Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:21:04.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spinoza, Kant and the Transition to Hegel’s Subjective Logic: Arguing For and Against Philosophical Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2018

James Kreines
James Kreines*
Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, USAjkreines@cmc.edu
Get access

Abstract

Hegel’s Logic argues in a manner that is supposed to support a systematic philosophy. But it is difficult to explain how such a systematic argument is supposed to work. For answers, I look to the key transition from the Doctrine of Essence to the Doctrine of the Concept. Here we find discussions of both Spinozist and Kantian systems of philosophy: both are supposed to be helpful, and yet also to be lacking in instructive ways. So the initial hope is that these comparisons can help us to understand Hegel’s own systematic argument, and what it means to transition from an objective to a ‘Subjective Logic’. But the comparisons bring additional difficulties. First, to defend a comprehensive system involves refuting rivals, and the discussion of Spinoza demonstrates that refutation is difficult. Second, it is hard to see how any argument for Hegel’s system could be akin to those in Spinoza and Kant given the extent of the differences between them. I argue that the best way to deal with these difficulties is to explain the systematic argument of the Logic as modelled on the Transcendental Dialectic of Kant’s first Critique.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 40 , Special Issue 1: Science of Logic , April 2019 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ameriks, K. (1990), ‘Kant, Fichte, and Short Arguments to Idealism’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 72: 63–85.Google Scholar
Gabriel, M. (2016), ‘What Kind of Idealist (if Any) is Hegel?’ Hegel Bulletin 37:2: 181–208.Google Scholar
Bowman, B., Kreines, J., Pinkard, T., Tolley, C. (2017), ‘The Metaphysics of Reason and Hegel’s Logic. A Book Symposium on James Kreines’ Reason in the World. Hegel’s Metaphysics and its Philosophical Appeal ’, Hegel-Studien 50: 129–173.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (2002), Tales of the Mighty Dead. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grier, M. (2001), Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1902), Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, trans. P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knappik, F. (2016), ‘And Yet He is a Monist: Comments on James Kreines, Reason in the World ’, Hegel Bulletin 1–17.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2006), ‘Hegel’s Metaphysics: Changing the Debate’, Philosophy Compass 1:5: 466–480.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2012), ‘Learning from Hegel What Philosophy Is All About: For the Metaphysics of Reason; Against the Priority of Meaning’, Verifiche: Rivista di Scienze Umane 41: 1–3: 129–173.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2015), Reason in the World: Hegel’s Metaphysics and its Philosophical Appeal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moyar, D. (2018), ‘Die Lehre vom Begriff. Zweiter Abschnitt. Die Objektivität’, Hegel-Studien Beiheft 67: 555–646.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1987), ‘Kant on the Spontaneity of Mind’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17: 449–476.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1989), Hegel’s Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1993), ‘Hegel’s Original Insight,’ International Philosophical Quarterly XXXIII:3: 285–295.Google Scholar
Proops, I. (2010), ‘Kant’s First Paralogism’, Philosophical Review 119:4: 449–495.Google Scholar
Redding, P. (2007), Analytic Philosophy and the Return of Hegelian Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Redding, P. (2016), ‘If Reason is “in the World”, Where Exactly is it Located?’ European Journal of Philosophy 24:3: 712–724.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1967), ‘Metaphilosophical Difficulties of Linguistic Philosophy’, in R. Rorty (ed.), The Linguistic Turn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. (1994), A Spinoza Reader, trans. E. Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar