Adorno - Hegel, Three Studies

He
g
el
1nree8tudies
` I
He
g
el
1nree8tudies
1neodorW.Adorno
trnslated by Shierry Weber Nicholsen
with an introduction by
Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jeremy]. Shapiro
U

U
hc MI rcss, Cambrdgc, Massachusctts,and

London, Ing!and
-
This edition 1993 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
This work originally appeared in German under the title Drei Studien zu Hegel,
1963, 1971 Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by
any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or
information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the
publisher.
This book was set in Baskerville by The Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing
Group and was printed and bound in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adorno, Theodor W., 1903-1969.
[Drei Studien zu Hegel. English]
Hegel: three studies I Theodor W. Adorno ; translated by Shierry
Weber Nicholsen ; with an introduction by Shierry Weber Nicholsen
and Jeremy J. Shapiro.
p. cm.-(Studies in contemporary German social thought)
Translation of: Drei Studien zu Hegel.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-262-01 131-X
1 . Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770- 1831. 1. Title.
11. Series.
B2948.A3213 1993
193---dc20
-~ =:*r t, q _,
`
,
<,f'
92-23161
CIP
or Kar! Hcnz Haag
J.^'
Contents
Introductonby 5hcrryWcbcrlcho!scnand
]crcmy]. 5hapro
rctacc
A lotc onthcJcxt
Idtora!Kcmarkstromthc GcrmanIdton
Aspects of Hegel's Philosophy
The Experiential Content of Hegel's Philosophy
Skoteinos, or How to Read Hegel
lotcs
lamcIndcx
ix
xxxv
xxxv
xxxix
I
53
89
I49
I59
Introduction
8nierryWeoerNicno|sen
]eremy].8napiro
IsaluteyoufromthePetrihedForestofhumanculture
Wherenothingisleftstanding
Butwhereroamgreatswirlinglights
Whichcallforthedeliveranceoffoliageandbird.
Fromyourhngersowsthesapoftreesinower.
Andre Breton, OdetoCharlesFourier
Jhc dcvcIopmcnt otcrtcaI phIosophy and socaIthcoryn thc
twcntcth ccntury, cspccaIIy that ot Jhcodor W. Adorno and
thcrankturt5chooI,hasbccnntmatcIyInkcdwththcappro-
praton and rcntcrprctaton otthc thnkcrs otGcrman IdcaI-
sm, most notabIy, HcgcI. 5uch thnkcrs as Adorno, Max
Horkhcmcr, Hcrbcrt Marcusc, and]\rgcnHabcrmas, through
a crtcaI hcrmcncutc daIoguc wth Kant, 5chIIcr, 5chcIIng,
HcgcI, 5chopcnhaucr, Marx, Kcrkcgaard, and lctzschc, cIab-
oratcdthcrown thcorctcaI ocuvrc and rcntcrprctcd thc trcnds
and contradctons othc prcscnt hstorcaI pcrod through thc
pcrspcctvcprovdcdbythcsc nnctccnth-ccnturyphIosophcrs.
Atthcsamctmc, thcymadcmportantcontrbutonstoourun-
dcrstandng ot thcsc thnkcrs. Jo do so, thcy had to pry thc
carIcr phIosophcrs' thought out ottradtonaI acadcmc, dog-
x
Introduction
matc,anddcoIogcaIntcrprctatonsnordcrtountoIdthccorc
conccptsandcrtguccontancdnthcrwork. Jhshcrmcncutc
was contnuousIy cIaboratcd as part ot a radcaI poItcaI, cuI-
turaI, and socaIcrtgucotadvanccd captaIsm and authortar-
an poItcaI tcndcnccs. It was undcrtakcn wth thc cx
[
Ict
convcton that_ostvstcand onc-dmcnsonaI thnkngwasn-
hcrcnt n thc a_
[
aratus ot domnaton n advanccd ndustraI
socct_ and that thc maor nnctccnth-ccntur
Gcrman_hIoso-
Qhcrs, csgccaI_n thcrcrtgucotnarrow InIghtcnmc;)and
positvstJhuKU
g,
O
g
q}|p}jtctoundatonstorancwcrt-
caI rcIatonshg_]odvq d ndustraI so cty. It s gutc char-
actcrstc that thc carIcst works ot thc ma]or thnkcrs ot thc
rankturt 5chooI (twc ncIudc thcr doctoraI dsscrtatons and
Habilitationsschriften) ncIudc ma]or studcs ot Kant, 5chIIcr,
5chcIIng, HcgcI, and Kcrkcgaard, and that thcr Iatcr works
ncIudc studcs otHcgcI, Marx, 5chopcnhaucr, and lctzschc,
as wcIIas otrcud and MaxWcbcr,whom thc crtcaI thcorsts
saw as thc brdgc bctwccn thc phIosophcaI tradton and thc
socaI sccnccs. In addton, thcy anaIyzcd ma]or twcntcth-ccn-
tury thnkcrs, ncIudng HusscrI, Hcdcggcr, 5artrc, Dcwcy,
Larnap, and Wttgcnstcn, asphIosophcr-dcoIogsts.
Jhc corc otthc crtcaI thcorsts' approach s thc mmancnt
crtguc otdcoIogy. Jruth s attancdb_untoIdngboththctruth
contcntand thc contradctons otthought through Inkng t to
1hO truth contcnt and contradctons ot ts socaI contcxt and
commtmcnts.JhsIcadsto ahstorcaIIyrcIatvzcd t
__g
ats
maxmaII_unvcrsaI_rccscIythroughawarcncssottshstorcaI
andsocaIstuatonandImtatons.JhccrtgucotdcoIogymcans
takng thco:y at ts wo:d and at ts dccd. I Icncc thc rankturl
5chooIproduccdan mposngscrcsotcrtcaIhcrmcncutcstudcs
otsocaI thcory and phIosophy, most otwhch arc mport
g
nt
bothas phIosophcaI and socoIogcaI works n thcr own rgh

Xl
Introduction
andasvaIuabIccontrbutonstothcundcrstandngotothcrthc-
orsts. ' lo othcr thnkcr was as mportant to ths crtcaI hcr-
mcncutcs as HcgcI. Jhc crtcaI thcorsts amcd ata daIcctcaI
mcthod thatwas notcmbroIcd n thc vagarcs otsocaIstparty
poItcs and postvstcormctaphyscaI ntcrprctatons otMarx.
Inboth HcgcIand Marx, thcdaIcctcaImcthodcIamcdto pro-
vdcauntyotthcorctcaIand practcaIrcasonthatsccmcdtorn
asundcr n contcmporary cvIzaton and phIosophy. And thc
s_stcmatc charactcr ot HcgcI's thnkng
[
romscd a
[
ossbIc
unbcaton otthchuman sccnccsthatthccrtca thcorsts sought
to brn_ about tor thc radcaI undcrstandn_ otcontcm
[
orary
socct_ throu_h thc ntc_raton ot socoIo
[_
choIogy, cco-
nomcs,
[
oItcaI sccncc, and
_
)(
Q
)
. HcgcI's own crtguc
otthcImtatonsotthcsccntbcworId vcwonthconchandand
ts romantc aItcrnatvc on thc othcr- an ntcIIcctuaI stuaton
thatnsomcwaysparaIIcIsthatotthc]uxtapostonottwcntcth-
ccntury postvsm and pragmatsm on thc onc hand and phc-
nomcnoIogy, cxstcntaIsm, and hcrmcncutcs on thc othcr-
suggcstcd an anaIogous crtguc otthcsc contcmporary schooIs
otthought. HcgcIcIamcd, and ntcndcd, tobc thc cuImnaton
otWcstcrn ratonaIsm, and ths madc hs thought an appro-
pratc tocus tor thc crtguc otWcstcrn cvIzaton. Abovc aII,
cI's tocus on
thc ncgatvc and thc

[
owcr otncgaton and
contradcton nhcrcnt n thou_ht and rcaIt
sccmcd a kcy to
rcscungthcncgatvctromthcovcrwhcImn_atbrmatvc
[
owcr
otadvanccdndustraI soccty.
Adorno,and MarcuscaswcII, rcgardcd HcgcI, dcsptc hsob-

vousconscrvatvc tcndcnccs, asthctrucrcvoIutonary thnkcr-
pcrhaps morc so than Marx-tthcncgatvc and daIcctcaIcorc
ot ths thought couId bc rcscucd trom ts cmbcddcdncss n a
doctrnc otundaIcctcaI aHrmaton, rcconcIaton, and unb-
caton.Marcusc, nReaon an Revolution, pubIshcd ahat-ccntury
xii
Introduction
ago, attcmptcd toartcuIatc thcncgatvc, crtcaI,anddaIcctcaI
corc otHcgcI's thought and to prcscrvc tna propcrIyundcr-
stood Marxsm. a Marxsm thatsynthcszcs thc humanstccorc
otMarx'scarIywrtngs,thchstorcaImatcraIsmotthcGeran
Ideolog, and thc daIcctcaI anaIyss contancd n Marx's maturc
cconomc thcory. Marcusc, skcptcaIotthcrcvoIutonarypotcn-
taI otcthcr socaI dcmocracy or Lcnnst communsm, ncvcr-
thcIcsssawnHcgcI adaIcctcaImcthod thatcouIdbc thcbass
tor a socaIsm appropratc to thc hstorcaI stuaton ot ad-
vanccd ndustraI soccty. IubIshcddurngWorIdWarII, Rea
son and Revolution Iookcd toward ths humanstcaIIy and
daIcctcaIIyrcgcncratcdMarxsmasahstorcaI possbIty attcr
thc dctcat otlazsm. Adorno, wrtng attcr WorId War II and
thcstabIzaton otthc domnatonstructurcotadvanccdndus-
traI soccty toIIowng thc dctcat ot lazsm, and attcr hs and
Max Horkhcmcr's Dialectic of Enlightenment, whch tocuscs on
captaIstndustraIsm's abItytocImnatcaIIoppostonto thc
domnaton otboth ntcrnaI and cxtcrnaI naturc, sought to rc-
cupcratc n HcgcI thc bass tor a daIcctc otrcsstancc to that
powcrotdomnatonbyconccntratngonthc nondcntcaI, that
whchsbcyond thc domnaton otrcason.
In thcr ntcrprctatons otHcgcI, both Marcusc and Adorno
attcmpttoprovdcaphIosophcaIbasstorncgatvc thnkng.
tor thought that dcsrcs to trcc tscIt trom thc shackIcs otthc
Iogos ot domnaton and to scrvc as a bass tor and ntcrprc-
taton otcmancpaton n thc broadcst hstorcaI scnsc-cman-
cpaton trom cIass domnaton, trom thc ron cagc" ot
burcaucratcratonaIty, tromthctcrrorworIdotthcconccntra-
ton camp, trom thc pcrtormancc prncpIc," and Irom onc-
dmcnsonaI thought, admnstcrcd cuIturc, and dctormcd
cxpcrcncc. Ovcr thc haItccnturysncc thc pubIcaton otMar-
cusc's Reason and Revolution, and dcsptc ongongcmancpatory
xiii
Introduction
undcrcurrcnts and outbrcaks otcmancpatory movcmcnts, thc
abIty otthc unvcrsaI markctsoccty, combncd wth powcrtuI
statc tormatons, to controI or absorb opposton and cut ottaI-
tcrnatvcsappcarstOhavcncrcascd. utasAdornosaysnAs-
pcctsotHcgcI'sIhIosophy,"
aworldintegrated through production,through theexchangerela-
tionship, dependsinallits momentsonthesocialconditionsofitspro-
duction,and in that sense actuallyrealizes the primacy ofthe whole
over its parts, in thisregard thedesperate impotence ofevery single
individual nowverihes Hegel's extravagantconception ofthe system.
.. .Theself-forgetfulnessofproduction,theinsatiableanddestructive
expansive principle ofthe exchange society, is reected in Hegelian
metaphysics. Itdescribcsthewaytheworldactuallyis,notinhistorical
perspectivebutinessence.
Jhs contnuty n thc way thc worId actuaIIy s" caIIstorrc-
ncwcdncgatvcordaIcctcaI thnkng, andhcncctorarcncwcd
undcrstandng ot HcgcI, who was ts toundcr n an cmphatc
scnsc. AndthsmcthodotthoughtandanaIysscannotbcsmpIy
an opposton or ncgaton trom thc outsdc. Kathcr, to usc thc
conccpt that both Marcusc and Adorno dcnthcd as ccntraI to
HcgcI,tmustbcdctcrmnatcncgaton,"ncgatonthatcmcrgcs
out otand s spcchc to what t ncgatcs, and that s part otts
vcrycsscncc.Jhatswhyncgatvc thnkng, ordaIcctcaIthnk-
ng, sbothamcthodand notamcthod.
IrortorcccntcurrcntsotanttoundatonaIsm,aIIotmodcrn
phIosophywasmarkcdbyastruggIc tor mcthod.Jhsmpctus
cxtcnds tromDcscartcs'sDiscourse through Kant's Critique, Hc-
gcI's Phenomenolog and Logc, and Marx's Geran Ideolog to
HusscrI's Ideas and thc wrtngs otthc carIy Wttgcnstcn and
Larnap. Jhc prorty otmcthod s ntmatcIy Inkcd wth thc
dcaotthcsu
_
]cct-cpstcmoIogcaImcthod,IogcaItoundaton,
and thc groundng otknowIcdgc and truth n thc sub]cct arc
XIV
Introduction
partotasngIc hstorcaI pro]cct. Ivcnthccrtgucotthcbour-
gcos noton otthc sub]cctnMarx and crtcaIthcoryscarrcd
out n thc ntcrcst ota Icss rcstrctvc, Icss rcprcssvc, and Icss
rcprcsscd sub]cct. 5ncc Lukcs's announccmcnt, n Histor and
Class Consciousness, that orthodoxy n Marxsm s a mattcr ot
mcthodrathcrthanotcontcnt,thcdcvcIopmcntotMarxanso-
caIthcory has bccn bound upwth thc gucston otthc naturc
otths mcthod and thcrcIatcd gucston otthchstorcaIsub]cct.
JhccrtcaIthcorstsotthcrankturt5chooI,npartcuIar,wcrc
prcoccupcdwth thsgucston, n thcIghtotthcIapsngotthc
rcvoIutonaryworkngcIassasahstorcaIsub]cct.WhcrcasLukcs
dcnthcd thcsub]cctwth thcworkngcIass and thc Lommunst
party, thc crtcaI thcorsts' cconomc, socoIogcaI, and cuIturaI
naIyss, combncdwth thc coursc otpoItcaI cvcnts, couId not

supportths dcnthcaton. Hcncc ncthcr Marcusc nor Adorno
couId anyIongcrtransccnd" HcgcI, as Marxhad, by pro]cctng
HcgcI'scatcgorcsontosocaIcatcgorcs(aIthoughMarcusccon-
tnucd tobcconccrncdwththcgucstonotancmcrgcnthstor-
caI sub]cct)
Jo thc contrary, crtcaI thcoryrcturncd to HcgcI

partIyoutotthcbankruptcyotprccscIythsMarxanovcrcom-
ng"andpro]cctonotHcgcI.
Adorno's thoughtngcncraI, and hsntcrprctatonotHcgcI
n partcuIar, scts tscItan ronc task. thatotdcvcIopng a da-
IcctcaI mcthod, wth ts conncctons to a scIt-rcbcctvc sub]cct,
n a contcxtdch ncd as onc nwhch thc sub]ccthasbccn Igu-
datcdbytsown attcmpttoIgudatc cvcrythngoutsdcottscII
And hs daIcctcaI thought cannot mcrcIy attcmpt to rcsurrcct
thc Igudatcd sub]cct. or a truc, ncgatvc daIcctc must strvc
to attan prccscIy thatothcrncss thatsdcncd by a sub]cct-or-
cntcd daIcctc. JhatswhyAdornodttcrcntatcs hmscIttrom
HcgcI most cmphatcaIIy n rcIaton to thc conccpts ot dcntty
and nondcntty. In a tcIIng and paradoxcaI tormuIaton that
xv
Introduction
IuIIyccsscs Ccnan IdcaIIsn'sacnocducccvcy!Ing
o su5jccncss, HcgcI agucd Io !c IdcnIy oI IdcnIy and
nonIdcnIy.Evcn!aw!Ic!IsnoscsIsano,oousIdc,!c
su5jccand!cconccIsconccIvcdasanoncnoIan undc-
IyIngunIy!aIsIscIIsu5jccandconcc,!usconvcIngcc-
ognIIonoI!cIInIaIonoIaIonaIIyInoa!IddcnaI6naIon
oI I. Adovno's own aoac! o sandIng HcgcI on !Is !cad"
wasoagucccIscIyIo!c nonIdcnIyoIIdcnIyandnon-
IdcnIy".su5jccncssandnInd,In!oscvcyacconIIs!ncns
In w!Ic! !cy!avcnos ccognIzcd w!aIs 5cyond oousIdc
!cn,nussaInowadoncIu!cdIncnsIonoI!c5cyond-
ncss"oI!Is 5cyond,"ccognIzIng!aIIscaIIy5cyond~yc
wI!ou !cc5y cducIng !cnscIvcs o sIavIs! !cconony o
scII-cIIaccncn.
Hcncc Adono's nsIscncc on !c ccInIaI concn oI
HcgcI's !IIoso!y andon!cIncaIvc!aadIaIccIcaI !I-
Ioso!y Inncsc IscII In !c ccIcncc oI !c o5jcc. T!a Is
w!y,Io Adono,!cdIaIccIcaInc!od canno5ccduccdoa
sc oI aIoms o IomuIas. Mc!od In !a scnsc Is In!ccnIy
su5jccIvIsIc, In !a I csuncs !a caIIy convcnIcnIy a-
angcs IscII In accodancc wI! !cosuIacs and cIcc:tccs
oI !oug!. IIdIaIccIcaI hIn!Ing Iso avoId !IsIdcaIIsIcc
sunIon (w!Ic! can casIIy a!c on a nacIaIIsIc Ion, as In
dIaIccIcaI macIaIIsn"), !cn I nus s!ac IscII o !c con-
ousoI!co5jcc~noasanIcducI5IcgIvcn5uiassonc!Ing
wI!IsowncnsIonsandconadIcIons,w!Ic!IncIudc!oscoI
!c !oug! !a Ics o conc!cnd I. T!Is aoac! !oIds
cquaIIyIov!cundcsandIngoI HcgcI'sown!oug!,Ioo!Ing
Io Is u! 5o! In w!a I gass and In w!a I conccaIs, In
w!a I oIns o 5cyond IscII as wcII asIn w!a !ccs I Ion
gasIng!aow!Ic!IoIns,Inw!aIsaysaswcIIasInw!a
IIcsosay5ucannor.
Introduction
Adono'sHegel snonccIyaIcssonnncgavc!n!ng. I
s aIso, I!c aII !s wo!, a Icsson n ncgavc cccncc. Hs
nc!od s an ndssoIu5Ic uny oI !n!ng and cccncng.
!ss!cunIyng!cad!auns!oug!aII !swo!,Ion
Negative Dialectics and!csccssaysonHcgcI!oug!!sanaIyscs
oI nuscaI and Icay wo!s o !s csonaI c8ccons and
a!osns. T!s s c!as w!a nos dsngus!cs Adono's
ccaI !coyIono!ccucnsoInco-Maan!coy. No
onIy s!ouId no 5c undcsood as ncc !coy, s no an
acn(!owcvc awcd) aaunyoI!coyandaccc.Ra!c,
ncnds o 5c an cnscn5Ic !a ncgacs !coy, !c ocn-
aonoIaccc,andcccnccandscns5Iy.Jndcq,Ao-
no'swo!,aIongw!!aoI Bcnjann,spaanagun
!a!cnoono|!:iy,py_ccc,and!cun,as Ioundn
!c Maanadon,sdcIccvc~pccscIy5ccauscoIando
!c ccn oI s ncgIcc oIcccncc. Is !s ascc oI !s
w!asnosadcaIand,osonc,ndgcs5Ic.
Adono'swo!s!usanodcI oIa pacuIawa_oIcpc-
cncng!c woId. I s an cpIc and npIc agncn !a
avccpccnccs!cau!cncIon oIcpccnccIo!osc
w!oIvcn a conadcoy, anagonscsocc_,an upsdc-down,
_gcvccd woId. T!a s w!y Adono's ncnon n Hegel and
{ !s o!c wo! s n Iagc a !c cscvaon, dcvcIoncn,_
and ansnssonoIa scc6ccIaon occcncc,w!c! c-.
Iacsow!a s5y cIang ow!asno,andcIacsow!as
no5ycIangow!as.Ands5ccauscHcgcIan!Ioso!y
s!c hsacuIaonoI!csauaonoIcccnccw!ncg-
avy !a Adonoasscs!a !cscdayss!adIy oss5Ic

Ioa!coccaIdcaoIanyscocodojuscco!ccccncc
oI conscousncss, and n Iac no onIy !c cccncc oI con-
scousncss 5u!c5odIycccnccoI !c!unan5cng,w!-
ou !avng ncooacd sonc!ng oI HcgcI's !Ioso!y."
( Asccs")
XVll
Introduction
t
FoanIndIvIduaIIIvIngIn aconadIco_,gcvccdsocIcy,
IaIccIcaIc_cIcnccIsancsscnIaIvchIcIcIo!cpcscvaIon
no onI_oI !c u!~!ccognIIvc u! a5ou !a socIcy-
5uoI!Iso!cownIdcnI_.T!aIsw!y ncgaIvccpcIcncc
uancxpg;ccnoonI_oI ncgaIon 5uaIsooI aHnatIon. I
Is uc !a nuc! oI !c nodcn ccIcncc oI !c cvccd
woIda!cs!cIon oI InncdIacncgaIon, oInausca,s!oc!,
aIIcnaIon,dIssonancc,anddcsaI. Buw!IIc!cccsaiono!
!IsncgaIonIsaaoI!cu!,IIsonIyaaIaIIydcvcIocd
IonoII.Fo!ccaIu!a5oucaIIyIncIudcsawacncssoI
!cocnIaIIy,!cdcsIc,and!cjusIhcaIonIoansccndIng
!ccvccdwoId.Inusgo5cyond!cncc!ydIaIccIcaIo
w!aHcgcIcaIIs!csccuIaIvc,Inw!Ic!!canagonIsnsoI!c
dIaIccIc ac csoIvcd. T!cIndvIduaI In advanccd caIaIIs s o-
cIcy, w!o ccognIzcst!a no!Ing I!In !a socIcy cscacs
conanInaIon5ydonInaIonand!cconnodIyIncIIc,can
naInaInaucIdcnIyonIy!oug!!cncgaIonoIaII!cgIv-
cnsoI!csuoundIngsocIcyandcuIuc.Suc!ancIscnccIs
govcncd 5yoIcnaIono!cu!. Ic!acs,!oug!dIaIcc-
IcaI!oug!,acIcc,andccIcncc,o!ccsscnccoI!Ings.
Bu!oug!!IscIaIon,IdIsccnsandccIcnccs!cgood,
!cuc,and!c5cauIIuI!oug! !cI dcIonaIons~as !c
ncgaIon oI !c Iac, and as caI In !Is ncgaIon. I usucs
Iccdon and !aIncss in a ccssIvc and ocssIvc socIcy
wI!ouIdcoIogIcaIIydcnyIng !IsccssIonandocssIon. I
usucs!cIIIcoIacIIcaIIncIIccwI!ousuIIcIng!cdcIo-
naIonand IgIdIIcaIonoIccIcncc!aIs!cnonaI Ion
oIIncIIccuaI IIIcIncaIaIIssocIcy.
Bo! Macusc'sReaon an Revolution and Adono'sHegel: Three
Studies acwo!soI !ccIIcaI!coIssas cac!csw!owano
assonoacuaIo ocnIaI sudcns!cooIsoI!oug!!a
wIII cna5Ic!cn o cay ou!c dIIcuIas!s InvoIvcd In !c
cIIcaIanaIysIsoI!cwoIdandoI!oug!.Macuscand Adono
Introduction
accac!csnoascoundcsoI docInc,!owcvc,5uasIn-
cccsoIcs!aacanong!cnosdIIhcuIandcona-
dIcoyoInodcn!oug!.cs!a,dcsIc!cIcn!asIson
cason, aca !cncIcand,as Adono sacs,occasIonaIIyun-
dccI!ca5Ic. In 5o! wo!sonc dcccs!c a!os oIcac!cs
w!oacconccncdIcsacandccIousooIs!acan accon-
IIs! navcIs IaII Ino dIsusc suc! !a Iuuc gcncaIons nay
no Iongc 5c a5Ic o nac! !cI anccsos' ac!Icvcncns, !c
way c!as Iac-Ronan IIcaI nay !avc vIcwcd !c adIIon
oI !coIc, o !cway caIscoIcnay Ioo!a!c sccIaIIzcd
!nowIcdgc!aIsIosInnassoducIonandauonaIon.
T!us w!IIc Hegel: Three Studies Is ccaInIy a wo! oI HcgcI
sc!oIas!IandInccaIon,IIsaIsoawo!oIcdagogy.OI
Adono's wIIngs I Is c!as!c cIoscs o ccscnIng !c
IncIIccuaI anos!ccandsyIcoIwo!IngoIAdono'sPhilo
sophisches Haupteminar (P!IIoso!y ScnIna) a !c )o!ann
WoIIgangCoc!cUnIvcsIyInFan!IuduIng!cIasdccadc
oIAdono'sIIIc,w!cn!c!ad5cconconcoIoswaCcnany's
!IIoso!IcaI IunInaIcs and In8ucnIaI cac!cs. T!c P!IIo-
so!Isc!cs HauscnInawasgIvcncvcyscncscandwasdc-
vocdaInosccIusIvcIyo!cInaywo!soI Kanand HcgcI.
I was In !csc scnInas~as wcII as In cIacd Iccucs a !c
UnIvcsIy~!a Adono !IIoso!IcaIIy eIa5oacd !c ncga-
IvcdIaIccIcs oI !IsIac!oug!. T!csc scnInas andIccucs
wccaInayIn8ucnccon!cIncIIccuaIIcadcsoI!c Cc-
nan Ncw Lcu. AIcqucnIyoIdsudcn jo!cIn Fan!Iuwcn,
T!cRcvoIuIonIs5ca!Ingouon!cscc.Too5ad~Ican'
nIssAdono'sIccuc."
T!c Icaucs oIAdono's !IIoso!IcaI scnInas !a sand
ouInccoIIccIon hguconIncnIy In !c HcgcIcssaysaswcII.
T!c hswasadIaIogucanong!ccaIcIans. Kan, HcgcI,
andAdono(and Ma Ho!!cIncw!cn!cwassIIIaIcIa-
xix
Introduction
Ing In !c scnIna), In w!Ic! Adono acncd o 5Ing ou
5o!!ccIaIvcu!concnand!ccIaIvcIInIaIonoIKan
andHcgcIIncIaIonooncano!c,agaIns!c5ac!goundoI
MaIan,nacIaIIsassunIons.AdonovIndIcacd5o! HcgcI's
aguncnagaIns Kan~!a!cIInIaIonsoIcasonsc5y Kan
aIcady InIIcd !c ansccndcncc oI !csc IInIs~and Kan's
aguncn Io !cncccssIy oI sonc!Ing ousIdc !c oaIIzIng
cndcncy oI!oug!. T!csccondwas!cccnaIIy oI !c Hc-
gcIIancacgoyoIncdIaIonocvcyasccoIdIaIccIcaI!In!-
Ing. Mos oI !c!IIoso!IcaI cuxcns and sc!ooIs oI !oug!
oI5o! HcgcI'sdayandouownosI,asa5soIucsoIcducI-
5Ic gIvcns, IncIIcs o cnIIcs !a ac In Iac !c csuIs oI
a5sacIono noncnsInoccsscsousIdc!cnscIvcs !a!cy
do noa!cIno accoun~!cIaddc!a!cy !avc cIIn5cdu
and !own away,ouscWIgcnscIn's !asc. T!caInoIdIa-
IccIcaI!In!IngIso!In!noa5sacIy5uconcretely, 5yundc-
sandIngIdcasandcaIIIcsIn!cconadIcIonsoI!cIsccIhc
concsand occsscsa!c !an In a5sacIon"Ion !csc
concsandoccsscs~ou!cIaddc5ac!Ino!c!oug!.
AndIo!ccIIcaI!coIss!ccIcvanconcsandoccsscs
acsocIaI,cuIuaI,syc!oIogIcaI,andIncIIccuaI~!cyac!Is-
oIcaI!oug!and!oug!. In!cscnInas!csudyoIKan
and HcgcIwascaIcdouIn!Isvcyway,!oug!ncIcuIous
dIaIccIcaIexplication de texte, oIw!Ic!!ccssayS!ocInos"gIvcs
sonc canIcs. And yIcaIIy !c scncsc-Iong scnIna dc-
vocd,IocanIc,oHcgcI'sPhenomenology of Mind wouId!avc
aIvcda!ccIg!!ocn!agc5y!ccndoI!ccn~wI!
ascnscoIc!auscdac!Icvcncn,andcadyIoadIIIccnwo!
!cIoIIowIngcn.
No onIy dId !ccIIcaI !coIss cndcavoo hnd !cu!
concnoI!c!IIoso!IcaIadIIon!oug!acIIcaIconc-
!cnsIonoII!aa!csaccounoIIscnncs!ncnInaconccc
x
Introduction
!Isoy !a Is !c !Isoy oI con5Icsa5ou donInaIon,cnan-
cIaIon,cason,Iccdon,!aIncss,wo!,co,anduoIan
sIvIngs. T!cy wancd,aIso, o Ican andcac! how to read and
understand !c!IIoso!IcaIadIIon IscII. T!c hsgcncaIon
oI Fan!Iu Sc!ooIcIIcaI!coIsssoodInaIadIIIccnc-
IaIono!c!IIoso!IcaIadIIonoICcnanIdcaIIsn!ando
!osc w!o ac hs cncouncIng I oday. In nany ways, Ma-
cusc'sand Adono'sIncIIccuaIcnvIonncnandaInIngwcc
as cIosc o !osc oI Kan and HcgcI aso!osc oI !c cscn.
Yc 5o! aug! wo!s oI Kan and HcgcI In !c unIvcsIIcs,
acossgca!IsoIcaIc!asns.Macuscaug!HcgcIosudcns
InAncIcaIna!IIoso!IcaIIyaIIcncnvIonncn,and Adono
aug! oa gcncaIon oI Ccnan sudcnsdIsanccd Ion !Is
own 5y !c T!Id RcIc!. Wc !oc !a !Is u5IIcaIon In En-
gIIs!oIAdono'sHcgcIcssays,In!cIasdccadcoI!cccnuy,
wIIIconI5uco!cccuaIonandcIa5oaIonoIdIaIccIcaI
!In!IngandccIcnccacossycano!c!IsoIcaIdIvIdc.
RescuingHegel~andonlyrescue,notrevival,isappropriateforhim~
meansfacinguptohisphilosophywhereitismostpainfulandwresting
truthfromitwhereitsuntruthisobvious.
"The Experiential Content ofHegel's Philosophy"
Adono'sHegel: Three Studies a!cs!cIonoI anccncand
ovocaIvcdcIcnscoI!cu!concnIn HcgcI's!IIoso!y.
WIIngIn!cIac I950sandcaIy I960s,AdonodcIcnds HcgcI
noonIyagaIns!cdIsnIssaIsanddIsoIons!cncucn~!c
osIIvIs'sdIsnIssaIoI!InasunIncIIIgI5Ico!c SovIc Ma-
Is'sIdcoIogIcaIvcsIonoI!cdIaIccIc~5uaIsoagaIns!cII5-
caI's Iu!cwan !onagc o HcgcI's scnsc oI !IsoIcaI caIIy.
CcaInIy!oscvIcwsoI HcgcIcsIs. Buoday Adono'sc-
scnaIonoIHcgcIIssaIIngcvcnwI!In!cconcoI!ccon-
XI
Introduction
cnoay wavcoI InccsIn HcgcI InIIacd 5y!c Fan!Iu
Sc!ooI'sownouIaIyIn!Iscounyand!cncInIoccd5y
!c Fcnc! vIa dcconsucIon. Adono'sHegel cnInds us!a
nowasnuc!asIn I956,w!cn!c6soI!csccssayswasgIvcn
asaIccuc,IIsnoaqucsIonoIw!aIsIIvIngandw!aIsdcad
InHcgcI~!cqucsIonwI!w!Ic!CoccInIIacd!cwcnIc!-
ccnuyHcgcIcvIvaI~5uaqucsIonoIw!a!ccscnncans
In!cIaccoIHcgcI."Adonocscnsa HcgcIcad agaIns!c
gaInand Ion !ccsccIvcoIacIIqucoI!IIoso!yasan
IsoIacd dIscIIInc, 5u a HcgcI w!o Is sIII, !c agucs, unsu-
asscd 5y any wcnIc!-ccnuy !IIoso!y. T!c Fan!Iu
Sc!ooI'scIIcaI!coyoIsocIcyccscncdInsonccsccsa
cuno HcgcIIon Ma,andInsonccsccsAdono'sHegel
scvcsoaIcuIacAdono'sown!IIoso!IcaIcncIscaswcII.
)us as HcgcI's !IIoso!y acns o 5Ing o scII-conscIous-
ncss !c Ia5os oI sII u o !Is Inc, so Adono's wo! Is a
scII-c8ccIon oI !a In HcgcI w!Ic! !ad no 5ccn 5oug!o
conscIousncss wI!In HcgcI's own wo!. In !Is csccas wcII,
HcgcI scvcs as a dcIcnsc oI !c concnoay cIcvancc oI
Adonoand!cFan!IuSc!ooI.
T!caInoIHegel: Three Studies, AdonocIIsusIn!IscIacc,
Is ocac ancwconccIon oI!cdIaIccIc." T!cdIaIccIc
wo!s !oug! Innancn cIIcIsn, and !Is Is !c aoac!
Adonoa!csIn !IsdcIcnsc oI HcgcI. I Is !oug! Innancn
cIIcIsn!aAdonoaac!s!cu!cIaInsoI!cvaIoussc!ooIs
oI !oug!~osIIvIsn, CcsaI syc!oIogy, !cnoncnoIogy,
cIscnIaI onoIogy, dIaIccIcaI nacIaIIsn~!a cIaIno !avc
suasscd HcgcI. Moc Inoan, HcgI !InscII, !oug! In-
nancncIIcIsn,wIIIIcad!oug!o!ancwconccIonoI!c
dIaIccIc,!c ncgaIvcdIaIccIcs"AdonocoundcdIn!cwo!
oI!a nanc u5IIs!cds!oIyaIcHegel. T!c ncgaIvcdIaIcc-
IcIswon5y wcsIng,"as Adonosays,!cu!concnIon
xxii
Introduction
HcgcI's !IIoso!y ccIscIyw!ccIsunu! Isnoso5vIous.
AccodIngIy,IIso!c s!andaIon"oI HcgcI's!IIoso!y~Is
sccuIaIvca5soIucIdcaIIsn,!aw!Ic!IsmosIadcd,nosdIs-
ccdIcd,nosounodcdInI,cvcnasooI!IIoso!IcaI!Isc!-
!a Adono uns o 6nd a dIaIccIc !a na!cs oon Io !c
conIngcn, !c aIcuIa, !cnonIdcnIcaI. SccuIaIon Is no,
AdonocIIsus,sonc!IndoI ou5IcsonconancnaIon",on
!cconay, HcgcI's su5sanIvcInsIg!s . . . ac oduccd 5y
sccuIaIon" .
Becauseofhisidealism, Hegelhasbeenreproachedwithbeingabstract
incomparisonwiththeconcretenessofthephenomenological,anthro-
pological,andontological schools. Buthebroughtinhnitelymorecon-
creteness into this philosophical idea than those approaches, and not
becausehis speculative imaginationwasbalancedby asenseofreality
butbyvirtueoftheapproachh|sphilosophytakes~byvirtue,onemight
say,oftheexperientialcharacterofhisspeculationitself.(Experiential
Content)
Howcan !Is 5cso. Onc oI Adono's answcsIs!a!cdI-
aIccIc In a5soIuc IdcaIIsn Is conccIvcd non!Icac!IcaIIy. I Is
ncI!c a nIddIc 5cwccn ccncs no a su5sunIon oI !c
cononcnaundcasyn!cIcw!oIc(Io!Iscasonoo,!c
dIaIccIc Isno a nc!od no Is HcgcI's wo! a syscn). Tu!
cncgcs Ion a dIaIccIcaI IncIay oI su5jcc and o5jcc, oI
aIcuIa and w!oIc, oI ncdIacd and unncdIacd. AI!oug!
!ccIsnosuc!!Ingas!cucgIvcnoInncdac,!cuc
cnIIcaI daun, oscvc as asaIng oIn~an co!a,as
AdonooInsou, 5o! cnIIcIsn andIs IaIonaIIs cIIcs
na!c~a su5jcc conccIvcd InoosIIonocnIIcaI caIIy Is
aIso InossI5Ic, a ncc cny su5jccIvIsn. AII InccaIons
oI HcgcI !a cnd 5y dIsnIssIng!In IaII o acconnodac !Is
non!Icac!IcaIconccIonoI!cdIaIccIc.IIu!IsoccssIn
!Isscnsc,IIsaIsoconccc.T!cnovcncnoI!oug!Isow-
Introduction
ccd5y!cscII-c8cconoI !csu5jccacnngoconccvc
caIy, and uInacIy !c a5soIucncss oI dcaIsn o5Icacs
!c dsncon 5cwcn su5jcc and o5jcc. II, as n HcgcI,n
!coaIycvcy!nguInacIycoIIascsno!csu5jccasa5-
soIuc s,dcaIsn!cc5ycanccIsscII ou,5ccauscnodI-
Iccncc cnans !oug! w!c! !c su5jcc couI5cdcn6cd
assonc!ngdsnc,assu5jcc,"( EccnaIConcn").SII,
HcgcI!adacncdoIonuIac!cdaIcccand!csu5jcc-
o5jcc as a5soIuc su5jcc. Hcncc !c nonsu5suna5Iy oI !c
acuIa 5cconcs aacn a !c sanc nc HcgcI's !Ioso-
!ydcncs.HcgcI's!Ioso!ys!usscII-conadcoy5ys
own ccon,and s!cccon,!c daIccc, !a Adono
hoIdsou,agansHcgcI,as!c5cacoI!cu!concn.
Ano!coIAdono'sanswcso!cqucsonoI!owsccuIa-
oncanscII5c!ccccnaIconcnoI HcgcI's!Ioso!y
andcanacconnodacconcccncssa!cs!cIonoI!sdcvcI-
oncnoI HcgcI'snoonoI!c"Arbeit des B
e
grffs," !cIa5ooI
!c concc. T!c Ia5o oI !c s~!c suggIcs oI u! n
occss,!ccconsoIncIIccuaIacvy,!ccIIosnvoIvcd
n wcsng HcgcI'su! Ion!s unu!~sa IonoIIa5o
nscII.IsaIso,Adonondcacs,socaIIa5ocscncdn!c
guscoIIogc,and HcgcI'sa5soIuc ssnonco!c!anso-
ccy. T!c nyscy 5c!nd syn!cc acccon . . . snonc
o!c!ansocaIIa5o" ("Asccs").W!Ic!sanswcng!casIy
5csccnassocoIogsn,"anco-MassandngoI HcgcI on!s
!cad,AdonocscucsandgvcsaIu!cws.Inaoudc
Iocc !oug! w!c! !c wcss u! cvcn Ion HcgcI's nos
nooouswo!,w!snosnooous!css~!cPhilosophy of
Right andsnoon!aw!ascaIsaonaI~AdonodcvcI-
os!cnoonoIanagonscoaIy. T!cuInacu!oIw!a
snos acnIyIaIsc anddcoIogcaIn HcgcI~!scquaonoI
cason w! caIy and n acuIa w! !c sac~s !a, as
XXIV
Introduction
!Isoy!ass!own,caIIy!as5cconcccIscIy!c!IndoIsys-
cn and oaIIy HcgcI ooscd I o 5c. I Isan anagonIsIc
oaIIy, a oaIIy onIy5yvIucoI IsconadIcIons,anda sys-
cnInw!Ic!!cIndIvIduaIIscvcyw!ccgovcncd5y!cInvIs-
I5IcoaIIzIng wc5oIguII"!aIs!ccsIscnccoIuncason.
In!IsIIg!, HcgcI's!IIoso!y5cconcscIIcaInoonIyoI!c
dcaIIs5uoI!cncgaIvcw!oIc.
Hegel'sphilosophyisindeedessentiallynegative.critique.Inextending
thetranscendentalphilosophyoftheCritique ofPure Reason throughthe
thesis ofreason's identity withwhatexists and makingitacritiqueof
whatexists,acritiqueofanyandeverypositivity,Hegeldenouncedthe
world,whosetheodicyconstituteshisprogram,initstotalityaswell,he
denounceditasawebofguilt[Schuldzua11lenhang inwhich,asMeph-
istophelessaysinFaut, everythingthatexistsdeservestoperish. (As-
pects)
T!c dIsIncIon 5cwccn Ia5o and nauc, 5cwccn oduccs
and owncs, Is w!a oduccs socIcy as anagonIsIc oaIIy.
Adono's noIon uns on !c Idca !a Ia5o IscII !as, In !Is
scnsc, a ocssIvcascc,!aIIsno-and!ccAdonoa!cs
Issuc wI! Ma's ccIc5acd cIIquc oI HcgcI~!c soIc o-
ducc oI vaIuc. II HcgcI cscncd a IaIsc cconcIIIaIonIn!c
Philosophy of Right, HcgcI's!IIoso!y,InaIcasaInIngowad
agcnuIncIycconcIIcdw!oIc,conaInsanoncnoIuoIan!oc
!aIscIscw!ccIos. T!cayoIIIg!!acvcaIs!cw!oIco
5cunucInaIIIsnoncnsIsnonco!c!anuoIa,!cuo-
IaoI!cw!oIcu!,w!Ic!IssIIIo5ccaIIzcd"( EcIcnIaI
Concn").
T!cnoIonoIsII'sIa5oIsInIac!c!cyoAdono'sInc-
tcaIon oI HcgcI and !IsdcIcnscoI HcgcI'stu!. S!t!'s la-
5o Is !c dIaIccIcaI noo, !c c8ccIon oI cac! sac oI
conscIousncssInIsIInIaIon,!aIoccs!IIoso!yo5cconc
conccc and cnds 5y pcncaIng, as Adono says, !cIdca oI
xxv
Introduction
oaIIy wI! !cIdcaoI conadIcIon. AndIIs !aIa5o !a
Icads !IIoso!y ou oI Is a5sac scaaIon Ion cnIIcaI
caIIyand!cconIngcn. In!cPhenomenolog of Spirit, a!Ing
as!Is cIIcaI oInoI dcauc w!aIs cIoscs o !and, unnc-
dIacd !unan conscIousncss, [HcgcI| acconIIs!cs !c ncdIa-
IonoI!aconscIousncssInand!oug!!c!IsoIcaInovcncn
oI w!a cIss,anovcncn !a a!csI5cyond aII ncc nca-
!ysIcsoI5cIng. OnccscIn noIon,!cconccIzaIonoI !I-
Ioso!ycanno5csocd Io!csa!coI!IIoso!y'sIIIusoy
dIgnIy"(EcIcnIaIConcn").La5o,!c!cncoIAdono's
Innancn cIIcIsn oI HcgcI, Is aIso !c!cnc oI S!ocInos,"
:c!IdoI!Is!cccssayson HcgcI. S!ocInos"~!cIIcaI-
Iudcs o Adono's dcIcnsc oI !c o5scuc" HcacIIcs as o-
oscdo !c cIca" Dcscacs~!asancIIcIIycdagogIcaIaIn.
Idaws,asAdonocIIsusIn !Is cIacc,dIccIyon!Is cc-
Icncc cac!Ing HcgcI a !c UnIvcsIy In Fan!Iu and Is a
!IndoIoIcgoncnon ocadIng HcgcI~noacadIngoI HcgcI
sonuc!asadIscussIonoIw!aIsInvoIvcdIn !acadIng.T!c
IssucIncadIng HcgcI,as HcgcI!InscII!adoIncdouIn!c
cIacco!cPhenomenolog, w!Ic!scvcsInIswayasanodcI
Io S!ocInos,"Is!aIncIIIgI5IIIy (Io Adono, cIaIy) Isno
cadIIyaaIncd 5yuc!IIoso!y. T!cqucsIonIsw!aona!c
oI HcgcI's Iac! oI cIaIy, !owo undcsand !c u! concn
oI !a vcy uncIaIy. T!c conIcncnay qucsIon Is !ow o
cad HcgcIoducIvcIy,In!cway!au!concncquIcs,
so!a!cIa5os!a!avcgoncIno!cwIIng,andnusgo
Ino!ccadIng,oI HcgcI's!IIoso!yacnoInvaIn.
Adonouscs!cdIIcuIIcsoIcadIngHcgcI~!aaIncsI
Is InossI5IcodccI!c a assagc, !a HcgcI wasno cacIuI
In !Is usc oI Ianguagc, !a !c oIcn nadc asscIons wI!ou
acuaIIy IoIIowIng!oug!on!caguncnaIon,andsoon~o
oIn ua o5Icn!agocsIa5cyondanycnIIcaIosu5-
xxvi
Introduction
jccIvc wca!ncss on HcgcI's a. Fo !cdII6cuIIcs Inundc-
sandIngHcgcIaco5jccIvc,and!cydcIvcInaIIyIon!c
naucoI!oug!and IscIaIonoIanguagc. Hcnccnuc!oI
"S!ocInos"Isanaac! on!cdcsIdcaunoIcIaIyaswchnd
IIn Dcscacs. T!cdcnandIocIaIycsuoscs!a!co5-
jcc oI !oug! !as 5ccn acIIy cIoncd o aIIow !c coc-
sondcnccoI!oug!andIso5jcc.II HcgcI'scsdIIIcIon
adIIonaI!IIoso!IcaIcs,w!Ic!aIcasna!caccnscoI
IogIcaIcosIIon!aIscIcaacvcyoIn,IIsInancIIo o
dojusIccoanac!a5yIsvcynauccvadcs!Is!IndoI
cIaIy, !IIoso!y, In Adono's IonuIaIon, Is "Iaccd wI! a
aado. o say cIcaIy sonc!Ing !a Is uncIca, !a !as no
6 nouIInc,!adocsnoacconnodacocIhcaIon."T!cdI-
aIccIc o w!Ic! !IIoso!y nus su5nI In !Isacn Is !c
dIaIccIcoI IanguagcIscII,w!Ic!!as5o!anccssIvc and a
connunIcaIvccIcncn.T!cconnunIcaIvcascc,w!Ic!can-
no 5c cnounccd, can ncvc 5c IuIIy adcquac o a dIaIccIcaI
u!,andAdonodcIcndsHcgcI'scson!Is5asIs.
In Hegel nothing can be understood in isolation, everythingis to be
understoodonlyinthecontextofthewhole,withtheawkwardqualih-
cationthatthe wholeinturnlivesonlyintheindividual moments. In
actuality,however,thiskindofdoublenessofthedialecticeludesliter-
arypresentation,whichisofnecessityhnitewhenitunequivocallystates
somethingequivocal.Thisiswhyonehastomakesomanyallowances
foritinHegel.Thatitcannotinprincipleachievetheunityofthewhole
anditspartsatoneblowbecomesitsweak spot. Everysingle sentence
in Hegel's philosophyprovesitselfunsuitableforthatphilosophy, and
the formexpresses thisinitsinabilityto grasp anycontent withcom-
pleteadequacy.(Skoteinos)
As a conscqucncc oI !cscdIaIccIcs, HcgcI's wo!s, wI!!cI
cquIvocaIons,!cIIac!oIconsIscnaguncnaIon,and!cI
Iac! oI IuII cdIIng 5y !cI au!o, 5cconc "anIcs"~"II
xxvii
Introduction
csscd,oncnaycgad!cPhenomenolog asa5oo!,wI!!c
Science of Logic !IsIsnoIongcossI5Ic,"saysAdono~cc-
scnIng 5y !cI vcy Ion a cIIquc oI a IaIscIy !anonIous
noIonoIcscnaIon
Thata thoughtthatmade such extravagantclaims should have fore-
gonetransmissioninspecihc, dehnitive formcanbeexplainedonl, in
termsofitsidealofpresentation, thenegationofpresentation. Atthe
same time, inthe looseness ofa delivery thateven when moshighly
elaboratedismorespokenthanwritten,onecanlookforacorrectiveto
thehubrisoftheconclusiveanddehnitiveofwhich Hegel's workwas
accusedevenduringhislifetime.(Skoteinos)
InIIIunInaIng!cconccoI!cnonIdcnIcaIwI!InHcgcI's
wo!,AdonoacIIycIIcacsandjusIhcs!IsowndIaIccIcaI-
cIIcaInc!odand!IsownconnIncno!cnonIdcnIcaI.Vc
IIIunInacs !osc asccs oI HcgcI !a nos cscn5Ic !Is on
!ougnandIonw!Ic!!c!asIcancd!cnos.Adono's
c-
IcnscoI HcgcI'scsInS!ocInos"cc!ocs!IsdIscussIonoI!c
cssay Ion and!Is cIIquc oI!c CacsIan noIon oIcIaIy In
T!c Essayas Fon," !c Icad cssayIn !Is Notes to Literature
w!Ic!dacsIon!csanc cIodas!chsoI!Is HcgcIcssays.
Hegel: Three Studies as a w!oIc, In Iac, Is oug!Iy concnoa-
ncouswI!!cnajoIyoI!ccssayscoIIcccdInAdono'sNot
e
s
to Literature, !ccIodInncdIacIycccdIngandovcIaI
g
wI! !coducIonoI !Is Ias,Iagc-scaIc wo!s,Negative t-
alectics andAesthetic Theor. Adono'sdIscussIonoI!cdcnands
HcgcI'scsna!cuonhccadcvaIsInsIIIgcacIc!-
ncss!c!Ins!I5cwccnAdonoandHcgcI.Adono'scssayIsIIc
wo!onIIcayandnusIcaIcsandacs!
tIcIssucsIsIonu-
IacdIncnsoI!csancdIaIccIcoI!oug!andIanguagcwc
sccIn S!ocInos." In !a5odyoIwo!~!ccssay Pcsuo-
sIIons," In !c sccond voIunc oI Notes to Literature, Is a good
canIc~AdonocIa5oacsaconccIonoI!ccIIcaIccII-
xviii
Introduction
cn's sancc owad acs!cc o ncIIccuaI o5jccs, o geistige
Gebilde. Isasanccc!aacczcd5y!cscac!IoncIIg5Iy
as ooscd o a sc undcsandng 5ascd on cIay, jus as
Adono ooscs Io !c cadc oI HcgcI.W!a Adono says
a5oucadngHcgcIsnIacquccIoscow!a!csaysno!c
concsa5ou!ccccnaIacvyoI!csu5jccoIacs!cc
cccncc.
No doubt Hegel's style goes against customary philosophical under-
standing,yetinhisweaknesseshepavesthewayforadifferentkindof
understanding, one mustread Hegelby describing alongwithhim the
curvesofhis intellectual movement,byplayinghisideaswiththespec-
ulativeearasthoughtheyweremusical notes. Philosophyasawholeis
allied withartinwanting to rescue, inthe medium oftheconcept,the
mimesisthattheconceptrepresses.(Skoteinos)
Rcadng w! !c sccuIavc ca~!c !asc dcvcs og-
naIIyIonKc!cgaad~saIonuIaonIoa!ndoIacs!cc
"acaoyIoIIowng!oug!,"oMitvollzug, !adcnandsa
duaI acvy on !c a oI !c cadc.On !c onc !and, !c
cadcnuscngagcna!ndoIconcnIavcassvy~Adono
uscs !c !cnoncnoIogcaI cn "sonancouscccvy"~n
w!c!s!csnIy8oasaIong,usngw!asccnso5c!cncn-
onoI!cw!oIcasagudcoundcsandng.T!scocsonds
o !c "snIyIoo!ng on" o "reines Zusehen, " oI !cnoduc-
onoHcgcI'sPhenomenolog, w!c!Adononvo!csccacdIy.
A!csancnc,!ccadc'sacvysoncoInncsonn!c
ccsc wodng,a!ndoIscII-IogcIuInncsonndcaIsn
w!c!,aadocaIIy,!ccadc'ssu5jccvcassocaons,w!c!
acsu5scqucnIyc!cc!cdagans!cc,acoI!cunosn-
oancc."HcgcI!aso5ccadagans!cgan,andnsuc!a
way!acvcyIogcaIocaon,!owcvcIonaIsccnso5c,
scduccdoscccnaIcoc.T!ccquvaIcnoIsuc!cc-
cncc n !c cadc s !c nagnaon....T!c concn scII
XI
Introduction
conaIns, as a Iaw oI Is Ion, !c cccaIon oI oducIvc
InagInaIonon!caoI!conccadIng"( S!ocInos").
T!Is!IndoIInagInaIvcacIvIy,connono5o!!IIoso!y
anda,Is!ccounca5o!oIsII'snIncIcIa5osandoI
!c cquIvocaIons wI!In !c wo! !a ccc Ianguugc's duaI
nauvc. Sonancous cccIvIy cquIcsan ocnncsso!cdI-
aIccIcaI occsscs In!ccnIn!co5jcc~!c Ia5ooI!ccon-
cc" Is 5o!!cIa5o In!ccn In !oug!, w!Ic! Is5ynauc
dIaIccIcaI,and !cIa5oIn!ccnInIoIIowIngan o5jcc!aIs
5y nauc dIaIccIcaI. T!oug! InIacs !cdIaIccIcaI nonIdcn-
IyoIcaIIy,Inw!Ic!!csu5jccaIcIacs.Languagc,w!Ic!
InIsconnunIcaIvcasccaIcIacsIn!ccIaIyoIconcc-
uaI IogIc, aIso aIcIacs In!c nIncsIs oI !c nonIdcnIcaI.
T!c wod !a Adonouscs as avIuaI hgucIo!IsnInsIs
acasIn!ccIga!IoS!ocInos"aswcII. Ic!!a5cnIc!s
aIs Rausc!cn,"aIIncIon1!coc RudoII Boc!ad,Ioasc-
IccIonoIw!osc wo! AdonoIacu5IIs!cdanInoducIon,
nowIoundIn!csccondvoIuncoINotes to Literature. Rauschen
(w!Ic! aIso,asRausch, ncans ccsasyoInoIcaIon)Is!cwod
uscd Io !c nunuIng oI a us!Ing 5oo! o !c usIIng oI
!cwIndIn!cccso!csugIngoIwavcsona5cac!. IcIcs
oIanguagc'sscnsuousasccand5cyond!ao!cwayInw!Ic!
Ianguagc'sIncIIIgI5Ic5u IndIsIncacIvIy~w!aAdonocIsc
w!cc caIIa IogIcIy"~InIacs !cnovcncnoI concccnon-
IdcnIcaIcaIIy.
T!c InInac nIncIc cIaIons!I 5cwccn !c nonIdcnIcaI
and!cIa5ooIsIIIscn5odIcdIn!cnosoIgnannoncn
oIAdono'sHegel, anoncn!aIsaIsoaoudcIocc.Adono's
dcIcnscoI HcgcIagaIns!cc!agcoI 5cIng !cuIInac5ou-
gcoIs!IIoso!cand!IssInuIancousjusIhcaIonoI!c5ou-
gcoIsso5cncssInHcgcI,adcIcnscandajusIhcaIon!a,II!c
Adono'scIIqucoI !cnoIonoIcIaIy,Is aIso Adono'sscII-
Introduction
dcIcnsc!oug! !cncdIunoI HcgcI. Adonocvo!csw!aIs
nos conIngcn and nos nonIdcnIcaI. HcgcI In !c 8cs!,
sca!Ing,HcgcIwI!!IsSwa5IandIaIccand!IsIaIn5ougcoIs
Iacc. Bu w!a Is nos conIngcn and nos nonIdcnIcaI, !c
cson oI HcgcI, Is aIso !cIocus oI !c IncIay oI sII and
cs!, !c Iocus oI !c IndIvIduaI ccIons cquIcd Io!c IIIc
oI !c sII, ccIons !a ac a !c sanc Inc a dcII5cac
dIvcsIucoI !cscII. T!IsnoIon oI!cdIvcscdscII Is!caI-
ccdconccoIccIcncc!aa!cs!cIaccoIw!awc!In!
oIassu5jccIvcccIcncc."
In cvo!Ing !c sca!Ing cson oI HcgcI, Adono acIccs
!IsownscII-dIvcsIuc. IIsunusuaIIo!InocIcanyonc5u
HcgcI In !c 5oo!, 5u !cc !c gIvcs !c oo, a Icng!, o
H. C. Ho!o, w!o !cad HcgcI Iccuc In BcIIn and w!o dc-
scI5cs!InasIoIIows(!ccInWaIc KauInann'scndcIng).
Exhausted, morose, he satthereasifcollapsed intohimself,his head
bentdown,andwhilespeakingkeptturningpagesandsearchinginhis
long folio notebooks, forward and backward, highand low. His con-
stantdearingofhisthroatandcoughinginterruptedanyowofspeech.
Everysentencestoodaloneandcameoutwitheffort,cutinpiecesand
jumbled. Everyword, everysyllabledetacheditselfonlyreluctantlyto
receivea strangely thorough emphasis from the metallic-empty voice
withitsbroadSwabiandialect. (Skoteinos)
W!aoncsccs!ccIn!cconIngcn,noaI, cs!Iy !unan5cIng
Is In Iac !c acIvIy oI sII IscII wI!In !c IndIvIduaI con-
scIousncss. IIs !oug! In acIon wc ac sccIng. Ho!o sca!s
agaIn.
He faltered even in thebeginning, tried to goon,started oncemore,
stoppedagain,spokeandpondered,therightwordseemedtobemiss-
ingforever, butthenitscoredmostsurely . . . . Nowonehadgrasped
theclearmeaningofasentenceandhopedmostardentlytoprogress.
Invain.Insteadofmovingforward,thethoughtkeptrevolvingaround
xxxi
Introduction
thesamepointwithsimilarwords. . . . Slowlyanddeliberately,making
useofseeminglyinsignihcantlinks,somefullthought. . . limiteditself
to the point ofone-sidedness. . . . split itselfinto distinctions and in-
volveditselfi contradictionswhosevictorioussolutioneventulyfound
the strength to compelthe reunihcation ofthe mostrecalcitrant elc-
ments.Thusalwaystakingupagaincarefullywhathadgonebeforein
orderto develop outofitmore profoundlyina differentformwhat
camelater,. . . themostwonderfulstreamofthoughttwistedandpressed
andstruggled.(Skoteinos)
In!Isscnscw!awc!In!oIassu5jccIvcccIcnccIsInIac
!coosIc,acson!ooducIydcvocdo!co5jccIvIyoI
Iswo!. ByaII!csu5jccIvcncansavaIIa5IcoI,!c!IIoso-
!c'sscIIcIIaccsIscIIIn!cu!oIIso5jcc.Innoscnscdocs
Adono's cvocaIon oI !c cson oI HcgcI ccscn a 5Io-
ga!IcaIInccaIonoI!Is!oug!,a!c!an!c!oug!
ccssIng!cnan,!cIIIcoI!cnan!InscII5cconcs!cIIIc
oI sII. LI!c !csu5jccoI !Is!coIcs,!c nan HcgcI!ad
a5so5cd5o! su5jcc and o5jccIno !InscIIInsII, !cIIIc
oI!IssIIIsaIIoIIIIcagaInwI!InIscII " (Asccs").Wcnay
!In! oI HcgcI as !avIng an IncIIccuaI 5ody," says Adono,
and!Is!IIoso!yoo "rucht"; InunusandusIcsInnI-
ncsIsoI!cnonIdcnIcaI. IIsIn!Isscnsc!a HcgcI's!IIos-
o!yIsancprcssIonoIccIcncc,!IIoso!yIs!cccssIon
oIsII,w!Ic!Is!cncgaIonoIscIIIn!cnaca!and.
IIsInoan!a!Isno5cundcsoodassInIyanac
oI su5IInaIon o scII-ansccndancc, !c eIcncn oIIa5o,c-
cIon,andIscIaIononoaIIyIscIcaIycscn.ScII-dIvcs-
IucIn!cacIvIyoIsIIIsa!Inodca!,!cIIIcoI!csII
!as a !Ins!I wI! noaIIy and dca!. In Adono's wods,
HcgcI's dcncano, IuII oI suIIcIng,!Is councnancc avagcd
5y !oug!, !c Iacc oI onc w!o !as IIcaIIy consuncd !In-
scII unII !c Is no noc !an as!cs, 5ca wIncss o !Is scII-
dIvcsIuc"(Asccs").IIccIcnccIs!ccocoIHcgcI's!I-
XXXll
Introduction
Ioso!y, !cn, I Is 5o! !c dIsIIIcdccIcnccoI IIIc and !c
ccIcnccoI!oug!awo!wI!aIIIssaInsandconadIc-
Ions. PaIn andsuggIcacInscaa5IcIonI,asIn Adono's
own cIIo o wcs HcgcI's u! Ion !Is unu!. Adono's
cjccIonoI!cnoIonoIayIng!onagco!cgcananno-
wI!sandIng,!IsuIInacI5uco HcgcIIs!cnoIon!a!c
cnducd!csccIIos. "No!IIoso!ywassooIoundIyIc!,
nonc !cId so unswcvIngIy o !c ccIcncc o w!Ic! I !ad
cnuscdIscIIwI!oucscvaIon.Evcn!cna!soIIsIaIIuc
wccsuc!5yu!IscII "("Asccs").AndII!cuIInaccI-
IcIsnoI HcgcIIs!a!cIs!c5ougcoIs!IIoso!cacccI-
Icncc, !c "conIoa5Ic oIcsso IccuIng unconccncdIy on
!csuIIcIngsoInan!Ind,"!cn !c cIIaccncnoIscII !agIvcs
!In!Is5ougcoIsIaInncss~!cNichterheit !a WaIc Bcn-
janInccacd!IsDeutche Menschen o!ono~Is!cscII-dIvcs-
Iuc !a na!cs !IIoso!IcaI ccIcncc ossI5Ic. As Adono
says,Is!Isso5cdyncss"ow!Ic!!cnosccnca!os
s!IvcIsIn HcgcI"!agIvcs!oug!IsdIgnIy,jusas,InadII-
IccnonaIIy,IgIvcsAdono'saccIaIonIsoIgnancy.
And Is no Adono !InscII, w!o was ccacdIy accuscd oI
5ougcoIs cIIIsn 5u w!osc councnancc cnaIncd cIca and
w!osc sccc! was "duc!IcIg"~"In-cady"~sca!Ing on !Is
own 5c!aII !cc as wcII, ccssIng !ccIIaccncn oI scII and
!csucndconoaIIy!aInIoncd!IsownacnoIn-
ncsc !c scII wI!ou cscvaIon In Is o5jcc. And Is !Is dI-
aIccIcoIscII-cIIaccncnand!cavagIngavaIIoIsIIIn!c
IndIvIduaI no IscII !cncw conccIon oI !cdIaIccIc owad
w!Ic! Hegel: Three Studies Ia5os, a conccIon w!osc cncgIcs
wIII, wc!oc,Inan agcInw!Ic! !c IndIvIduaI IsInccasIngIy
cndangccd,conInucosoundacossbIsoIcaIc!asns.
T!c ansIao wouId II!c o !an! )ccny S!aIo, QucnIn
SnI!,andAndcw Buc!waIcIoadvIccondIIcuIoInsIn
xxxiii
Introduction
! , Ton McCa!yand Lay Co!nIo!I un8aggIng
suo oI ! ojc, and Adn H. NIc!oIsn Io a caIuI
andacIaIveadIngoI!nanuscIInogss.)anMIII
oI ! AnIoc! CoIIg II5ay saII dsvs scIaI !an!s Io
IIaIIygoIng ! a nII o ocus. As In ! o!
ansIaIons oI Adono's wo!, ! ansIao !as ando
svasnanyoI!IausoI Adono's osasacon-
sIsnwI! InIIIgI5IIIyIn EngIIs!.FoanysuIIngaw!wad-
nsss (Adono's wod was InconcInnIIs") s! aIon Is
sonsI5I.
Preface
WhcnIcancIncIoancwcdIIonoIAspect of Hegel's Philoso
phy, I wancd o suIcncn !a c wI!!c nonoga! on
!cccIcnIaI concn oI HcgcI's !IIoso!y !a I !ad u5-
IIs!cdIn!cncanInc. W!aIncIIcdncogo5cyond!Iswas
!c anaIogy wI! !c sayIng tres homires faciunt collegium: !cc
nonoga!s na!c a 5oo!, cvcn II I isa s!o onc. Hcncc, In
accodanccwI!aIong-c!cIs!cdIan, Iscdownny!oug!s
onqucsIonsoIundcsandIng HcgcI. T!cysIngIonnywo!
In !c P!IIoso!Isc!cs ScnIna a !c UnIvcsIyoI Fan!Iu.
Ovcnanyycas Ma Ho!!cIncand I!avcoIcn5ccncon-
ccncd wI! HcgcI !cc, ny IncnIon was o usc w!a I !ad
o5scvcdIn!ccac!IngsIuaIonasaoInoIdcauc.CIvcn
!c unIy oI!c!IIoso!IcaIboug!oI !cwooI uscson-
sI5IcIo!ccIcvanInccaIons,IwasossI5IcoIogoIn-
dIvIduaIcIccnccs.
To avc dIsaoInncn, Ic nccn!asIzc !a S!ocInos"
docsnocIaInoacconIIs!oIIscII!cIIIunInaIonoIHcgcI's
naIn wo!s, sonc!Ing !a Is Iong ovcduc. I nccIy Ionu-
Iacs consIdcaIons oI IncIIc 5caIng on !Is as!, a 5cs I
!azads gucsscs a5ou!owoncwouIdaIvcaan undcsand-
Ing,wIr!oudIscnsInganyoncIon!ccIIosInvoIvcdIncon
xxxvi
Preface
ccIzIng!oscconsIdcaIonswI!cgado!ccs.T!cIssuc
Is no o na!c !c cadIng oI HcgcI casIc 5u o cvcn !c
caodInayccIons!a HcgcIcquIcs,nowas!cn,Ion
5cIng wascd. Sonc!Ing!a HcgcI cnIndscIscnoIogy a5ou
s!ouId 5c aIIcd o InsucIons a5ou !ow o cad HcgcI as
wcII. !cInsucIonscan ovcsucccssIuI onIyIn!ccouscoI
cayIng ou IndIvIduaI InccaIons. T!c IInIs !a !c au-
!o oI a oacdcuIc nus sc Io !InscII wouId !cc5y 5c
ansgcsscd.T!cIac!aI!avcsocdccIscIyw!ccIoug!
o 5cgIn nayccusc sonc oI!co5vIousInadcquacIcs!a dIs-
Icascnc.
T!cwo!asaw!oIcIsIncndcdascaaIonIoacvIscd
conccIonoI!cdIaIccIc.
T!codoY. Adono
Fan!Iu,sunnc I963
A Note on the Text
AsccsoI HcgcI's P!IIoso!y"gcwouoIaaI!Igavca!c
FccUnIvcsIyoI BcIInon Novcn5c I4, I956,conncnoa-
Ing!c I25!annIvcsayoI HcgcI'sdca!.T!ccIInInaywo!
was oo ccnsIvco5cadcquacIyIncooacdIno !a aI!. I
was Ioccd o scIcc onc conIc, aI5cI a ccnaI onc, Io !c
BcIIn aI!and o dcaI wI! o!c noIIs InaIccuc5oadcas
on HcssIanadIo. BusIncc!ccIcncns!ad5ccnconccIvcdas
a w!oIc, I !cn 5oug! !cn ogc!c, wI! Inoan addI-
Ions,Inanonoga!.
SInIIaIy, T!c EcIcnIaI Concn oI HcgcI's P!IIoso!y"
IsagcaIycandcdvcsIonoIaIccucIgavca!cnccIngs
oI!cGcnan HcgcISocIcyInFan!IuonOco5c25, I958,
I dcIIvccd I agaIn s!oIy aIcwads In Fcnc! a !c So-
5onnc. I was Incd In !c Archiv fur Philosophie I959, voI.
9. I~2.
S!ocInos,"wIcnIn!cwIncoI I962~63,Isunu5IIs!cd.
SIncc !c !cc conIcncnay as oI !c 5oo! !ad 5ccn
gIvcn hcd IIcay Ion soncw!a IndccndcnIy oI onc an-
o!c,ccaIn noIIsacccacd,aIways, oI cousc, Ion dII-
IccncsccIvcs.
xxxviii
ANoteontheText
IwouIdII!coccssny!caIcIgaIudco!cassIsans
a !c P!IIoso!Isc!cs ScnIna a!c UnIvcsIy oI Fan!Iu,
csccIaIIy PoIcsso Hcnann Sc!wccn!usc, D. AIIcd
Sc!nId,D.WcncBcc!c,and D.Hc5cSc!ndcI5ac!.
T!codoW. Adono
Editorial Remarks from the
German Edition
T!cnocsAdono!InscIIovIdcdon!cgcncsIsoIHegel: Three
Studies cquIcIcwaddIIons.
T!c hs oI !c !cc sudIcs was u5IIs!cd scaacIy 5y

Su!!anVcIag,BcIInand Fan!IuanMaIn,In I957,un-
dc!cIIcAspects of Hegel's Philosophy. T!acdIIonconaInsa
nooa!cnIon Adono'sMinima Moralia: DasCanzcIsdas
Unwa!c" [!c w!oIc Is !c unuc|. A noc" o !a cdIIon
dacd)anuay I957was IncooacdIno !c Noc"InHegel:
Three Studies, wI! !c cccIon oI !c Ias aaga!, w!Ic!
cads. A u5IIcaIon a5ou HcgcI oIIcsan oounIyo c-
ca !a !c !IIoso!IcaI !oug! oI !c au!o and !a oI
Ma Ho!!cInc ac onc and !c sanc. Fo !IscasouI !as
5ccnossI5IcoIogoIndIvIduaIcIccnccs."
T!c !cc sudIcs wcc u ogc!c asDrei Studien zu Hegel
Io!cscIcscdIIonsu!!an,"and!chscdIIonwas u5-
IIs!cdIn I963.
T!ccoIHegel: Three Studies Is5ascdon!c!IdcdIIonoI
I969,!cIasoacaduIng!cau!o'sIIIcInc.AIcwco-
ccIons !avc 5ccn nadc on !c 5asIs oI IndIcaIons In1!c au-
!o'scoy.T!ccIaIons!avc5ccnc!cc!cdandcoccIonsnadc
w!cc ncccssay. Fou cuaI nocs In S!ocInos" !avc 5ccn
xl
EditorialRemarksfromtheGermanEdition
novcdIon!ccndnocso!cagcsow!c!!cycIc.O!-
cwsc!cIonoI!cnocsIoIIows!aoI!cognaIasIaas
oss5Ic, cvcn !c ons n w!c! !cy ac nconsscn ac an
ccssonoI Adono'sana!yo unhcdsyscnac!oug!.
)anuay I97I
He
g
el
1nree8tudies
'
Aspects of He
g
el's Philosophy
A!socaIoccasonI!c!c I25!annvcsayoIHcgcI'sdca!
couId!avccIccdw!awccaIIanaccaon."Bu!acon-
cc!as 5cconc uncna5Ic,Indccd cvc!adany vaIuc. I
na!cs!cnudcncIan!a bccausconc!as!cdu5ousgood
IouncoIvc Iac,and5c
ausconcLasaoIcssonaInccst
n!ccsononcsoaI!a5ou,onccansovccgnIyassgn!t
dcad cson !sIacc, bcc5y n soncscnsccIcvang oncscII
a5ovc!n. T!saogancccc!ocsn!cIoa!soncqucson Ot
w!an Kan, andnow HcgcIas
cII,!asany ncanng Io the

cscn~and cvcn t!cso-caIIcd Hcgclctiassancc5cgan!aII a
ccnuyagow!a5oo! 5y BcncdcoCocc !aundcoo!o
dsngus!5cwccnw!atasIvngandw!awasdcadn HcgcI.
T!cconvcscqucsonsnocvcnascd.w!a!cpcscnncans
n!c IaccoI HcgcI,w!c!cc!as!ccasononcnagncs
onc !as aancd sncc HcgcI 's a5soIuc cason!as no n Iac
Iongsncccgcsscd5!ndhcIa and acconnodacdow!at
nccIyc
iss,w!cn HcgcI
n caaon
ticd o sc!c 5udcn o

cscnccnmoon!oug!!ccason!ao5anscvcnnw!at
css. AII accaons ac su5jcc o !c judgncn asscd iri
HcgcI's cIacc o !c Phenomenolog of Spirt on !oscw!o a
a5ovc sonc!ng only 5ccausc !cy acnon. Accaons
2
AspectsofHegel'sPhilosophy
IaIIIon!csaocauc!cscIousncssandcogcncyoI Hc-
gcI's !IIoso!y 5y acIcIngon !In w!a !ccaIIcd, wI! a-
oIacdIsdaIn,a!IIoso!yoIcsccIvcs. II oncdocsno
wan o nIss HcgcI wI! onc's vcy 6s wods, onc nus con-
Ion,!owcvcInadcquacIy,!ccIaIn!Is!IIoso!yna!cso
u!,a!c!annccIydIscussIng!Is!IIoso!yIona5ovc,
and!cc5yIon5cIow.
LI!co!c cIoscd syscnsoI !ough, HcgcI's !IIoso!y avaIIs
;'
IscIIoI!c du5IousadvanagcoIno!avIng o aIIowany cII-
cIsnw!asocvc. AIIcIIcIsnoIhcdcaIIs,accodIngo HcgcI,
cnaIns aIaI and nIsscs !c w!oIc, w!Ic! In any casc a!cs
!IscIIcIsnInoaccoun.ConvcscIy,cIIcIzIng!cw!oIcasa
w!olc Is a5sac, unncdIacd," and Ignocs !c IundancnaI
noIIoIHcgcIIan!IIoso!y.!aIcanno5cdIsIIIcdInoany
naIn"ogcncaIIncIIcandovcsIs wo!onIyasao
aIIy, In !c conccc IncconnccIons oI aII Is noncns. Ac-
codIngIy,!conIywayo!onoHcgcIIsocIuscoaIIowoncscII
o5cInInIdacd5y !c vIuaIIynyboIogIcaIconIcIyoI!is
cIIcaI n!od,w!Ic!na!cscIIcIsn sccnIaIscnonacw!a,
andInscadoIgacIousIy oungacIousIyIIsIngodcnyIng hIs
ncIs,goaIc!cw!oIc,w!Ic!uw!aHcgcI!InscIIwasaIc.
T!csc days I Is !adIy ossI5Ic Io a !cocIcaI Idca oI any
scocodojusIcco!cccIcnccoIconscIousncss,andInIac
no onIy !cccIcnccoIconscIousncss5u !ccn5odIcd c-
cIcncc oI !unan 5cIngs, wI!ou !avIng Incooaed sonc-
!IngoI HcgcI's!IIoso!y.Bu!Iscanno5ccIaIncdmcns
oI!cIvIaIacpu accodIngow!Ic! HcgcI,!ca5soIucIdc-
aIIs, was a gca caIIs and a nan wI! a s!a!IsoIcaIcyc.
HcgcI's su5sanIvc InsIg!s,w!Ic!ccndcdo!c IcconcIIa-
5IIIyoI!cconadIcIonsIn5ougcoIssocIcy,canno5csca-
acdIonsccuIaIon~!cvuIganoIonoIw!Ic!!asno!Ing
odowI!!c HcgcIIannoIon~as!oughIwccsonc!IndoI
3
ou5IcsonconancnaIon.On!cconay,!oscInsIg!sac
oduccd5ysccuIaIon,and !cyIosc!cI su5sancc assoon
as!cy ac conccIvcd asnccIycnIIcaI. T!c Idca !a !c a
IoIIsaIso!caoscIoI,anIdca!awasogannaIcIn
FIc!c and was!cn IuIIycIa5oacd 5y HcgcI,Isnoan auda-
cIousIcccoI5on5as,IIs!cnaInsIngoI HcgcI's!oug!.
I InsIcs 5o!!IscIIcIsn oIagIn cnIIcaI caIIyand !Is
cIIqucoIasaIcaIoIsn/W!ccHcgcIconcIs!IsnacrIaI
osca!,!cIdcaoIanoIgInaIIdcnIyoIsu5jccando5jcc''In
sII,"anIdcnIy!a5cconcsdIvIdcdand!cn cunIcs,Is a
wo!.O!cwIsc!cInc!ausI5IyIc!concnoI !IssyscnwouId
cnaIn cI!cancc accunuIaIonoI Iacs, and !us c!IIo-
so!IcaI,onccIydognaIcandwI!ouIgo.RIc!adKronc
Ig!Iy ooscd dcscI5Ing !c !Isoy oI Ccan IdcaIIsn as
advancIng dIccIy Ion Sc!cIIIng o HcgcI. Ra!c, HcgcI -
scd!cdggnaIcnoncnInSc!cIIIngp!II_sog!yoInauc
!oug!rccouscoaFIc!can,andcvcn KanIa_s)cmolcg-
caIIn
_
!cdynanIcoI!cPhenomenolog of Spirit 5cgIns
IncIscnoIogyand!cngocson,oIcousc,as!cInoducIon
aIcady IndIcacs, o cIodc !c osIIon oI an IsoIacd o, In
HcgcIIan cns, a5sac cIscnoIogy. AccodIngIy, !c a5un-
dancc oI ccIcnIaI concccncss [das Gegenstandliche] !a Is
Incccd5y!oug!InHcgcIandnouIs!cs!oug!Inun,
Isducnosonuc!oacaIIsIcIancoI nIndon HcgcI'sa
aso!Isnc!odoIananncsIs,sII'sInncsIonInIscII,o,In
HcgcI's wods, 5cIng's InwadIzaIonand scII-osscssIon [das in
sich Hineingehen, sich Zusammenziehen des Seins] . II onc Icd o
cscuc !c nacIaI su5sancc oI HcgcIIan !IIoso!y Ion Is
aIIcgcdIy ounodcdanda5IaysccuIaIon5ycadIcaingIs
IdcaIIsn,oncwouId!avcno!Ing5uosIIvIsnon!conc!and
and suc6cIaI IncIIccuaI !Isoy on !c o!c. W!a HcgcI
!oug!, !owcvc, Is aIso oI a conIccIy dIIIccn odc !an
4
!a oI cn5cddcd ncss In cIaIons!Iso w!Ic! !c IndIvIduaI
dIscIIIncscIoscd!cIcycs. HIssycnIsnoanovcac!IngscI-
cnIhc syscnanynoc!anIIsan aggIoncaIonoIwIyo5-
scvaIons. W!cn onc sudIcs !Is wo!, I soncIncs sccns as
!oug! !c ogcss !a sII InagIncs IscII o !avc nade,
!roug!cIcanc!odoIogyandIon-cIadcnIIcIsn,sIncc Hc-
gcI'sdca!andInoosIIono!In,IsaIIacgcssIon,w!IIc!c
!IIoso!csw!o !In! !cyacnaInaInIngsonc!IngoI Hc-
gcI'sIcgacy!avcIo!cnosanIsscd!cconccc concn
onw!Ic!HcgcI's!oug!hsovcdIscII.
T!In!, Io Insancc, oI CcsaIi !coy, w!Ic! K!Ic c-
andcdoa!IndoI!IIoso!y. HcgcIccognIzcd!cInacy
oI !cw!oIc ovc Is6nIcas,w!Ic! acInadequacand,In
!cIconIonaIon wI! !c w!oIc,conadIcoy. Bu !c ncI-
!cdcIvcdanca!ysIcsIon!ca5sacIncIIcoIoaIIy
no gIoIhcd !c w!oIc as suc! In !c nanc oI !c good Cc-
saI." Hc docs no na!c !c as, as cIcncns oI !c w!oIe,
auononousIn oosIIon o I, a !csanc Inc, as acIIcoI
onanIcIsn,!c!nows !a!cw!oIc caIIzcsIscIIonIyInand
!oug! !c as, onIy !oug! disconInuIy, aIIcnaIon, and
c8ccIon~!oug!, In s!o, cvcy!Ing !atIs ana!cna o
CcsaI!coy.IIHcgcI'sw!oIccxissaaIIiIsonIyas!cquIn-
csscncc oI !
aIaI noncns, whIch aIways oInt i-,ooc

