Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:34:46.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Hegel's Phenomenology Relevant to Contemporary Epistemology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Kenneth R. Westphal
Kenneth R. Westphal*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access

Abstract

Hegel has been widely, though erroneously, supposed to have rejected epistemology in favor of unbridled metaphysical speculation. Reputation notwithstanding, Hegel was a very sophisticated epistemologist, whose views have gone unrecognized because they are so innovative, indeed prescient. Hence I shall boldly state: Hegel's epistemology is of great contemporary importance. In part, this is because many problems now current in epistemology are problems Hegel addressed. In part, this is because of the unexpected effectiveness of Russell's 1922 exhortation, “I should take ‘back to the 18th century’ as a battle-cry, if I could entertain any hope that others would rally to it.” I shall elaborate on these thematic connections between Hegel's views and our problems below (§3), after summarizing the main features of Hegel's epistemology (§2). Thereafter I consider Hegel's views in relation to 20th-century empiricism (§4), Dretske's information theory (§5), and the on-going debate between realists and historicist relativists (§6). Sections 2–4 will be summary in character, for I have discussed these issues in detail elsewhere. Sections 5 and 6 shall consider more closely some important social aspects of Hegel's epistemology. Two themes of my remarks are that Hegel anticipated by 150 years the recent rejections in epistemology of concept-empiricism and of individualism, and more importantly, Hegel showed how rejecting these positions does not require rejecting commonsense realism about the objects of empirical knowledge. In part, this is because Hegel rejected “internalism” about mental content. The recent wave of anti-Cartesianism in epistemology and philosophy of mind has much to learn from Hegel. Benefiting from Hegel' insights and analyses, however, requires understanding just what were Hegel's aims, methods, and arguments in epistemology. These, however, have eluded most commentators, whether critical or sympathetic. So I begin by reviewing the main points of Hegel's epistemology.

Type
Hegel Today
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 21 , Issue 1-2: number 41/42 , 2000 , pp. 43 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2000

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

Allison, Henry, 1990. Kant's Theory of Freedom. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Henry, 1997. “We can act only under the Idea of Freedom.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 71.2:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, William P., 1989. Epistemic Justification. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Alston, William P., 1994. “Belief-forming Practices and the Social.” In Schmitt 1994a, 29–51.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl, 1978. “Kant's Transcendental Deduction as a Regressive Argument.” Kant-Studien 69.3:273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillie, James B., 1901. The Origin and Significance of Hegel's Logic. London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David, & Henry, John, 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Manfred, 1986. Deduktion und Beweis in Kants Transzendentalphilosophie. Könnigstein/Ts.: Hein bei Athenäum.Google Scholar
Beaumont, Bernard, 1954. “Hegel and the Seven Planets.” Mind 62:246–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C., 1987. The Fate of Reason. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C., 1993b. “Hegel's Historicism.” In Beiser 1993a, 270–300.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C., ed., 1993a. The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biagioli, Mario, ed., 1999. The Science Studies Reader. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Bieri, Peter, 1989. “Scepticism and Intentionality.” In Schaper, E. & Vossenkuhl, W., eds., Reading Kant. Oxford, Blackwell, 77–113.Google Scholar
Bohman, James, 1991. New Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert, 1979. “Freedom and Constraint by Norms.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16.3:187–96.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert, 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert, 1999. “Some Pragmatist Themes in Hegel's Idealism.” European Journal of Philosophy 7.2:164–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodbeck, May, 1973. “Methodological Individualisms: Definition and Reduction.” In O'Neill, 1973, 287–311.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler, 1979. “Individualism and the Mental.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4:73–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, Tyler, 1986. “Intellectual Norms and Foundations of Mind.” Journal of Philosophy 83.12:697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, Tyler, 1992. “Philosophy of Language and Mind: 1950–1990.” The Philosophical Review 101.1:3–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Tom, 1994. Dewey's New Logic: A Reply to Russell. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf, 1950. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue International de Philosophie 4; revised version in Meaning and Necessity. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1956, 205–21.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick, 1976. Person and Object. LaSalle, Ill., Open Court.Google Scholar
Cling, Andrew, 1994. “Posing the Problem of the Criterion.” Philosophical Studies 75:261–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coady, C. A. J., 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan, 1985. Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald, 1989. “The Conditions of Thought.” In Brandl, J. & Gombocz, W., eds., The Mind of Donald Davidson. Grazer Philosophische Studien 36:193–200.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald, 1991. “Three Varieties of Knowledge.” In Griffiths, A. P., ed., A. J. Ayer: Memorial Essays. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 153–66.Google Scholar
DeGeorge, Richard, 1983. “Social Reality and Social Relations.” Review of Metaphysics 37:3–20.Google Scholar
de Vincentis, Mauro Nasti, 1997. “Hegel's Worm in Newton's Apple.” In Houlgate, S., ed., Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature. Albany, SUNY Press, 227–56.Google Scholar
deVries, Willem, 1988. Hegel's Theory of Mental Activity. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
deVries, Willem, 1991. “The Dialectic of Teleology.” Philosophical Topics 19.2:51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John, 1930. Individualism Old and New. New York, Minton Bach.Google Scholar
Dewey, John, 1939. The Theory of Valuation. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John, 1948. Reconstruction in Philosophy. 2nd rev. ed., Boston, Beacon.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith, 1966. “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” The Philosophical Review 75.3:281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Frederick I., 1969. Seeing and Knowing. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, Frederick I., 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MIT/Bradford Press; designated “KTI.”Google Scholar
Dretske, Frederick I., 1983. “Précis of Knowledge and the Flow of Information .” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6:55–63. Rpt. in H. Kornblith, ed., Epistemology Naturalized. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1985, 170–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Frederick I., 1988. Explaining Behavior: Reasons in a World of Causes. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, Frederick I., 1993. “The Nature of Thought.” Philosophical Studies 70:185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Düsing, Edith, 1986. Intersubjektivität und Selbstbewußtsein. Köln, Dinter.Google Scholar
Elgin, Katherine Z., 1999. Considered Judgment. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth, 1975. “Identity and Predication.” Journal of Philosophy 72.13:343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Phillip, 1999. Bradley and the Structure of Knowledge. Albany, SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry & LePore, Ernest, 1992. Holism: A Shopper's Guide. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sebastian, 1999. Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Gettier, Edmund, 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23.6:121–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret, 1994. “Remarks on Collective Belief.” In Schmitt, 1994a, 235–56.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin, 1976. “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy 73.20:771–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin, 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin, 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford, Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Leon J., 1973. “Two Theses of Methodological Individualism.” In O'Neill, 1973, 277–86.Google Scholar
Golinski, Jan, 1998. Making Natural Knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson, 1965. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merril.Google Scholar
Gopnick, Alison, Meltzoff, Andrew, & Kuhl, Patricia, 1999. The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How Children Learn. New York, Morrow.Google Scholar
Green, Thomas, 1999. Voices: The Educational Formation of Conscience. South Bend, Ind., Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan, 1993. Evidence and Inquiry. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan, 1998. Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hare, Peter, 1998. “Classical Pragmatism, Recent Naturalistic Theories of Representation, and Pragmatic Realism.” In Weingartner, P., Schurz, G., & Dorn, G., eds., The Role of Pragmatics in Contemporary Philosophy. Vienna, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 58–65.Google Scholar
Harris, Henry, 1997. Hegel's Ladder. 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., Hackett.Google Scholar
Hartnack, Justus, 1998. An Introduction to Hegel's Logic. Indianapolis, Hackett.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., 1853. Thaulow, G., ed., Hegel's Ansichten über Erziehung und Untericht. Kiel; rpt. Glashütten im Taunus, Auvermann, 1974, 4 vols.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., 1980ff. Buchner, H. & Pöggeler, O., eds., Gesammelte Werke. Hamburg, Meiner.Google Scholar
Hookway, Christopher, 1999. “Modest Transcendental Arguments and Sceptical Doubts: A Reply to Stroud.” In Stern, R., ed., Transcendental Arguments: Problems and Prospects. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 173–87.Google Scholar
Horstmann, Rolf-Peter, 1984. Ontologie und Relationen. Könnigstem/Ts., Anthenäum-Hain.Google Scholar
Hoy, David C. 1989. “Hegel's Critique of Kantian Morality.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 6.2:207–32.Google Scholar
Hundert, Edward M., 1989. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hylton, Peter, 1990. Russell, Idealism, and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Walter, 1965. Hegel: A Re-Interpretation. Garden City, NY, Anchor.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip, 1992. “The Naturalists Return.” Philosophical Review 101.1:53–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip, 1994. “Contrasting Conceptions of Social Epistemology.” In Schmitt, 1994a, 111–34.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary, 1994. “A Conservative Approach to Social Epistemology.” In Schmitt, 1994a, 93–111.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul, 1972. “Naming and Necessity.” In Davidson, D. & Harman, G., eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht, Reidel, 253–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul, 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas, 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, Thelma Z., 1949f. “Knowledge as Interpretation: An Historical Survey.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 10 [1949–50]:526–40, & 11 [1950–51]:88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessing, G. E., 1780. Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E., 1994. “The Fate of Knowledge in Social Theories of Science.” In Schmitt, 1994a, 135–57.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Maurice, 1973. “Societal Facts.” In O'Neill, 1973, 221–47.Google Scholar
McDowell, John, 1994. Mind and World. Cambridge, Harvard University Press; designated “M&W.”Google Scholar
McDowell, John, 1999. “Comments on Robert Brandom's ‘Some Pragmatist Themes in Hegel's Idealism’.” European Journal of Philosophy 7.2:190–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Chris, & Dunham, Philip, 1995. Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moser, Paul, Mulder, Dwayne, & Trout, J. D., 1998. The Theory of Knowledge: A Thematic Introduction. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Neill, John, ed., 1973. Modes of Individualism and Collectivism. New York, St. Martin's.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Onora, forthcoming. “Constructivism in Rawls and Kant.” In Freeman, S., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S., 1877. “The Fixation of Belief.” CP 5:358–87; WCSP 3:242–57.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S., 1878. “How to Make our Ideas Clear.” CP 5:388–410; WCSP 3:257–76.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S., 1905. “What Pragmatism Is.” CP 5:411–37.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S., 1931f. Hartshome, C., Weiss, P., & Burks, A., eds., Collected Papers. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1931–1935, 1958; designated “CP.”Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S., 1982f. Fisch, M. et. al., eds., Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Bloomington, Indiana University Press; designated “WCSP.”Google Scholar
Perlmutter, Martin, 1998. “Moral Intuitions and Philosophical Method.” In Westphal, 1998g, 203–18.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip, 1996. Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society, and Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, D. C., 1976. Holistic Thought in Social Science. Stanford, Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, 1994. The Language Instinct. New York, William Morrow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin, 1993. Warrant and Proper Function. New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, John, 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pollock, John, & Cruz, Joseph, 1999. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Revised ed., Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Price, H. H., 1932. Perception. London, Methuen.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O., 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Rpt. in Quine, 1961, 20–46.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O., 1961. From a Logical Point of View. 2d revised ed.. New York, Harper.Google Scholar
Rauch, Leo, & Sherman, David, 1999. Hegel's Phenomenology of Self-Consciousness. Albany, SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidy, David, 1999. “Rawls's Idea(1) of Public Reason.” Polis 6:93–113.Google Scholar
Reidy, David, 2000. “Rawls's Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough.” Res Publica 6:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, Michael, 1998. “How to Teach a Wise Man.” In Westphal, 1998g, 89–110.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard, 1971. “Verificationism and Transcendental Arguments.” Nous 5:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard, 1972. “The World Well Lost.” Journal of Philosophy 69:649–65; rpt. in Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1982, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard, 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roskies, Adina, ed., 1999. “The Binding Problem.” Neuron 24:7–125.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand, 1994. Passmore, J. general ed., The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell. London, Routledge; designated “CP.”Google Scholar
Savigny, Eike von, 1991. “Self-conscious Individual versus Social Self: The Rationale of Wittgenstein's Discussion of Rule Following.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51:67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharff, Robert, 1995. Comte After Positivism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Frederick, 1987. “Justification, Sociality, and Autonomy.” Synthese 73.1:43–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Frederick, ed., 1994a. Socializing Epistemology. Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Frederick, ed., 1994b. “The Justification of Group Beliefs.” In Schmitt, 1994a, 257–87.Google Scholar
