts at the heart of $e-el's :civil society; and

socialise the !eans of %rod"ction. $e-el) however) did not draw this concl"sion. $is conce%tion of the e=chan-e contract as a for! of reco-nition that %layed an essential role within the state's ca%acity to %rovide the conditions for the e=istence of rational and free, willin- s"bjects wo"ld certainly %revent s"ch a !ove. Rather) the econo!y was to be contained within an over,archin- instit"tional fra!ewor< of the state) and its social effects offset by welfarist state intervention.

+i,liography
-ollec!ed Works

4esa&&elte 1er2e) Rheinisch,WestfRlischen A<ade!ie der Wissenschaften) ed.) 3$a!b"r-@ Feli= 'einer Serla-) 4>E7,9. 1er2e in 6!an6i$ /=nden) 'oldenha"er) Eva and 'ichel) 0arl 'ar<"s) ed.) 3Fran<f"rt a! 'ain@ S"hr<a!% Serla-) 4>549.

.nglish ransla!ions of 'ey e/!s0

*arl% Theolo$i al 1ritin$s) trans. T. '. 0no=) 3Chica-o@ Chica-o *niversity Press) 4>C79. The Differen e /et!een Fi hte"s and # hellin$"s #%ste& of 'hilosoph%) trans. $. S. $arris and W. Cerf) 3Albany@ State *niversity of New /or< Press) 4>559. 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit) trans. A. S. 'iller) 3+=ford@ +=ford *niversity Press) 4>559. >e$el"s 'refa e to the 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit) translation and r"nninco!!entary by /ir!iyah" /ovel) 3Princeton) Princeton *niversity Press) ?66D9. >e$el"s # ien e of )o$i ) trans. A. S. 'iller) 3(ondon@ Allen and *nwin) 4>E>9. The *n % lopedia )o$i ? 'art 1 of the *n % lopaedia of 'hilosophi al # ien es) trans. T. F. 2eraets) W. A. S"chtin-) and $. S. $arris) 3 ndiana%olis@ $ac<ett) 4>>49. 'hilosoph% of +ature @'art Three of the *n % lopaedia of 'hilosophi al # ien es9) trans. 'ichael 1ohn Perry) 8 vols) 3(ondon@ 2eor-e Allen and *nwin) 4>569. >e$el"s 'hilosoph% of Mind? /ein$ 'art Three of the *n % lopaedia of 'hilosophi al # ien es) trans. Willia! Wallace) 3+=ford@ Clarendon Press) 4>549. *le&ents of the 'hilosoph% of ,i$ht) ed. Allen W. Wood) trans. $. #. Nisbet) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>>49. 'oliti al 1ritin$s) ed. (a"rence Fic<ey and $. #. Nisbet) trans. $. # Nisbet) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>>>9.

)econdary Li!era!ure

Avineri) Shlo!o) >e$el"s Theor% of the Modern #tate) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>5?9.

#eiser) Frederic< C.) The (a&brid$e (o&panion to >e$el) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>>89. #eiser) Frederic< C.) >e$el) 3New /or< and (ondon@ Ro"tled-e) ?66D9. #rando!) Robert #.) Ma2in$ At *0pli it 3Ca!brid-e) 'ass.@ $arvard *niversity Press) 4>>C9. #rando!) Robert #.) Tales of the Mi$ht% Dead? >istori al *ssa%s in the Metaph%si s of Antentionalit%) 3Ca!brid-e) 'ass.@ $arvard *niversity Press) ?66?9. Crites) Ste%hen) Diale ti and 4ospel in the Develop&ent of >e$el"s Thin2in$) 3*niversity Par<@ Pennsylvania State *niversity Press) 4>>79. de (a"rentiis) Alle-ra) #ub.e ts in the 3n ient and Modern 1orld? 8n >e$el"s Theor% of #ub.e tivit%) 3#asin-sto<e@ Pal-rave 'ac!illan) ?66D9. Fic<ey) (a"rence) >e$el? ,eli$ion, * ono&i s, and 'oliti s of #pirit, 177091B07) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>759. Ferrarin) Alfredo) >e$el and 3ristotle) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) ?6649. Forster) 'ichael N.) >e$el and #2epti is&) 3Ca!brid-e) 'ass.@ $arvard *niversity Press) 4>7>9. Forster) 'ichael N.) >e$el"s Adea of a 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit) 3Chica-o@ *niversity of Chica-o Press) 4>>79. Franco) Pa"l) >e$el"s 'hilosoph% of Freedo&) 3New $aven@ /ale *niversity Press) 4>>>9. F"lda) $ans Friedrich) Das 'roble& einer *inleitun$ in >e$els 1issens haft der )o$i2) 3Fran<f"rt a! 'ain@ 0loster!ann) 4>ED9. 2ada!er) $ans,2eor-) >e$el"s Diale ti ? Five >er&eneuti al #tudies) trans. P. Christo%her S!ith) 3New $aven@ /ale *niversity Press) 4>5E9. $arris) $. S.) >e$el"s Develop&ent? To!ard the #unli$ht 177091B01) 3+=ford@ Clarendon Press) 4>5?9. $arris) $. S.) >e$el"s Develop&ent AA? +i$ht Thou$hts @Jena 1B0196C) 3+=ford@ +=ford *niversity Press) 4>789. $arris) $. S.) >e$el"s )adder) ? vols) 3 ndiana%olis@ $ac<ett) 4>>59. $art!ann) 0la"s) :$e-el@ A Non,'eta%hysical Siew); in A. 'ac ntyre 3ed.9 >e$el? 3 (olle tion of (riti al *ssa%s) 3New /or<@ Anchor #oo<s) Fo"bleday) 4>5?9) re%rinted in 0la"s $art!ann) #tudies in Foundational 'hilosoph%) 3A!sterda!@ Editions Rodo%i) 4>779. $orst!ann) Rolf,Peter) 1ahrheit aus de& /e$riff? eine *infDhrun$ in >e$el) 3Fran<f"rt a! 'ain@ $ain) 4>>69. $Bsle) Sittorio) >e$els #%ste&? Der Adealis&us der #ub.e tivit=t und das 'roble& der Antersub.e tivit=t) ? vols) 3$a!b"r-@ 'einer Serla-) 4>759. $o"l-ate) Ste%hen) 3n Antrodu tion to >e$el? Freedo&, Truth and >istor%) ?nd Edition 3+=ford@ #lac<wells) ?66D9. 1aesche) Walter) ,eason in ,eli$ion? The Foundations of >e$el"s 'hilosoph% of ,eli$ion) trans. 1. '. Stewart and Peter $od-son) 3#erleley@ *niversity of California Press) 4>>69. 0ant) !!an"el. (riti-ue of 'ure ,eason) trans. N. 0e!%,S!ith) 3(ondon@ 'ac!illan) 4>?>9.