!cnscIvcsandacgcncacdIomoncano!c,Idocsnoc-
Isassonc!Ing5cyond!cn. T!IsIsw!a!IscacgoyoIoaI-
Iy Is Incndcd o convcy. I Is InconaI5Ic wI! any !Ind oI
cndcncyo !anony, nonac!ownuc!!cIac HcgcInay
su5jccIvcIy !avc!adsuc!cndcncIcs. HIscIIcaI!oug!gocs
5cyond5o!!csaIngoI!cunconncccdand!cIncIIcoI
conInuIy,In!In,connccIonIsnoanacoIun5o!cnan
sIIon5uanacoIsuddcnc!angc,and!coccssa!csIacc
no!oug!!cmoncnsaoac!ingoncano!c5u!oug!
5
uuc. Modcn CcsaI!coy as Incctcd 5y Ma Sc!cIc
c!aIIcn_cs adIIonaI cIscnoIogIcaI su5ccIvIsn and Inc-
pcs!cc!aoIcnacIaIoI!cscnscs,!cgIvcnncssoI!c_hc-
noncnon, w!Icnncw!oIc KIan ad ad dIsguaQ,_
as aIcady sccI6cd and sucucd. HcgcI, !owcvc, cn!a-
szcdccisHy5issccIhcaIonoI!co5jcc,wIthouIn!co-
ccss IdoIIzIng !cscnsc ccaInywI! !c crIIquc oI w!Ic! hc
Phenomenolog of Spirit 5cgIns,o say no!Ing oI IncIIccua
l
In
uIIon.IIsccIscIy!ougha5soIucIdca|Ism,w!Ic!cmIts
no!IngocnaInousIdc!csu5jcc,nowcandcdobcconc
InhnIc,5uInscadswccscvcy!ingaIongwI!IIno!ccu
cntoI Innancncc, !a !c oosIIon 5cwccn ncc nac
and a conscIousncss !a 5csows Ion and ncanIng Is cIn-
guIs!cd. AIIIaccIIcIsnoI!cso-caIIcdIonaIIsn oIcIse-
noIogy and c!Icscan5cIoundcIIcIIyIonuIacdIn HcgcI,
5u !c dId no !ccIoc Ica wI! a 5ound Ino !c aIIcgcdIy
conccc as dId Sc!cIIIng 5cIoc !In and cIscnIaI onoIogy
oday. Onconscqucncc oI !cuncsaIncd cansIon oI hc
su5jccoa5soIuc sIIIn HcgcIIs !a, asnoncns In!ccn
In !Is sII,no onIy !c su5jcc 5u aIso !c o5jcc ac c-
scn cdassu5sanIaIandna!Ing!cIuIIdcnandsoI!cIown
5cIngs. HcgcI'snuch-adnIcdnacIaIIc!ncssIsIscIIaIunc-
Ion oI !Is sccuIaIvc !oug!. I was !Is sccuIaIvc !ougb
!a!cIcd!Inosaysonc!IgcsscnIaInonccIya5ou!c
InsuncnsoI!nowIcdgc5ua5ouIscsscnIaIo5jccs,wI!ou
cvc suscndIng conscIousncss's cIIcaI scII-c8ccIon.To !c
ccn o w!Ic! onc can sca! oI caIIsn In HcgcI, I
Is o 5c
Iound In !c a! IoIIowcd5y hIs IdcaIIsn, IIsnosonc!Ing
!ccogcncousoI. In HcgcIt!c cndcncyoIIdcaIIsnIsonoc
5cyondIscII.
Evcn!coInoInosccncIdcaIIsnIn HcgcI's!oug!,
!csu5jcc-o5jccconsucIon,s!ouId5ynoncans5cdIsnIsscd
6
as!caoganccoI!cuncsancdconcc. In Kan,!cdca
!aawoIddvdcdnosu5jccando5jcc,!cwoIdnw!c!,
assoncsoI ou ownconsuon,wcacnvoIvcdonIyw!
!cnoncna,sno!cuInacwoId,aIcadyIons!csccc
souccoIcncgy.HcgcIaddsanun- KanancIcncno!a.!c
dca!angasng,conccuaIIy,!c5Ioc!,!cIn!assc
o su5jccvy,nundcsandngsu5jccvyas"ncc"su5jccv-
ty,wc!avcaIcadyasscd5cyond!aIn.HcgcI,w!onnany
csccs s a Kan conc no !s own,sdvcn 5y !c dca !a
!nowIcdgc,I!ccssucha!ng,s5ysvcydcaoaI!nowI-
cdgc, !acvcy onc-sdcd judgncnntcnds, 5y svcy Iom,
!c a5soIuc, and docs no cs unI !as bccn su5Iacd n .
SccuIavc dcaIsn docs no cc!IcssIydscgad !c hns oI
!coss5IyoI!nowIcdgc,a!c,scac!csIowodsocx
css!cdca!aacIccnccou!assuc!snIacn!ccn
naII !nowIcdgc!ats!nowIcdgc,! !now}e
a aII and no a ncc duIcaon oI c su5jcc, !nowIcdgc s
te tbn nccIy
u5jcctv
, .:s objtiity 1c!c obcctive

rcaon n Plao, !c Icgacy oI w!c! c!
nca
|
Iy cmcatcs su5-
ccvcansccndcnaIphIoso!ynHcgcI,noc HcgcIIan
trs onc ng! say~a t!c samc tine aI tcng !n n cucaI
csccs !oug! ntccaon !a su5jccs !n o a Iu!c
ound oI cccon--!a s ccscIy !c consucon oI !c
a5soIucsu5jccnHcgcI!adocsjusccoano5jccvynds-
soIu5Ic n su5jccIvy. PaadocaIIy, !socaIIy, onIy a5soIuc
dcaIsn gvcs Icc cn o !cnc!od !a !cnoducono
!cPhenomenolog oSpirt caIIs"snIyIoo!ngon" [reines Zue
hen] . HcgcIsa5Ico!n!Iom!c!ngscIIou,osucndc
assvcIy, aswcc,totsau!cntcsu5sancc, onIy occausc 5y
vucoI!csyscn !cnaca!andscIccdosdcny
w!a5soIuc su5jcc. T!ngs!cnscIvcssca!nabIoso!y
!aIocuscsscncgcsonovng!asscIIoncw!!cm.
7
Nonac!ownuc!HcgcI!cFIc!cancn!asIzcs!cIdcaoI
osIIng," oI gcncaIon !oug! sII, no nac !ow !o-
oug!Iyac
IvcandacIcaI !Isconcc ofdcvcIoncnIs,!cIs

a!csancImcassIvcIn!IscsccIo!csccIhc, co
rc-
bcnIng whncansnog
5arioj_
cc. :tio:stactcccpIas a oIc In
cI's!cnoncnoIogy. T!IsIdcaooIs HcgcIIan !oug!and
!oug!,ccc!atinHccIIIs no IInItcdoasccIhcyc
oIacoItonscIousncss,I dcvcIosaaIIIcvcIsoI5o!su5jccIv
Ity ando5jccIvIy. HcgcIcvcyw!ccyIcIdso t!co5jcc'sow
nauc, w!Ic!cvcyw!cc5cconcs soncbIngImncdIacIo!I
agaIn, buIIsccIscIy!Is kIndoIsu5odInaIono!cdIsci

IIncf!c!IngIscII!acquIcs!cnosIncnsccIIoson
!caoI!cconcc.T!osccIIossuccccda!cnoncnin
w!Ic! !c IncnIons o
f !c su5jcc ac cxInguIs!cd In !c ob-

jcc. Hcc'sIgI!cs
yccco
!catIc

oI
}@Q
l
@
g
n
|@
s
5j
(4 ii
5j
|!l4!vrr
acccpcdIogIc oIscIcncca!csIo gancd,!ccsIduaI !coy
u!ao
'
s
'"
so-caIIcd sc cos !
ri It;iInac, and!c5lw
!c sI!cs:so dca
g
y5ccausc hcdocsnosc u
pan IaIonaI
unIyoIsu5jccandobjccIoosIIono!aanaIysIs 5uIn-
scad cscvcs !c dIsIncnoncns oI !c su5jccIvc and hc
o5jccIvcw!IIcgasIng!cnasncdIacd5yoncano!ct.T!c
InsIg!!aIn!crcaInoI!cso-caIIcdGeisteswissenchafte
n
[!u-
n
_
scIcnccs,IIcaIIy,scIcnccsoI!csIrI|,w
ccvcr!cobjcc
IscIIIsncdIacd5y sII,"!nowIcdgc5cconcsIuIIuInoby
ccIudIng!csu5jcc5uhoug!IsunosccIons,!rough
aII IsInuIscsandccIcnccs~!Is InsIg!,w!Ic! scII-c8cc-
IonIsnowIocInguon!ccsIsansocIaIscIcnccs,concsIon
HcgcI's syscn. T!a InsIg! na!cs hIs syscn scIcnIhcaIIy su-
cIoro!cInsIuIonoIscIcnccandsc!oIas!I,w!Ic!,w!IIc
8
agIngagaIns!csu5jcc,cgcsscsoacscIcnIhcccodIng
oI ncc uncIacd Iacs, cvcns, and oInIons, a ccodIng oI
w!aIsnosInadcquacIyandconIngcnIysu5jccIvc. AI!oug!
HcgcIsucndcswI!oucscvaIono!csccIhcIyoI!Iso5-
jccacuaIIy o !c o5jccIvc dynanIc oI socIcy!c Is !o-
oug!yInnunc,5y vIucoI !Is conccIonoI!ccIaIons!I
5cwccn su5jcc and o5jcc, w!Ic! ccnds Ino aII su5sanIvc
!nowIcdgc, o !c cnaIon o accc !c Iacadc uncIIcaIIy.
!ccacgoodcasonsw!y!cdIaIccIcoIcsscnccandaca
ancc Is novcd o !c ccnc oI !c Logc. T!Is nccds o 5c c-
ncn5crcdaaIncw!cn!oscw!oadmInIsc!cdIaIccIcIn
IsnacIaIIsvcsIon,!coIhcIaI!oug!oI!c Eas5Ioc,!avc
dc5ascd I o an unc8cccd coy !coy. Oncc dIvcscd oI Is
cIIcaI Icncn, !c dIaIccIc Is as wcII si:icd o dognaIsn as
!cInncdIacyoISc!cIIIng'sIncIIccuaIInuIIon,agaInsw!Ic!
HcgcI's oIcnIc was dIcccd. HcgcI !cIcd Kan's cIIcaI !I-
Ioso ! concInoIsown5y cIIcIzIng!c KanIanduaIIsnoI
Ionand concn, 5y dawIng c gIddccnInaIons oI dII-
in RcgO'nccaion, FIc!caswcII
!
.'.'
cI
5,
!
5I
)
,, ,9
cn
9
-
ncns o a8a,unncdIacdIdcnIy. Fo HcgcI'sIdcaIIsn,rca-
omcsacIIcaIcun!acIIcIzcs Kanoncc
Qt
nsand
scs !cn In noIon. T!c oIcs !a Kan ooscd o onc an-
o!cIon and concn, na
;;) cos,
^_ J
c
|I
g
nonac aII cncacd !oug! an_oug]_]nq

! a way!anonc oIj
_
raIpns ac |_Ist__dIpg_
aIn. Inorderto5et!oug
j
p_) , |)]nlcrntIy
cquIccr atYaoocdoI. HcnccIoHcgcInc-
dIaIonIs
evIddl cnbccn ccncs, as, sIncc

KIc!cgaad,adcadIynIsundcsandIng!as dcIccdI a 5cIng,
9
Inscad,ncdIaIon a!csIaccInand!oug!!cccncs,In
!cccncs!cnscIvcs.T!IsIs!cadIcaIasccoI HcgcI,w!Ic!
Is InconaI5Ic wI! any advocacy oInodcaIon. HcgcI s!ows
!a !c IundancnaI onoIogIcaI coticns !a adIIonaI !I-
Ioso!y!ocdodIsIIIcnoIdcasdIscccIyscoIIIomonc
ano!c,a!c,cac!oI!cncquIcsIsoosIc,and!cc-
IaIons!I oI aII oI !cno onc ano!c IsoncoI occss. Bu
!Is aIcs !c ncanIng oI onoIogy so dccIsIvcIy !a I sccns
IuIIcoaIy!cwod,asnanyconcnoayIncccsoI
HcgcIwouIdII!codo,oaso-caIIcdIundancnaIsucucw!osc
vcy nauc Is no o 1c a IundancnaI sucuc, no o 5c
voiror,osu5saun. In Kan'sscnscnowoId,noconti-
tutum, IsossI5IcwI!oq !cs_ccIvccogioIrasop, I)e_ _
Cituen, and1gcI
scII-c8ccIonoIIdcaIIsn,sInIIaIy, add
!a!
v
_
-
n
sns
_
genc
_
i
codIIonsoI
.
.
-.""-., ..
_..
.
.... ... " "
. ..... ..
.
...
.. . . . .. '
.
.. .. .
. . , .
.
... , ..... , .. ~
'
cd
! -+!"- .
g!)pg_!a I qp_p,,1vo,,
!c woId_' ByvIucoI !IsInsIscncsonsc,!cdcadIyIcg-
a
IIonaI ncahysIcs, !c qucsIonoI an uIInac

IncIIc Ion w!Ic! cvcy!I
g nus 5c dcIva5Ic, 5ccanc

ncanIngIcssIo HcgcI.
Hcncc !c dIaIccIc, !c cIonc oI HcgcI's !IIoso!y, can-
no5cII!cncdoanc!odoIogIcaIoonoIogIcaIIncIIc!a
wouIdc!aaccIzc!Is!IIoso!y!cway!cdocIncoIIdcas
c!aaccIzcs PIao In !Is nIddIc crIod o !c nonadoIogy
c!aaccIzcs LcI5nIzT!cdIaIccu1sncI!canccnc!od5y
w!Ic!sIInIg!cIudc!ccogcncyoIIso5jcc~In HcgcI!c
dIaIccIcIIcaIIyacconIIs!cs!coosIc,!ccnancncon-
IonaIon oI !c o5jcc wI! Is concc~no Is I a wcIan-
sc!auungInow!oscsc!cnaonc!asosqucczccaIIy.)usas
!cdIaIccIc docsnoIavoIndIvIduaI dc5nIIons, so!ccIsno
dc5nIIon!a5sI.DIaIccIcIs!cunswcvIngcIIooconjoIri
l O
cason'sccaIconscousncssoIscIIand!cccaIcccncc
oI o5jccs.T!csccnhcconccoI vchcaonna!css!onc
n!acaInoI scaac,gdconccs,suc!as!oscoI!coy
andcccncc,onw!c! HcgcIdccIacdwa.II,!owcvc,onc
wccona!cccscnqucsnosownvc6caon,!cns
ccscIy HcgcI'sconcconoI!cdaIccc,w!c!!cgnoa
9
cndodsnssasaconccuaIsat|ackc,!a!cnoscccn
!asc oI !soy !as vchcd. And !as donc so o an ccn
!aasscsjudgncnonanyacn oocnoncscIIn cns
oIw!asnIys!ccascandodowt!ou!caIIcgcda5a-
ncss oI !c daIcccaI consucon. n cns oI !s own dcoI-
ogy, and as !c !cnc!nan oI noc owcIuI nccss, HIc
acncd o cadcac 5oIs!cvsn, w!ccas was!s wa !a
5oug!!cgans!adowoI!cSIavcwoIddownon Euoc-
!a sanc SIavc woId oI w!c! HcgcI !ad aIcady nadc !c
onnoussacncn!a!adnoyccnccd !soy. Buwas
no a o!cc !socaI gazc~sonc!ng Iow!c!!cwouId
!avc!adno!ng5uconcn~!acna5IcdHcgcIosay!s,
a!c,was!cconsucvcIocc!acncsIuIIynow!as,
w!ou sac6cng scII as cason, cquc,and !c awacncss
oIoss5Iy.
FoaII!a,!owcvc,andaI!oug!!cdaIcccdcnonsacs
!cnoss5IyoIcducng!cwoIdoa6cdsu5jccvcoIc
and nc!odcaIIy usucs !c ccocaI ncgaonand oduc-
on oI !c su5jccvc and o5jccvc noncns, HcgcI's !Ioso-
!y,a!Ioso!yoIs,!cIdIasodcaIsn,nIy!cdocnc
oI !c dcny oI su5jcc and o5jcc 1n!ccntn dcaIsn~an
dcny !a anouns n cns oI Ion o !e nacy oI !c
suojcc~gvcs!cscng!oIoaIy!acIons!cncga-
vcIa5o~!cdssoIuonoIndvduaIconccs,!cc8ccon
oI!cnncdacand!cn!csu5IaonoIc8ccon.T!cnos
ccncIonuIaonsoI!s aco 5cIoundn HcgcI's!soy
I I
oI !IIoso!y. NoonIy Is FIc!can!IIoso!y !c conIcIon
oI KanIan !IIoso!y, as FIc!c !InscII !ad ccacdIy as-
sccd,5u,HcgcIgocssoIaasosay,InaddIIono!csc[!a
Is, Kant's and FIc!c's| syscns oI p!IIoso!Ics, and !a oI
Sc!cIIIng,!ccacnonc."'LI!cFIc!c,HcgcIacncdooudo
KanInIdcaIIsn5ydIssolvIngany!IngnoococonscIous-
ncss~Ino!cwods,!cgIvcnnoncnoIcaIIy~Ino aos-
IIng5y !cInhnIcsu5jcc. HcgcIaIscd!cgcacconsIsncy
oI Kan'ssucccssosIncomaIsonwI! !ca5ysnaIdIsconInu
IIcsoI!c KanIansyscn,and!ccvcnoudId!cnIn!Isc-
gad. I dId no occu o !In !a !c KanIan dIsconInuIIcs
cgIscv!cvcynoncnoInonIdcnIy!atIsanIndIscnsa5Ic
a oI !Is own conccIon oI !c !IIoso!y oI IdcnIy. In-
scad, !c asscs!Isjudgncnon FIc!c. T!cs!oconIngIn
!c KanIan!IIoso!ywasIsunhIn!IngInconsIscncy,!oug!
whIc!sccuIalIvcunIywasIac!Ingo!cw!o
|
csyscn,and!Is
s!oconIng was cnovcd 5y FIc!c. .. . FIc!c's !IIoso!y Is
!us!cdcvcIoncn oI IonInIscII (casonIsIn IscIIasyn-
!csIsoIconccandacuaIIy),andInaIcuIa,anocconsIs-
cn cscnaIonoI KanIan !IIoso!y."2 HIsagccncn wIt!
FIc!c ccnds sIII Ia!c. T!c FIc!Ian !IIoso!y !as !c
gcaadvanagcoI!avIngscIo!!cIac!aP!IIoso!ynus
5cascIcncc
dcIvcdIononcsucncIncIIc,Ionw!Ic!aII
dccnInaIons ac ncccssaIIy dcIvcd. T!c Inoan oInIs
!Is unIy oI IncIIc and !cacn o dcvcIo Ion I In a
scIcnI6caIIyconsIsn way!cw!oIcconcnoIconscIousncss,
o, as !as 5ccn saId, o consuc !c w!oIc woId." T!cc Is
IIIc!acouIddcnonsac HcgcI'sscII-conadIcoycIaIon-
s!I o IdcaIIsn, w!osc !Ig!cs ca! and w!osc unIng oIn
!c aaIncd, nocIncIsIvcIy !an !csc scncnccs. Fo!ccon-
cnoIHcgcI's!IIoso!yIs!cnoIon!au!w!Ic!InHc-
gcI ncans !c syscnanno 5c ccsscd as a IundancnaI
I2
IncIIcoI!Is!Ind,anu-IncIIc,5uIs!cdynanIcoaIIy
oI aII !coosIIons!acan5cgcncacdIononcano!c
5yvIucoI!cIconadIcIons.Bu!IsIs!ccacoosIcoI
FIc!c's acn o dcIvc !c woId Ion uc IdcnIy, Ion
a5soIuc su5jcc, Ion !c onc oIgInaI osIIng. DcsIc !Is,
!owcvc, HcgcI consIdcs!c FIc!canosuIac oI !cdcduc-
Ivc syscncn!aIcaIIy vaIId. I was onIy !a !c accodcd Is
sccondIncIIcnuc!nocwcIg!!anFIc!cdIdIn!IsScience
of Knowledge. MacsdonorcswI!!ca5soIucIon,"ousc
HcgcI'sIanguagc,!a FIc!coo!uand!aIsocncIosccaIIy
wI!InI ,Inscad,conccccaIIyIscII Issonc!Ingconsuccd
!oug! !coccssw!cc5y !oug! gass !c oosIIon oI
concnoIonand !coosIng concn, II youII!c,Is dcvcI-
ocdouoI!cIonIscIf. In!IsdccIsIon
ooIcacnoIInIs,
ocIInInaccvcyaIcIcofadccnInaIonoIdIIIccncc, Hc-
gcI IIcaIIy oudId FIc!can dcaIIsn. T!c IndIvIduaI FIchcan
IncIIcs!cc5y Iosc!cI concIusI
c sIgnIhcancc. HcgcI cc-