Scruton, Roger, 1982. From Descartes to Wittgenstein. New York, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid, 1947. “Pure Pragmatics and Epistemology.” Philosophy of Science 15.3:181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid, 1948. “Concepts as Involving Laws and as Inconceivable Without Them.” Philosophy of Science 15.4:287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid, 1963a. Science, Perception, and Reality. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid, 1963b. “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” In Sellars, 1963a, 127–96.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid, 1968. Science and Metaphysics. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid, 1989. The Metaphysics of Epistemology. Atascadero, Cal., Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam, 1994a. “Social Empiricism.” Nous 28.3:325–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam, 1994b. “A More Social Epistemology.” In Schmitt, 1994a, 217–33.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest, 1991. Knowledge in Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stekeler-Weithofer, Pirmin, 1992. Hegels Analytische Philosophie. Die Wissenschaft der Logik als kritische Theorie der Bedeutung. Paderborn, Schöningh.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F., 1959. Individuals. London, Methuen.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F., 1974. Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar. London, Methuen.Google Scholar
Stroud, Barry, 1984. “The Allure of Idealism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement 58, 243–58.Google Scholar
Stroud, Barry, 1999. “The Goal of Transcendental Arguments.” In Stern, R., ed., Transcendental Arguments: Problems and Prospects. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 155–72.Google Scholar
Weiss, Frederick ed., 1974. Beyond Epistemology. The Hague, Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1989. Hegel's Epistemological Realism. Philosophical Studies Series, vol. 43. Dordrecht, Kluwer; designated “HER.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1991. “Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral World View.” Philosophical Topics 19:133–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1993. “The Basic Context and Structure of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.” In Beiser, 1993a, 234–69.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1994. “Community as the Basis of Free Individual Action.” (Annotated translations from Hegel's Phenomenology.) In Daly, M., ed., Communitarianism. Belmont, Cal., Wadsworth, 36–40.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1996. “Kant, Hegel, and the Transcendental Material Conditions of Possible Experience.” Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 33:23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1997a. “Affinity, Idealism, and Naturalism: The Stability of Cinnabar and the Possibility of Experience.” Kant-Studien 88:139–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1997b. “Hegel, Philosophy, and Mathematical Physics.” Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 36:1–15.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998a. Hegel, Hume und die Identität wahrnehmbarer Dinge. Frankfurt/Main, Klostermann; designated “HHW.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998b. “Hegel's Solution to the Dilemma of the Criterion.” Revised version in: Stewart, J., ed., The Phenomenology of Spirit Reader: A Collection of Critical and Interpretive Essays. Albany, SUNY Press, 76–91.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998c. “Harris, Hegel, and the Spirit of the Phenomenology .” Clio 27.4:551–72.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998d. “Hegel and Hume on Perception and Concept-Empiricism.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 33:99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998e. “Transcendental Reflections on Pragmatic Realism.” In: Westphal, 1998g, 17–59.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., 1998f. “On Hegel's Early Critique of Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science .” In Houlgate, S., ed., Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature. Albany, SUNY Press, 137–66.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., ed., 1998g. Pragmatism, Reason, & Norms. New York, Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., ed., 1999, “Hegel's Epistemology? Reflections on Some Recent Expositions.” Clio 28.3:303–23.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., ed., 2000a. “Hegel's Internal Critique of Naive Realism.” Journal of Philosophical Research 25:173–229.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., ed., 2000b. “Hegel, Harris, and Sextus Empiricus.” Owl of Minerva 31.2 (2000): 155–72.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R., ed., (forthcoming). “Epistemic Reflection and Cognitive Reference in Kant's Transcendental Response to Skepticism.” Kant-Studien.Google Scholar
Wettstein, Howard, 1991. Has Semantics Rested on a Mistake? Stanford, Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wick, Warner, 1951. “The ‘Political’ Philosophy of Logical Empiricism.” Philosophical Studies 2.4:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, Frederick L., 1974. Induction and Justification. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Will, Frederick L., 1988. Beyond Deduction. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Will, Frederick L., 1997. Westphal, K. R., ed., Pragmatism and Realism. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert, 1998. Hegel's Ethics of Recognition. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Margaret, 1992. “History of Philosophy Today; and the Case of Sensible Qualities.” Philosophical Review 101.1:191–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margaret, 1999. Ideas and Mechanism. Princeton, Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Michael, 1992. Das Körper-Seele-Problem. Frankfurt/Main, Klostermann.Google Scholar
Wright, Crispin, 1986. “Does Philosophical Investigations I.258–60 Suggest a Cogent Argument against Private Language?” In Pettit, P. & McDowell, J., eds., Subject, Thought, and Context. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 209–66.Google Scholar