0ojJve) Ale=andre) Antrodu tion to the ,eadin$ of >e$el) ed. Allan #loo!) trans. 1. $. Nichols) 1r) 3New /or<@ #asic #oo<s) 4>E>9. ("<Kcs) 2eor-) The Eoun$ >e$el) trans. R. (ivin-ston) 3(ondon@ 'erlin Press) 4>5D9. 'cFowell) 1ohn) Mind and 1orld) 3Ca!brid-e) 'ass.@ $arvard *niversity Press) 4>>C9. Ne"ho"ser) Frederic<) Foundations of >e$el"s #o ial Theor%? 3 tuali6in$ Freedo&) 3Ca!brid-e) 'ass.@ $arvard *niversity Press) ?6669. PelcIyns<i) T. A. 3ed.9) The #tate and (ivil #o iet%? #tudies in >e$el"s 'oliti al 'hilosoph%) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>7C9. Pin<ard) Terry) >e$el"s 'heno&enolo$%? The #o ialit% of ,eason) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>>C9. Pin<ard) Terry) >e$el? 3 /io$raph%) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) ?6669. Pi%%in) Robert #.) >e$el"s Adealis&? The #atisfa tions of #elf9(ons iousness) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>7>9. Pi%%in) Robert #.) Adealis& as Modernis&? >e$elian Fariations) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>>59. PB--eler) +tto) >e$els Adee einer 'h=no&enolo$ies des 4eistes) 3Freib"r-@ 0arl Alber) 4>589. Reddin-) Pa"l) >e$el"s >er&eneuti s) 3 thaca@ Cornell *niversity Press) 4>>E9. Rosen) 'ichael) >e$el"s Diale ti and Ats (riti is&) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>7?9. Sellars) Wilfrid) *&piri is& and the 'hilosoph% of Mind) with an ntrod"ction by Richard Rorty and a St"dy 2"ide by Robert #rando!) 3Ca!brid-e) 'ass.@ $arvard *niversity Press) 4>>59. Sie%) ("dwi-) 3ner2ennun$ als 'rin6ip der pra2tis hen 'hilosophie? :ntersu hun$en 6u >e$els Jenaer 'hilosophie des 4eistes) 3Freib"r-@ 0arl Alber Serla-) 4>5>9. Solo!on) Robert) An the #pirit of >e$el) 3+=ford@ +=ford *niversity Press) 4>789. Stern) Robert) >e$el, 7ant and the #tru ture of the 8b.e t) 3(ondon@ Ro"tled-e) 4>>69. Stern) Robert) ed.) 4G 1G FG >e$el? (riti al 3ssess&ents) C vols) 3(ondon@ Ro"tled-e) 4>>89. Stern) Robert) ,outled$e 'hilosoph% 4uideboo2 to >e$el and the 'heno&enolo$% of #pirit) 3(ondon@ Ro"tled-e) ?66?9. Taylor) Charles) >e$el) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>5D9. Toews) 1ohn) >e$elianis&? The 'ath to!ard Diale ti al >u&anis&, 1B0H91BI1) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>769. Wallace) Robert '.) >e$el"s 'hilosoph% of ,ealit%, Freedo&, and 4od) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) ?66D9. West%hal) 0enneth R.) >e$el"s *piste&olo$i al ,ealis&? 3 #tud% of the 3i& and Method of >e$el"s J'heno&enolo$% of #piritK) 3Fordrecht@ 0l"wer) 4>7>9. West%hal) 0enneth) >e$el"s *piste&olo$%) 3 ndiana%olis@ $ac<ett) ?6689. West%hal) 'erold) >istor% and Truth in >e$el"s 'heno&enolo$%. 3#loo!in-ton@ ndiana *niversity Press) 4>>79.

Willia!s) Robert R.) ,e o$nition? Fi hte and >e$el on the 8ther ) 3Albany@ State *niversity of New /or< Press) 4>>?9. Willia!s) Robert R.) >e$el"s *thi s of ,e o$nition) 3#er<eley@ *niversity of California Press) 4>>59. Wood) Allen W.) >e$el"s *thi al Thou$ht) 3Ca!brid-e@ Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 4>>69.

1!her In!erne! *esources

$e-el Society of A!erica $o!e Pa-e

*ela!ed .n!ries
Fichte) 1ohann 2ottlieb U $Blderlin) 1ohann Christian Friedrich U 1acobi) Friedrich $einrich U 0ant) !!an"el U 'ar=) 0arl U Schellin-) Friedrich Wilhel! 1ose%h von
Co%yri-ht & ?66E by

Pa"l Reddin- VpaulGreddin$LartsGus%dGeduGauW