ognIzcd !c Inadcquacy oI ana5sacIncIIc5cyond!cdI-
aIccIc, a IncIIc Ion w!Ic! aII clsc Is o IoIIow. Sonc!Ing
!a was InIIcI In FIc!c 5u no yc dcvcIocd now 5cconcs
!c dIvIng Iocc oI HcgcI's !IIoso!IcaI acIvIy. T!c consc-
qucnccoI!cIncIIcncgacs!cIncIIcIscIInddcsoys
Is a5soIuc Inacy. Hcncc In !cPhenomenolog HcgcI couId
sawI!!csu5jccandgasaIIconcccconcnIn!ccon-
cnIaIonoI!csu5jcc'sscII-novcncnw!IIcon!co!c!and,
In!cLogic, !ccouId !avc!cnovcncnoI!oug!5cgInwi!
bcIng.CorccIy undcsood, !c c!oIcc oI a saIng oIn, oI
w!a comcs 6s, Is anac oIIndIIIccnccIn HcgcI's !IIoso-
!y,!Is!IIoso!ydoes notrecognIzc arstsonct!Ing oIt!Is
!Indas a hcd IncIIc !a cnaIns InaIca5IcandIdcnIcaI
wI!IscIIas!oug!ogcsscs. WI!!Is, HcgcIIcavcsaIIa-
dIIonaI nca!ysIcs,and!ccsccuIaIvcnoIon oI IdcaIIsn
I3
aswcII,Ia5c!Ind.Ncvc!cIcss!cdocsnoa5andonIdcaIIsn.
T!c a5soIuc Igo and cIoscd quaIIy oI !caguncn !a !c
and FIc!c sovc Io In oosIIon o Kan aIcady csa5IIs!cs
hc IoIy oI sII, cvcn II !c su5jcc Is dc6ncd as o5jcc a
cvcy sagc, jus as convcscIy !c o5jcc Is dc6 ncd as su5jcct.
W!cn !c concnIaIng sIvi csuncs o s!ow !a cvcry-
. .
!Ing!acIssIsconncnsua5IcwI!sIIIscII,wI! Logos
and!cdccnInaIonsoI!oug!,sIIscsIscIIuasanon-
oIogIcaIuIInac,cvcnIIa!csamcIncIgass!cunuth
in!Is,!aoI!ca5sacaIoI,andacnso doawaywI!
Is own IundancnaI !csIs. In hc o5jccIvIy oI !c HcgcIIan
dIaIccIc, w!Ic! quas!cs aII ncc su5jccIvIsn, !cc Is sonc-
!Ing II!c awIIIon!ca oI!csu5jcc ojun ovcIsown
s!adow. T!c HcgcIIansu5jcc-o5jccIssu5jcc. T!IsIIIunInacs
sonc!Ing!aIon!c oInoIvIcwoI HcgcI's owndcnand
IoconIccconsIscncyIsanuncsoIvcdconadIcIon,!cIac
!a!csu5jcc-o5jccdIaIccIc,w!Ic!InvoIvcsnoa5sac!Ig!c-
IcvcI concc, IscII consIucs !c w!oIc and yc IscaIIzcd In
un as!c IIIcoI a5soIuc sII. T!cquIncsscncc oI!ccon-
dIIoncd,accodIngo HcgcI,Is!cuncondIIoncd. IIs!Is,no
IcasoIaII,!agIvcsIsco!c!ovcIng,suscndcdquaIIyoI
HcgcIIan !IIoso!y, Is quaIIy oI 5cIng u In !c aI, Is c-
nancnskandalon: !cnancoI!c!Ig!cssccuIaIvc concc,
!a oI !c a5soIuc, oI sonc!Ing ucIy dcac!cd, Is IIcaIIy
!c nanc oI !a suscndcd quaIIy. T!c HcgcIIan skandalon
canno5cascI5cdoanyconIusIonoIac! oIcIaIy,a!c,I
Is!cIccHcgcI!asoayIoa5soIucconsIscncy,w!Ic!concs
uagaIns!cIInIsoIconsIscn!oug!wI!ou5cIng a5Ico
do away wI! !cn. HcgcIIan dIaIccIc 6nds Is uIInac u!,
!a oI Is own InossI5IIIy, In Is uncsoIvcd and vuInca5Ic
quaIIy, cvcn II, as!c !codIcy oI scII-conscIousncss, I!as no
awacncssoI!Is.
14
WI! !Is,!owcvc, HcgcI cndcs!InscII vuInca5Ic o !c
cIIqucoIIdcaIIsn.anInnancncIIcIsn,suc!as!ccquIcd
aII cIIcIsn o 5c.Hc !InscII cac!cd Is !cs!oId. RIc!ad
Konc c!aaccIzcs HcgcI'scIaIono FIc!cInwods!aIn
accaInscnscaIcadyhFIc!c. InsoIaas!c'I'Isooscdo
aIIcIsc!oug!cccIon, IIsnodIsInguIs!cdIonaIIcIsc, to
!accnI 5cIongsInscad o w!aIIs ooscdo,o w!aIs
osIcd,o!cconcnsoI!oug!,!cnoncnsoIIsacIvIy."'
Ccnan IdcaIIsn'scsonsco!IsInsIg!Ino!ccondIIoncd
naucoI!c I,"ano!coIhcInsIg!s!a!c!IIoso!yoI
c8ccIon In Is modcn scIcnIhc Ion !as onIy Ia5oIousIy c-
gaIncd,Is,oug!Iy,!cFIc!candIsIncIon5cwccn!cIndIvId-
uaI and t!c su5jcc, In t!c Ias anaIysIs !c KanIan dIsIncIon
5cwccn !c I" as!c su5saunoIcnIIcaIsyc!oIogy and
!cansccndcnaII!In!."T!chnIcsu5jccIs,asHusscIsaId
oII,aaoI!cwoId. IscII aIncd I!cIaIvIy,Icanno
5cuscdogound!ca5soIuc. IaIcady csuoscs~as !c
KanIan constitutum, !a w!Ic! Is consIucd~w!a ansccn-
dcnaI!IIoso!yIsocIaIn.J!c I!In!,"Inconas,uc
IdcnIy,Isa!cno5c ucIn !ccn!aIc KanIan scnsc,In-
dccndcn oI aII saIocnoaI IacIcIyOnIy In !Is waycan
cvcy!Ing!acIssdIssoIvcwI!oucmaIndcInIsconcc.
In Kan!Issc!adnoyc5ccna!cn.)usason!con
c!and
!ccacgoIaIIonsoI!cI!In!"ncedasuIcncnaycon-
cn!adocsnoaIscouoI!cn!cnscIvcsInodcona!c
u!,!aIs,!nowIcdgcoInauc,ossI5Ic,soon!co!c!and
!c I !In!" IscII and !c cacgoIaI Ions ac cscccd 5y
Kan asasccIcs oIgIvcns, o !Is ccna Icas !c Critique of
PUTe Reaon is moic a phcnomcnology of subcctivity than a
j
ccuIaIvcsyscn. In!c uns'' [us|!a Kan,In!IsInoscc-
IvcnaIvc,conInucsouscuncccIvcIy,!cac!nowIcdgcs!e
cIaIons!Ip andnoonIyIn!cI aIIcaIon5uIn!cIoI-
I5
gin~ofthccatcgoricalformstosomcthingcxisting,namclyhu-
manbcings, thatariscsinturnfromthcintcrplayofthcforms
withscnsorymatcrial. Kant'srccctionsbrokcoffatthispoirit,
thcrcbybcaringwitncss to thcirrcducibilityofthccmpirical to
spirit, thcintcrwcavingofthcmomcnts. Fichtcwasnotcontcnt
withthis. Hcrclcntlcsslydrovcthcdistinctionbctwccnthctran-
ccndcntalandthccmpiricalsubcctbcyond Kant, andbccausc
ofthcirrcconcilabilityofthctwohctricdtocxtricatc thc prin-
ciplcofthc I"fromfacticityandthercbyustifyidcalisminthe
absolutcncssthatthcnbccamcthcmcdiumofthcHcgcliansys-
tcm.Fichtc'sradicalismthcrcbyrcvcalcdsomcthingthatinKan
was hiddcn in thc twilight oftransccndcntal phcnomcnology,

but Fichtc also thcrcby involuntarily rcvcalcd thc dubious na-
turc ofhis own absolutc subcct. Hc calls it somcthing thatall
latcr idcalists, and ccrtainly thc ontologists among thcm, wcrc
mostcarcfultoavoidcallingit. anabstraction.Ncvcrthclcss,thc
purc I" is to dctcrmincwhatitisa5st:act from and what it
itsclfisdctcrmincdby,inthatitsvcryconccptcannotbcthought
withoutsuchabstraction.Whatrcsultsfromabstractioncanncvcr
bc madc absolutcly autonomous vis a vis what it is abstractcd
from,bccauscthcabstractum rcmains applicablc tothatwhichis
subsumcdwithinit,andbccauscrcturnistobcpossiblc,thcquality
ofwhatithas bccnabstractcdfromisalways,inaccrtainscnsc,
prcscrvcdinitatthcsamctimc,cvcnifinancxtrcmclygcncral
form.Hcnccifthcformationofthcconccptofthctransccndcn-
talsubcctorthcabsolutcspiritsctsitsclfcomplctclyoutsidcin-
dividual consciousncss as somcthing spatiotcmporl, whcninfact
thcconccptis achicvcdthroughindividualconsciousncss, thcn
thc conccptitsclfcan o longcrbc madc good, othcrwise
tat
conccpt,whichdidawaywithallfctishcs,bccomcsafctishitsclf,
and spcculativc philosophy sincc Fichtc bas failcd to scc that.
Fichtc hypostatizcdthc I"thathadbccnabstractcd,andinthis
I6
rcspcct Hcgcl adhcrcd to whathc did. Both Fichtc and Hcgcl
skippcd ovcr thcfactthat thc cxprcssion I," whcthcritis thc
purctransccndcntalI orthccmpirical, unmcdiatcdI," must
ncccssarilydcsignatcsomcconsciousncssorothcr.Civinganan-
thropological-matcrialsttu to this polcmic, Schopcnhaucr had
alrcadyinsistcdonthatinhiscritiqucofKant.Atlcastinmoral
phiIosophy,hcsays,Kant'spurcreasoni
taken. . . notasanintellectualfacultyofman,thoughitisindeednoth-
ingbutthis,onthecontrary,itishypostasizedassomethingexistingby
itself,withoutanyauthority,andthedeplorablephilosophyofourtimes
can serve as an illustration ofthe results ofthat most pernicious ex-
ampleandprecedent.However,thislayingdownofmoralsnotformen
as men, butforall rational beings as such, issomethingsoneartohis
heart,suchafavoritenotionofhis,thatKantisnevertiredofrepeating
itoneveryoccasion.I say,onthecontrary, thatweareneverentitleu
tosetup agenusthat is giventousonlyinasinglespecies,forintothe
concept ofthat genus we could bring absolutelynothingbutwhatwe
had taken from this one species, and thus what we stated about the
genuscouldalwaysbeunderstoodorrlyoftheonespecies.Ontheother
hand, bythinkingawaywithoutauthoritywhatbelongsto thisspecies
inordertoformthegenus,weshouldperhapsremovetheverycondi-
tionofthepossibilityoftheremainingattributesthatarehypostasized
asgenus.
ButcvcninHcgclthcmostcmphaticcxprcssions,suchasspirit
and sclf-consciousncss, arc dcrivcdfrom thchnitcsubcct'scx-
pcricnccofitsclfandtrudlydonotstcmfromlinguisticsloppi-
ncss, Hcgcltooisunablctocutthcticbindingabsolutcspiritto
thc cmpirical pcrson. No mattcr how thoroughly thc Fichtcan
or Hcgclian absolutc I," as anabstractionfrom thc cmpirical
I, may crasc thc|attcr's spccihc contcnts, ifitwere no longer
at all what itwas abstractcd from, namcly I," ifit complctcly
divcstcd itsclfofthc facticitycontaincd inits conccpt, itwould
no longcr bc that bcing-with-itsclfofspirit, that homclandof
I7
knowlcdgc fromwhichthcprimacy ofsubcctivity inthc grcat
idcalist systcms dcpcnds. An I thatwas nolongcr I in any
scnsc atall, an I,thatis,withoutanyrclation to individuatcd
consciousncss andtl:crcbyto thc spatiotcmporal pcrson, would
bcnonscnsc. Itwouldnotonlybc as frcc-oatingandindctc-
minablcasHcgclaccuscdbcing,itscountcrconccpt,ofbcing,in
addition, itcould nolongcrbc graspcdas anI, as somcthing
mcdiatcdbyconsciousncss.Analysisofthcabsolutcsubjccthas
toacknowlcdgc thc indissolubilityo1n cpirical,nonidcntical
:.it,a momcni that +eiu-s ei:j._
idcalistc:soIidcntit,arcnotpcvmittcdto acknowlcdgcs
indissolublc. In this scnse Hcgcl's philosophy is untruc whcn
mcasurcdagainstitsownconccpt.Inwhatscnscisitthcnncvcr-
thclcss truc:
.
To answcr this qucstion onc must clucidatc somcthing that
dominatcs thcwholc ofHcgcl's philosophy without cvcrbcing
madctangiblc.Thatisspirit.Spiritisnotplaccdinabsolutccon
trasttosomcthingnonspiritual,somcthingmatcrial,originallyit
is notasphcrcofparticularobccts,thoscofthclatcrGeisteswis
senschaften. Rathcr, its unqud and absoJu!c. lcmcc
in1
_l, as acgacy ofKan+`spractical rcason, itis cxplicitly callcd
frcc.AccordingtothcdchnitioninthcEncyclopedia, howcvcr,It
iscsscntiallyactivc,productivc,'ustasKant'spracticalrcason
iscsscntiallydistinguishcdfromthcorcticalrcasoninc:-aits
'_bct,thcdccd.Thc K omcntofspontancity, whicb
is virtuallycquatcdwithconstitutivcidcntityinthcsynthcticuniq
ofappcrccptionKant's conccpt ofthcI think was thc for-
mulaforthclacko iobctwccnpr ctIvcspontaney
cgi_ eiir:Hgcl,andinmtality
itbccomcs aprinciplcofbcingno lcssthan aplc oftbought.
ButwhcHcgl o logcopposcs pvoducion: cdtomt
tcr as subcctivc accomplishmcnts but rathcrlooks for thcmin
I 8
spccihc obccts, in concrctc matcrialrcality, hc comcs closc to
thc mystcry bchind synthctic appcrccption and takcs it out of
thcmcrcarbitraryhypostasisofthc abstractconccpt. Thcm_s-
tcr_,howcvcr, ise tJc than iaJ)abor,Inthccconomic
andphilosophicalmanuscriptsofthcyoungMarx,discovcrcdin
I932, this was rccognizcd for thc hrst timc. Thc outstanding
achicvcmcntofHcgcl'sPhenomenolog-the dialccticofncgativ-
ityas thc movingandcrcatingprinciplcis . . . thathc . . . grasps
thcnaturcoflabour,andconccivcsobcctivcman(truc,bccausc
rcalman)asthcrcsultofhisownlabour.' Thcmomcntofuni-
vcrsalityin thc activc, transccndcntal su5|cctas opposcdto thc
mcrclycmpirical, isolatcd, and contingcntsubcct,is no morca
fantasythanisthcvalidityoflogicalpropositionsasopposcdto
the cmpirical coursc ofindividual acts ofthought. Rathcr, this
univcrsality is an cxprcssion of thc social naturc oflabor, an
cxprcssion both prccisc and conccalcd from itsclffor thc sakc
otthcgcncralidcalistthcsis,laboronlybccomcslaborassomc-
thingforsomcthingclsc,somcthingcommcnsurablcwithothcr
things, somcthing thattransccnds thccontingcncyofthc indi-
vidual subcct. Aristotlc's Politics alrcady tclls us that thc sclf-
prcscrvation ofindividualmcts dcpcnds asmuch on thc la-
ocsasocictydcpcndsontbcdccdsof:idals.Thc
efcrcnccofthcproductivcmomcnt oIiriibacktoaunivcrsal
subcctrathcr than to an individualwholabors iswhatdchncs
laboras somcthingorganizcd, somcthngsocial, its ownratio-
nality,thcordcringoIfunctions,isasocalrclationship.
Translating Hcgcl's conccpt ofspiritintosociallabov clicits
thc rcproach ofasociologismthatconfuscsthc gcncsis and in-
ucncc of Hegcl's philosophy with its substancc. Jhcrc is no
qucstion that Hcgcl was a transccndcntal analytic philosophcr
Iikc Kant. OnccouldshowindctailhowHcgcl, as Kant'scritic,
sought to dousticc to Kant's intcntions by going bcyond thc
I9
Critique of Pure Reaon, ust as Fichtc'sScience of Knowledge had
pushcd thclimitsofKant'sconccptofthc purc. ThcHcgclian
catcgorics, and cspccially thc catcgory ofspirit, fall within thc
domain oftransccndcntalconstitucnts. ButinHcgcl,socicty, as
thcfunctionalcomplcxofcmpiricalpcrsons,wouldb what Kant
calls aconstitutum, apartofthccxistcngJin]gJ'sLQgc
in Hcgcl'sdoctrincofthcabsolutclyunconditioncdandofcxis-
tcnccas.c_ __:et-["is!undcvcl-
opcd out of thc absolutc that Hcgcl says is spirit._ Thc
intcrprctation ofspirit as socicty, accordingly, appcars to bc a
ropoo;l;o\\o yvo;, a shift to somcthing ofa diffcrcnt
kind incompatiblc withthcscnscofHcgcl's philosophy ifonly
bccauscitdocs notsatisfythcprcccptofimmancntcriticismand
attcmpts to grasp thc truth contcnt ofHcgclian philosophyin
tcrmsofsomcthingcxtcrnaltoit,somcthingthathisphilosophy,
withinitsownframcwork,wouldhavcdcrivcdasconditioncdor
positcd.ExplicitcritiqucofHcgcl,ofcoursc,couldshowthathc
was notsucccssful in thatdcduction. Thclinguistic cxprcssion
cxistcncc,"whichisncccssarily conccptual, isconfuscdwithwhat
itdcsignatcs,whichis nonconccptual, somcthingthatcannotbc
mcltcd down into idcntity.'
Immancntly, Hcgclcannotmain-
tainthcabsolutcncssofspirit,andhisphilosophyattcststothat
itsclf,atlcastinsofarasitncvcrhndsthcabsolutccxccptinthc
totalityofdisunity,inunitywithitsothcr. Convcrscly, howcvcr,
socictyforitspartisnotmcrccxistcncc, notmcrcfact.Onlyfor
athoughtthatworksthroughcxtcrnalantithcscs,athoughtthat
is abstractinHcgcl'sscnsc,wouldthc rclationship ofspiritand
socicty bc a transccndcntal-logical rclationship bctwccn consti
tuens and constitutum. Socictyisallottcdprccisclywhat Hcgcl rc-
scrvcs for spintasoposcdto a thcisolatcdindividualmomcnts
of cmpirical rcality. Thosc momcnts arc mcdiatcd by socicty,
constitutcdthcwaythingsarcconstitutcdb
spiritforanidcal-
20
ist,priorto anyparticularinucncccxcrtcdbysocictyonphc-
nomcna.socictyismanifcstcdinphcnomcnathcway,forHcgcl,
csscnccismanifcstcdinthcm.Socictyiscsscn(]ay pn
as spiritis. As thc unityofhumansubccts who rcproducctbc
lifcofthc spccics through thcir labor, things comc into bcing
withinsocictyobcctivcly,indcpcndcntofrccction,withoutrc-
gard to thc spccihcqualiticsofthoscwholabororthcproducts
oflabor.Thcprinciplcofthccquivalcnccofsocial lub_r __
socicty in its modcrn bourgois scnsc both somcthing abstract
strcalthingofall,ustwhat Hcgclsaysof tbc

phatic ption of thc conccpt. Hcncc cvcry stcp thougbttakcs
comcsupagainstsocicty,andnostcpcanpinitdownassuch,as
oncthingamong othcrthings.Whatpcrmits Hcgclthcdialccti-
cian to prcscrvc thc conccpt ofspiritfromcontamination with
brutcfact, and thcrcby to sublimatc thcbrutalityofthc factual
into spirit and lcgitimatc it, is itsclfsccondary. For thc subcct
rcccting on it, thc cxpcricncc, itsclfunconscious, rac
la5ortako:i :nagicalrm. For thatsubcct,laborbecocsits
own ccctcdform,apurcdccdofspirit,spirit'sproductivcunity.
For nothing isto bc cxtcrnal to spirit. But thc brutc fact that
disappcarsinthctotalizcdnotionofspiritrcturnsinthatnotion
as alogicalcompulsion. Thc individual factcan nomorcavoid
itthanthcindividual pcrsoncanavoidthccontrainte sociale. Itis
onlythisbrutalityofcocrcionthatcrcatcsthcscmblanccofrcc-
onciliationinthcdoctrincofanidcntitythathasbccnproduccd.
Evcnbcforc Hcgcl,thccxprcssionsthroughwhichspiritwas
dchncd as originalproductioninidcalistsystcmswcrc allwith-
out cxccption dcrivcd from thc sphcrc of labor. No othcr
cxpicssions could bc found, bccausc intcrmsofitsown mcan-
ing, what thc transccndcntal synthcsis was aftcr could not bc
scparatcdfromitsconncctionwithlabor.Thcsystcmaticallyrcg-
ulatcd activity ofrcason turns labor inward, thc burdcnsomc-
2I
Aspectsof Hegel'sPhilosophy
ncssandcocrcivcncssofoutwardlydircctcdlaborhaspcrpctuatcd
itsclfin thc rccctivc, modclingcfforts thatknowlcdgc dirccts
towarditsobcct,cfforts thatarc againrcquircdforthcpro
grcssivc domination ofnaturc. Evcn thc traditional distinction
bctwccnscnsibilityandundcrstanding,^nhita]rstand,
indicatcxumcontnsito wht1 mcly givcnby scnsibility,
withoutcompcnsation,asitwcrc,thcundcrstandingdocssomc-
thing. whatis givcnthroughthcscnscsissimplythcrc,likcthc
fruits ofthc hcld, butthc opcrationsofthcundcrstandingarc
subcctto volition. As that through which human bcings form
somcthingthatthcnconfrontsthcm,thoscopcrationscanoccur
ornotoccur.ThcprimacyofLogoshasalwaysbccnpartofthc
work cthic. Thc stanccadoptcdby thoughtas such, rcgardlcss
ofitsount, is aconfrontation with naturc that has bccomc
habitual and has bccn intcrnalizcd, an intcrvcntion and not a
mcrc rcccption. Hcncc talk about thought is always accompa-
nicd by talkaboutamatcrial thatlhought knows to bc distinct
fromitsclf,amatcrialitproccsscsthcwaylaborproccsscsitsraw
matcrials. Forthoughtisalwaysaccompanicdbythcmomcntof
violcntcxcrton~arccctionofthcdirncc-sticsei:-:i.:
characcr1zc1abor; thestrainsantoiIso!thcconccpt arcnot
t pEoca l

, .. . .. .. . . ~- ~,~,
..T Hcgcl ofthcPhen9"ero.(G, in whom thc consciousncss
I ~~= ., , _.. , , . -
,, . .. ~ ~
ofspiritaslivingactivityanditsidcntitywiththcrcalsocialsub-
_ jcct was 1caa atrop1icdlan
n+bcJatcr1cg, rccognizcd thc

spontamcouspirit as labor,iI r:o in tbcory
j ,bislan-
guagc.Thcpathnaturalconsciousncssfollowstothcidcntityof
absoutckowhgcW:en]sIseov.ThccLtionslri of
spirit to w!at is givcn mannats tscIFonthc modcl ofa social
proccss,aroccssoflabor. Knowlcdgcinitshrstphasc,orim-
mcdiatc Spirit, is thc non-spiritual, i. c. scnsc-consciousncss. In
ordcr to bccomc gcnuinc knowlcdgc, to bcgctthcclcmcntof
22
Scicnccwhichis thcpurcNotionofScicnccitsclf,itmusttravcl
alongwayandworkitspassagc. ' ' Thisisbynomcansahgurc
ofspccch. ifspn:o bc rca|, thcn its labor is ccrtainly rcal.
Thc Hcgclian laborofthc conccpt is notaloosc circumlocu-
tionforthcactivityofthcscholar. Hcgclalwaysrcprcscnts thc
lattcr, as philosophy, as passivc, looking on, as wcll, and for
good rcasons. Thc philosophcr's labor actually aims solcly at
hclping to cxprcss whatis activc in thc matcrialitsclf, what, as
sociallabor, hasanobcctivcform thatconfronts human bcings
andyctrcmainsthclaborofhumanbcings. Thc movcmcntin
which thc uncsscntial consciousncss strivcs to attain this onc-
ncss, Hcgcls says in a latcr passagc in thcPhenomenolog, is
itsclfthrccIold in accordancc with thc thrcbold cIationu
ciousncss willhavcwith itsincarnatcbcyond. Fst, as purc
cnciousncss, sccond, as a particular individual who a
p:oac1(j ug_rld in thc form ofdcsircand
t1ird, as consciousncss tha is awarc of its ow bi
itscl'''
. .
.
erprctcrs ofHcgcl havc rightly insistcd that cach ofthc
primary momcnts distinguishcd within his philosophy is at thc
samctimcthcwholcaswcll. Butthatisccrtainlyalsotrucofthc
conccptoflaboras arclationshiptorcality.forthc dialccticas
such,asadialccticofthcsubcct-obcctidcntity,isprccisclysuch
arclationship. Thccrucialconncctionbctwccn thc conccpts of
dcsircandlaborrcmovcsthclattcrfromthcpositionofamcr
analogytothcabstractactivityofabstractspirit.Laborinthcful
scnscisinfactticd todcsirc,whichitinturnncgatcs. itsatishc
thcnccdsofhumanbcingsonalllcvcls,hclpsthcminthcirdif-
hculties,reproduceshumanlife,anddemandssacri5cesofthem
in rcturn. Evcninitsintcllcctual form,laborprovidcs alongcr
arm withwhich to procurc thcmcans oflifc, itis thc principlc
ofthcdominationofnaturc,whichhasbccomcautonomousand
23
thcrcbyalicnatcd fromitsknowlcdgcofitsclf. But idcalismbc-
comcs falsc whcn it mistakcnly turns thc totality oflabor into
somcthingcxistinginitsclf,whcnitsublimatcsits principlcinto
amctaphysicalonc,intothcactus pur ofspirit,andtcndcntially
transhgurcs somcthing produccdby humanbcings, somcthing
falliblcandconditioncd,alongwithlaboritsclf,whichisthcsuf-
fcringofhumanbcings,intosomcthingctcrnalandright.Ifon
wcrc pcrmittcd to spclatc abpQcgcl'ssccution, onc might
ssc thatthc cxtcnsionofspirjobccoms tl
vvsion
o1bc c
9
r)iiion thatspiritis prccisclynot an1solatcd

r
t somc sclf-sufhcicnt substancc, but rathcr a mo-

mcnt ofsocial l|r, tbcmomcnttht
1s sarau6myscaI
labor. Butphysicallaborisncccssarilydcpcndcntonsomcthing
otTc+ than itsclf, on naturc. Labor~and inthclastanalysis its
rccctivcform, spirit, aswcll--cannotbcconccivcdwithoutthc
conccptonaturc, anymorcthancannaturcwithout labor. thc
two arcdistinctfromand mcdiatcdbyonc anothcratthcsamc
timc. Marx's CrtiqY the Gotha Progcscribcsastatcofaf-
fairshiddcndccpwithinHcgcl'sphilosophy, and docsso all thc
morc prcciscly in thatitwas notintcndcd as a polcmic against
Hcgcl.Marxisdiscussingthcfamiliarsayinglaboristhcsourcc
ofallwcalthandallculturc,towhichhccountcrs,
Laborisnotthesourceofallwealth.Natureisjustasmuchthesource
ofuse values(anditissurelyofsuchthatmaterialwealthconsists| )
, whchitself_p_qtheaJetaon [a
_
h
.
laborgo_. Theabove phraseistobefoundinallchildren'sprimers
nd iscorrectinsofarasitisimpliedthat laborisperformed with the
appurtenantsubjectsandinstruments. Butasocialist program cannot
allow _pisp
opassoverinsilencetheconditionsthat
alone give them meaning. And in sofar as man from the beginning
behavestowardsnatre, theyrmargsourceof|J_tr
i)
9
"
q
J
b
jects oflabor, as an owner, treatsher asbelongingto him, his labor
becomesthe source ofusevalues, ooIya|th. Thebour-
" .
~
24
geoishaveverygoodgroui;d jfale[yacjiir;gpeaturalcreative
. Wtolabor,sinceprecisely fromthefactthatlabordependsonna-
tpt followsthatthemanho ss+s es nootherpropetytbnis
laborpowermust, in all conditions ofsociety and culture,betl:e slave
ofother men who have made themselves theowners oIthe matcrial
conditionsof |abor.
'
But bccauscofthis Hcgclcannotafford to cxprcss thc scpara-
tionofmcntalandmanuallabor,andhcdocsnotrcadspiritas
an isolatcd aspcctoflabor but instcad, convcrscly, dissolvcsla-
borintoamomcntofspirit, oncmightsayhctakcsIhc:hctori-
calhgurcpars pro toto as his maxim. Dctachcdfromwhatis not
idcnticalwithit,laborbccomcsidcology. !hoscwhohavcatthcir
disposalthc laborofothcrsascribctoitinhcrcntvalu+,onsmcr
it lsolutcandprimary,prccisclybccausclaborisonlylaborf
othcrs. !hc mctaphysicsoflabor andthc appropriauon ofthc
laboofothcrsarccomplcmcntary. !his socialrclationshipdic-
tatcsthcuntruthinHcgcl,thcmaskingofthcsubcctassubcct-
obcct, thc dcnial ofthc nonidcntical in thctotality, no mattcr
howmuchthc nonidcnticalrcccivcs its ducin thc rccctionof
anyparticularudgmcnt.
Apartfromthcchaptronlordshipandbondagc,inthcPhe
nomenolog of Spirit thcnaturcofHgclsproductivcspiritasla-
bor appcars, surprisingly, most ghically in thc matcrial on
natural rclIgion, atthc third stage ofwhich thc spiritualbc-
comcsrcligius contcntfor thchrsttimc, asa ' godt oIIu-
mlabor.'' Spirit,thcrcforc, hcrc appcars asnamv, atid
.actionwhcrcbyitproduccsitsclfas obcctbutwithouthaving
yctgraspcdthcthoughtofitsclfisainstinctivcopcration,likc
thc buiIdingofahoncycombbybccs. . . . !hccrystalsofpyra-
mids and obclisks . . . arc thc works of this artihccr ofrigid
form. ' Innotsimply opposingfctish worship to rcligionas a
primitivcordcgcncratc stagcbutinstcaddchningitasancccs-

25
sarymomcntinthcformationofthcrcligiousspiritandthcrcby,
in thc scnsc ofthcPhenomenolog's subcct-obcctdialcctic, as a
ncccssary momcnt in thc formation ofrcligion itsclfand ulti-
matclyofthcabsolutc, Hcgclincludgan.laboin.ts
co
-
9
(
_
tcrial form
_
c
_,|,J)J
tic
ofs
ir
as thc absolutc. Only a littlc morc woul bc nccdcd~rcmcni-

brance oucImultancouslymcdiatcd and irrcvocably natural
momcnt in labor~and thc Hcgclian dialcctic would rcvcal its
idcntityandspcakitsownnamc.
Wi
(
h thcscparationofmcntalandmanuallabor,privilcgcrc-
scrvcs mcntallabor,whichdcspitcallasscrtions tothccontrary
isthccasicr, foritsclf. Butatthcsamctimcmanuallaboralways
rcapparsinwarninginthcspiritualproccss,whichisanimita-
uofphysical action mcdiatcd by thc imagination, spiritcan
ncvcrgtcomplctclyfrccofitsrclationshiptothcnaturcitisto
dominatc.Spiritobcysnaturcinordcrtomastcrit,cvcnitsproud
sovcrcignty is purchascd with suffcring. '
Thc mctaphysics of
spirit, howcvcr, which makcs spirit, as laborunconsciousofit
sclf, an absolutc, is thc afhrmation ofits cntanglcmcnt, an at-
tcmptonthcpartofasclf-rccctivcspirittorcintcrprctthccursc
towhichitsubmitsasablcssingbypassingiton, and thcrcby to
ustify it. In this rcgard, cspccially, Hcgcl's philosophy can bc
accusc
fcingIdcgiclm t position, taIcn to thc cx-

trcmc,ofthcbourgcoiscclcbrationoflabor. Itisprccisclyinthis
most clcvatcd point of thc idcalist systcm, thc absolutc pro-
claimcdccstaticallyatthccndofthcPhenomenolog, thatthcsobcr
rcalistic fcaturcs of Hcgcl takc rcfugc. At thc samc timc, cvcn
_
ccc
=1
r
I
ati
_
o
|)(
ith
_
c
__
abs
)
basis. To thc cxtcnt to which thc world forms a systcm, itbc-
J. oncprccisclythroughthccloscdunivcrsalityofsocialla-
bor, sociallaborisinfactradical mcdiation, bothbctwccnman
and naturc andalso withinspirit, whichcxists foritsclf, which
'
IOGAli CI ONI\ERSITESI I<0JUPHANESI .
26
tolcratcsnothingoutsidcitsclfandforbidsrcmcmbranccofany-
thing outsidc it. Thcrc is nothing in thc world that shall not
manifcstitsclftohumanbcingssolclythroughsociallabor.Evcn
whcrclaborhasnopowcrovcrit,purcnaturcis dchncdthrough
its rclationship to labor, cvcn if that rclationship is a ncgativc
onc. OnlyawarcncssofallthatcouldlcadthcHgcliandialcctIc
byond itsclf, anditisprcciscly thisawarcncssthatisforbiddcn
r
toit.itwouldpronounccthcnamcthatholdsitinitsspcll. Bc-
cu nothingis knownbutwhathas passcd throughlabor, la-
bor, rightly and wrongly, bccomcs somcthing absolutc, and
disastcr bccomcs salvation, this is why thc wholc, which is thc
part, compulsivcly andunavoidablyoccupicsthc positionoftruth
_n thc scicncc ofmanifcstingconsciousncss. For thc absolutiza-
tionoflaboristhatofthcclass rclationship:a humankind frcc
oflaborwouldbcfrccofdomination.Spiritknowsthatwithout
bcingpcrmittcdtoknowit,thisisthcpovcrtyofphilosophy.But
thcstcpbywhichlaborsctsitsclfupasthcmctaphysicalprinci-
plc purc and simplc is nonc othcr than thcconsistcntclimina-
tionofthcmatcriaItowhichalllaborfcclsitsclfticd,thcmatcrial
that dchncs its boutidary for it, rcminds itofwhatis bclow it,
andrclativizcsitssovcrcignty.Thisis whycpistcmologyuggles
thingsuntilthc givcngivcsthc
illusionofhaving5ccnproduccd
byspirit.Thcfactthatspirittoosandsundcrthccompulsionof
laborandiitsclI1abor:stodIsappcar,thcgrcatclassicalphilos-
ophylitrally asssilic qintcsscnccofcocrciono1fasrccdu.
Itgcis rcf:cdbccauschcrcductionofwhatc si&tosu
not succccd, bccausc that cpistcmological position, as Hcgcl
himsclfkncw, must bc abandoncd in thccoursc ofits own dc-
vclopmcnt. Butithasitstruth,inthatnoonciscapablcofstcp-
ping out of thc world constitutcd by labor into anothcr and
unmcdiatcd onc. Thcidcntihcationofspiritwith labor can bc
27
criticizcdonlyinconfrontingthcphilosophicalconccptofspirit
with what that conccpt actually accomplishcs and not through
rccoursctosomcthingtransccndcnt,howcvcrpositivcitsnaturc. _
l Spirit did notaccomplish this. Wc know thatinits cmphatic
Hcgclian vcrsion, thc conccptofspiritis to bc undcrstood or
ganically, thc partial momntsarc to growinto andbcintcrpe-
nctratcd by onc anothcr by virtuc of a wholc that is alrcady
_inhcrcntincvcry onc ofthcm. This conccpt ofsystcm implics

thcidcntityofsubcctandobcct,whichhasdcvclopcdintothc
solc and conclusivc absolutc, and thc truth ofthc systcm col-
lapscs whcnthatidcntitycollapscs. Butthatidcntity,fullrccon-
ciliationthroughspiritinaworldwhichisinrcalityantagonistic,
isa mcrc asscrtion. Thc philosophical anticipation ofrcconcili-
ationisatrcspassagainstrcalrcconciliation,itascribcsanything
thatcontradictsittofoulcxistcnccasunworthyofphilosophy
Butascamlcsssystcmandnachicvcdrcconciliationarcnotone
and thc samc, rathcr, thcy arc contradictory. thc unity ofm
systcmdcrivcsfromunrcconcilablcviolcncc.Satanically,thcworld
asgraspcdbythc Hcgcliansystcmhasonly now,ahundrcdand
hftyycarslatcr, provcditsclftobcasystcmin thc litcralscnsc,
namclythatofaradicallysocictalizcd socicty. Oncofthc most
rcmarkablc aspccts `of Hcgcl's accomplishmcnt is tbai hc in
fcrrcd thatsystcmaticHaracurofsocictyfromthcconccptlong
bcfor it could gain asccndancy in thc spbcrc ofHcgcl's own
cxpcrcnc, thatofaCcrmany frbchindin itsbourgcoisdcvcl-
omcnt. oHdintcgratcdthroughproduction,"throughthc
cx changcrclationship, dcpcndsin allitsmomcntsonthcsocial
conditions ofits production, and in that scnsc actually rcalizcs
thc primacy ofthcwholcovcritsparts, inthis rcgard thcdcs-
pcratcimpotcnccofcvcrysinglcindividualnowvcrihcsHcgcl's
cxtravagantconccptionofthc systcm. Evcnthccultofproduc-
28
tion is morc than thcidcologyofhumanbcingswhodominatc
naturcandpursucthcirownintcrcstswithoutrcstraint. Inthat
cultisscdimcntcdthcfactthatthcunivcrsalcxchangcrclation-
ship in which cvcrything that cxists, cxists only for somcthing
clsc,standsundcrthcdominationofthoscwhoholdsocialpro-
duction atthcir disposal, this domination is worshippcd philo-
sophically. Evcnthcbcing-for-somcthing-clscthatis thcofhcial
ustihcationforthc cxistcnccofallcommoditicsisonlysccond-
arytoproduction. Thcvcryworldinwhichnothingcxistsforits
ownsakcisalsothcworldofanunlcashcdproductionthatfor-
gcts its human aims. Thc sclf-forgctfulncss ofprqqct[on, thc
insatiablc and dcstructivc cxpansivc principlcofthc cxchangc
socicty,isrecctcdinHcgclianmctaphysics.Itdcscribcstbc,
thcworldactua]lyis,notin historicalpcrspcctiv bu:,ncc,
withoutcrcatinganyblucsmokcinthcproccsswiththcgstion
ofauthcnticity.
Civi1 ocictyisanantagonistictotality. Itsurvivcsonlyinand

throughitsantagonismsandis notablctorcsolvcthcm. Inthc
workbyHcgcl thatis most notoriousforits rtortionist tcn-
dncajology for thc stauis quo, anditscultofthc statc,
t!cPhilosohy of Rtght, thatisstatcdbluntly.Thccryc k
iticandpovocativc passagcs that arc rcsponsiblc forthc fact
thatimportant thinkcrsinthcWcstlikcVcblcn, Dcwcy, andcvcn
Santayanahavc lumpcdHcgcltogcthcrwith Ccrmanimpcrial-
ismandfascismshould thcmsclvcsbcsccnasdcrivcdfromHc-
gcl'sconsciousncss ofthcantagonistic charactcrofthctotality.
ThisiswhyHcgcl'sidolizationofthcstatcshouldnotbctrivial-
izcdbybcingtrcatcdasamcrccmpiricalabcrrationoranirrcl-
cvant addcndum. Rathcr, that idolization is itsclf produccd by
insightintothcfactthatthccontradictionsofcivilsocictycannot
bcrcsolvcdbyitssclf-movcmcnt.Passagcslikcthisoncarccrit-
ical.
29
Ithencebecomesapparentthatdespiteanexcessofwealthcivilsociety
isnotrichenough,i.e.itsownresourcesareinsufhcienttocheckexces-
sivepovertyandthecreationofa penurious rabble. . . . Thisinnerdi-
alecticofcivilsocietythusdrivesit~oratanyratedrivesaspecihccivil
society~topushbeyonditsownlimitsandseekmarkets,andsoitsnec-
essarymeansofsubsistence,inotherlandswhichareeitherdehcienti
the goods ithas over-produced, orelse generallybackward in indus-
try, 8c. '
Thc frcc play offorccs in capitalist socicty, whosc libcral cco-
nomic thcory Hcgcl had acccptcd, has no antidotcforthc fact
thatpovcrty,paupcrisminHcgcl'sold-fashioncdtcrminology,
incrcascs with social wcalth, still lcss could Hcgcl cnvision an
incrcascinproductionthatwouldmakcamockcryofthc asscr-
tion that socicty is not rich cnough in goods. Thc statc is ap-
pcalcd toindcspcrationas ascatofauthoritybcyond this play
offorccs. Paragraph 249 cxprcssly rcfcrs to thc cxtrcmcly ad-
vanccd passagcust quotcd. Thc bcginning ofthat paragraph
rcads,
While the public authority must also undertake the higherdirective
functionofprovidingfortheinterests whichlead beyondtheborders
ofits society (see Paragraph 246), its primary purpose is to actualize
and maintain the universal contained within the particularity ofcivil
society,anditscontroltakestheformofanexterna|system andorga-
nizationfortheprotectionandsecurityofparticularendsandinterests
en masse, inasmuchastheseinterestssubsistonlyinthisuniversal.'
It is intcndcd to allay somcthing that could not othcrwisc bc

smoothcd ovcr. Hcgcl's philosophy of thc statc is a ncccssary
tour dc forcc, a tour dc forccbccauscitsuspcnds thc dialcctic
undcr thc acgis ofa principlc to which Hcgcl's own critiquc
of thc abstract could bc applicd, a principlc whosc locus, as
Hcgclatlcastsuggcsts,isbynomcans outsidcthc playofsocial
forccs.
30
Particularinterestswhichare common toeveryonefallwithincivilso-
cietyandlieoutsidetheabsolutelyuniversalinterestofthestateproper
(see Paragraph 256). The administration of these is in the hands of
Corporations(seeParagraph25I),commercialandprofessionalaswell
as municipal, andtheirofhcials, directors, managers and the like. It is
thebusinessoftheofh cialstomanagetheprivatepropertyandinterests
oftheseparticularspheresand,fromthatpointofview,theirauthority
restsontheconhdenceoftheircommonalties andprofessionalequals.
On theotherhand, however, thesecirclesofparticularinterests must
besubordinatedtothehigherinterestsofthestate,andhencethehlling
ofpositionsofresponsibilityin Corporations, 8c., wi|lgenerallybeef-
fected by a mixture ofpopular election by those interested with ap-
pointmentandratihcationbyhigherauthority.
'
"
But thc tourdcforccwas ncccssarybccausc othcrwisc thc dia-
lcctical principlc would havc cxtcndcd bcyond whatcxists and
thcrcby ncgatcd thc thcsis ofabsolutc idcntity~and it is only
absolutcin thatitisrcalizcd, thatis thccorcofHcgcl's philoso-
phy.Nowhcrcdocsthatphosophycomccloscrtothctruthabout
its own substratum, socicty, that whcrc it turns into nonscnsc
whcnconfrontcdwithit.Hcgcl'shilosophyisindccdcssctiall
ncgativc.critiquc.Incxtcndingthct:ansccnde+talbIosophyof
thcCritique of Pure Reason throughthcthcsisofrcason'sidcntity
withwhatcxistsandmakingitacritiqucofwhatcxists,acritiquc
ofany andcvcrypositivity, Hcgcl dcnounccdthcworld, whosc
thcodicyconstitutcs his prom, mu totlity as wcll, hc dc-
nounccd it as a wcb ofguilt[Schuldzusammenhang] inwhich, as
McphistophclcssaysinFaust, cvcrythingthatcxistsdcscrvcsto
pc)sh.EvcnthcfalscclaimthattIicworIdu:onctliclcssagoo
world containswithinitthclcgitimatcdcmand that thc cmpiri-
calworldbccomcagoodandarcconcilcd world, notmcrcly in
thc Idcathatisitsoppositcbutinthccsh. Ifinthclastanalysis
Hcgcl's systcm makcs thc transition into untruth by following
its own logic, this is audgmcntnot simply on Hcgcl, as asclf-
3I
rightcouspositivistscicnccwouldlikctothink,butrathcraudg-
mcnt on rcality. Hcgcl's scornful so much thc worsc for thc
facts"isinvokcdagainsthimsoautomaticallyonlybccauscitcx-
prcsscs thc dcad scrious truth about thc facts. Hcgcl did not
simply rcconstructthcminthought, hcgraspcd thcmandcriti-
cizcd thcm by producing thcm in thought. thcir ncgativity al-
ways makcs thcm into somcthingothcr than what thcy mcrcly
arcandclaimtobc.Thcprinciplcofrcality'sbccoming,through
which it is morc than its positivity, that is, thc ccntral idcalist
motorofHcgcl's thought, is atthc samctimcanti-idcalist. Itis
thcsubcct'scritiqucofarcality thatidcalism cquatcs with thc
absolutc subcct, namcly consciousncss ofcontradiction within
thc thing itsclf, and thcrcby thc forcc ofthcory, a forcc with
which thc lattcr turns againstitsclf. IfHcgcl's philosophy fails
in tcrms ofthchighcstcritcrion,itsown,itthcrcbyalso provcs
itsclftruc. Thcnonidcntityofthc antagonistic, anonidcntityit
runsupagainstandlaboriouslypullstogcthcr,isthcnonidcntity
ofa wholc thatis notthctrucbutthc untruc, thc absolutc op-
positcof usticc.Butinrcalitythisvcrynonidcntityhasthcform
ofidcntity,anall-inclusivcncssthatisnotgovcrncdbyanythird,
rcconcilingclcmcnt.Thiskindofdcludcdidcntityisthccsscncc
ofidcology,ofsociallyncccssaryillusion.Onlythroughthcpro-
ccsswhcrcbythccontradictionbccomcsabsolutc,andnotthrough
thc contradiction bccoming allcviatcd in thc absolutc, could it
disintcgratcand pcrhaps hnditswaytothatrcconciliationthat
musthavcmislcd Hcgclbccauscitsrcalpossibilitywasstillcon-
ccalcdfrom him. Inallitsparticularmomcnts Hcgcl's philoso-
phyisintcndcdtobcncgativc,butif,contrarytohisintcntions,
itbccomcs ncgativcas awholcaswcll, itthcrcbyacknowlcdgcs
thcncgativityofitsobcct. Inthatultimatclythcnonidcntityof
subcctandobcct,conccptandthing, idcaandsocicty,cmcrgcs,
unpacihablc,inhisphilosophy,inthatitultimatclydisintcgratcs
32
in absolutc ncgativity, it ncvcrthclcss also rcdccms its promisc
andtrulybccomcsidcnticalwithitscnsnarcdsubcctmattcr. In
thclastanalysis,cvcninHcgclthcquicsccnccofmovcmcnt,thc
absolutc,mcanssimplythcrcconcilcdlifc,thclifcofthcpacihcd
drivcthatnolongcrknowscithcrdchcicncyorthclabortowhich
alonc, howcvcr, it owcs that rcconciliation. Hcncc thc locus of
Hcgcl's truthis not outsidc thcsystcm, rathcr, itis as inhcrcnt
inthcsystcmashisuntruth.Forthisuntruthisnoncothcrthan
thcuntruthofthcsystcmofthcsocictythatconstitutcsthcsub-
stratumofhisphilosophy.
ThcobcctivcturnthatidcalismtookinHcgcl,thcrcstitutionof
thc spcculativc mctaphysics thathadbccn shattcrcd by Kant's
critical philosophy, a rcstitution thatrcstorcs conccptslikcthat
ofbcingandthatwantstosalvagccvcnthcontologicalproofof
Cod~allofthishascncouragcdpcoplctoclaimHcgclforcxis-
tcntialontology. Hcidcggcr'sintcrprctationofthcintroduction
tothcPhenomenolog inH olzwege isthcmostwcllknownifbyno
mcans thc hrsttcstimonyto that. From thisclaim onc canlcarn
somctmngthatcxstcntialontologyiscurrcntlyrcluctanttohcar~
cxistcntial ontology's afhnity with transccndcntal idcalism,
somcthing it imagincs it has ovcrcomc through thc pathos of
bcing. Butwhilcwhatnowgocsundcrthcnamcofthcqucstion
ofbcinghasaplaccasamomcntinHcgcl'ssystcm,Hcgcldcnics
bcingthcvcryabsolutcncss,thcvcrypriorityovcrallthoughtor
conccpt,thatthcmostrcccntrcsurrcctionofmctaphysicshopcs
to sccurc. Byvirtuc ofits dchnition ofbcingas an csscntially
ncgativc, rccctcd, criticizcd momcnt ofthc dialcctic, Hcgcl's
thcory ofbcing bccomcs incompatiblc with thc contcmporary
thcologization ofbcing. Scarcclyanywhcrcdocs his philosophy
havcmorccontcmporaryrclcvanccthanwhcrcitdismantlcsthc
conccptofbcing.Evcnthcdchnitionofbcingatthcbcginning
ofthcPhenomenolog saysthcprccise oppositcofwhatthcword
33
is intcndcd to suggcst today. Furthcr, thc living Substancc is
bcingwhich isintruthSubcct,or, what isthcsamc,isintruth
actualonlyinsofarasitisthcmovcmcntofpositingitsclf,oris
thc mcdiation ofitssclf-othcringwith itsclf.
,,
Thc distinction
bctwccn bcingassubcctandthcbcing[Seyn] writtcnwiththcy
thatfor Hcgclwasstillorthographicbuttodayisarchaic,is thc
distinction that makcs all thc difIcrcncc. In contrast to taking
subcctivc consciousncss as a point ofdcparturc, Hcgcl'sLogc,
as wc know, dcvclops thccatcgorics ofthoughtitsclffromonc
anothcrinthcirobcctivityandindoingsobcginswiththccon-
ccptofbcing.Thisbcginning,howcvcr,docsnotfoundanyprma
philosophia. Hcgcl'sbcingis thcoppositc ofaprimordialcntity.
Hcgcldocsnotcrcditthcconccptofbcing,a aprimordialvaluc,
with immcdiacy, thc illusion that bcing is logically and gcncti-
cally prior to any rccction, any division bctwccn subcct and
obcct, instcad, hc cradicatcs immcdiacy. Bcing, hc says at thc
bcginning of thc scction ofthcLogic for which thc word being
scrvcsas thc titlc,is indctcrminatcimmcdiacy,
,,
' and bccausc
ofits indctcrminatcncss, thisvcry immcdiacy to whichcxistcn-
tialontologyclingsbccomcsforHcgcl,whoundcrstoodthcmc-
diatcdncssofcvcrythingunmcdiatcd,anobcctiontothcdignity
ofbcing,itisbcing'sncgativity, purcandsimplc,thatmotivatcs
thc dialcctical stcp that cquatcs bcingwith nothingncss. In its
indctcrminatc immcdiacyitis cqual only toitsclf. . . . Itis purc
indctcrminatcncss and cmptincss. Thcrc is nothing to bc in-
tuitcd init,ifonccanspcak hcrcofintuiting, or, itisonlypurc
intuitingitsclf,ustas littlc is anythingtobcthoughtinit, orit
s cqually only this cmpty thinking. Bcing, thc indctcrminatc
immcdiatc, is in fact nothing, and ncithcr morc or lcss than
nothing.Thiscmptincss,howcvcr,isnotsomuchanontolog-
icalqualityofbcingasadchcicncyinthcphilosophicalidcathat
tcrminatcsinbcing. IfwccnunciatcBcingasaprcdicatcofthc
34
absolutc,writcs Hcgclathis mostmaturc, in thcEncyclopedia,
wc gct thc hrstdchnitionofthc lattcr. Thc AbsolutcisBcing.
Thisis(inthought)thcabsolutclyinitialdchnition,thcmostab-
stract andstintcd.Thcconccptofbcing, thc ultimatclcgacy
ofHusscrl's originaryintuition,is currcntlybcingcclcbratcd
as somcthingrcmovcdfromallrcihcation, as absolutcimmcdi-
acy. Hcgclnotonlysawthatitisincapablcofbcinggraspcdin-
tuitivcly bccausc ofthat indctcrminatcncss and cmptincss, hc
alsosawthatitis aconccptthatforgctsitisaconccptand mas-
qucradcs as purc immcdiacy, in a ccrtain scnsc it is thc most
thinglikc conccptofall. Whcnbcingistakcnin this simplicity
andimmcdiacy, thcrccollcctionthatitisthcrcsultofcomplctc
abstraction, and so for that rcason alonc isabstractncgativity,
nothing,islcftbchind . . . ,hcwritcsatasomcwhatlatcrpoint
in thcLogc. But onc can scc from statcmcnts in thcLogc di-
rcctcd spccihcallyagainst)acobi that Hcgcl is not cngaging in
sublimcplaywithur-wordshcrc, rathcr,thccritiqucofbcingis
infactintcndcdas acritiqucofanyandcvcrycmphaticuscof
thisconccptinphilosophy.
Withthiswhollyabstractpurityofcontinuity,thatis,indeterminateness
andvacuityofconception, itis indifferentwhether thisabstractionis
calledspace,pureintuiting,orpurethinking,itisaltogetherthesame
as what the Indian calls Brahma, when for years on end, physically
motionlessandequallyunmovedinsensation,conception,fantasy,de-
sire,andsoon,lookingonlyatthetipofhisnose,hesaysinwardlyonly
Om, Om, Om, orelse nothingatall. This dull, empty consciousness,
understoodasconsciousness,is~being.
Hcgcl hcard thc cvocation ofbcing in its manicrigidity as thc
formulaic clattcringofthc praycr whccl. Hc kncw somcthing
thathascurrcntlybccnfalsihcd and lost,forall thctalkofthc
concrctc, lostprccisclyin thcmagicofthc undchncdconcrctc-
ncss that has no substancc butits own aura. that philosophy is
I
35
notpcrmittcdtolookforitssubcctmattcrinthcmostsuprcmc
univcrsalconccpts~whicharc thcnashamcd ofthcirownuni-
vcrsal conccptual charactcr~for thc sakc of thcir prcsumcd
ctcrnityandimmutability.LikconlythcNictzschcofthcTwilight
of the Iols aftcr him,Hcgclrccctcdthccquationofphilosophi-
calsubstancc~truth~withthchighcstabstractions,andlocatcd
truthinthcvcryspccihciticswithwhichtraditionalmctaphysics
wastoorchncd to dirtyitshands. In Hcgcl idcalismtransccnds
itsclfnotlcastofallinthisintcntion,whichhccarricsoutmag-
nihccntlyinthcclosclinkingofstagcsofconsciousncsswithso-
ciohistoricalstagcsinthcPhenomenolog of Spirit. Whatcurrcntly
claims to risc abovc dialcctics as an cvocation ofur-words, as
"Sage," now morc than cvcr falls prcy to thc dialcctic. itis ab-
straction,whichinatcsitscfintoasomcthingthatcxistsinand
foritsclfandinsodoingsinksdownintosomcthinguttcrlywith-
outcontcnt, into tautology, into bcing that says nothing about
bcing, ovcrandovcragain.
Sincc Husscrl, contcmporary philosophics ofbcing havc rc-
voltcd against idcalism. Tothis cxtcnt thc irrcvocablc situation
ofhistoricalconsciousncssiscxprcsscdinthcm.thcyrcgistcrthc
fact that what is
cannot bc dcvclopcd or dcduccd fvom mcrc

subcctivcimmancncc,fromconsciousncss.Butthcythcrcbyhy-
postatizc thc suprcmc rcsult of subcctivc-conccptual abstrac-
tion, bcing, and thus, both in tcrms ofthcir stancc on socicty
and in thcir thcorctical approach, thcy arc trappcdwithinidc-
alism withoutbcingawarcofit. Thcrc is nothingthatdcmon-
stratcs this morc strikingly than thc spcculations ofthc arch-
idcalistHcgcl.AswcsccalrcadyinHcidcggcr'scarlyworkona
work attributcd to Duns Scotus, thosc whowant to rcstorcon-
tologyfcclthcmsclvcslargclyinagrccmcntwithHcgcl,namcly
with rcspcct to an ovcrall conccption ofWcstcrn mctaphysics
thatthcy hopc to gctfrccoflatcr, andinfactin Hcgclthccx-
3
trcmcs of idcalism do indccd transccnd mcrc subcctivity,
thc dclusory sphcrc ofphilosophical immancncc. To apply an
cxprcssionofEmilLask's tosomcthingmorc gcncral,inHcgcl
too, idcalism's intcntion points bcyond itsclf. But bchind this
formalconsonanccwiththc ontologicalimpulscarchiddcndif-
fcrcnccs whosc subtlcty makcs all thc diffcrcncc in thc world.
ThcIdca,whichinHcgclisactuallydircctcdagainsttraditional
idcalism,isnotthcidcaofbcingbutthcidcaoftruth. Thatthc
form of thought is thc pcrfcct form, and that it prcscnts thc
truth as it intrinsically and actually is, is thc gcncral dogma of
philosophy.
Thc absolutcncss of spirit, as opposcd to any-

thingmcrclyhnitc,isintcndcdtovouchfor thcabsolutcncssof
truth,whichis rcmovcdfrommcrcopining, fromallintcntion,
from all subcctivc facts ofconsciousncss, thisis thc apcxof
Hcgcl'sphilosophy.Forhimtruthisnotamcrcrclationshipbc-
twccnudgmcntandobccts,notaprcdicatcofsubcctivcthought,
rathcr, itisintcndcd to riscsubstantiallyabovcthat, indccd,as
somcthingin andforitsclf, knowingtruthisforhim nothing
lcss thanknowingthc absolutc. this is thcintcntofhiscritiquc
ofKant'scritical philosophy withits dclimitations anditsirrcc-
oncilablcscparationofsubcctivity andbcing-in-itsclf. In apas-
sagc citcd by Kroncr, Hcgcl says that Kant's so-callcd critical
philosophy has soothcd thc conscicncc of ignorancc of thc
ctcrnalanddivincbyhavingprovcd thatnothingcanbcknown
ofthc ctcrnal and divinc. . . . Nothingis morc wclcomc to su-
pcrhcialityofknowlcdgcandcharactcr,nothingscizcduponmorc
rcadilythanthisdoctrincofignorancc,inwhichthissupcrFcial-
ity and shallowncss is prcscntcd as cxccllcncc, as thc aim and
rcsultofallintcllcctualcndcavor.'Thiskindofcmphaticidca
oftruthgivcs thc lic to subcctivism, whosc assiduous conccrn
withwhcthcrtruthistruccnoughtcrminatcsinthcabolitionof
truth. Thc contcntofconsciousncssthatdcvclops into truthis
37
not truth mcrclyforthc knowingsubcct, whcthcr thatsubcct
bc a transccndcntal onc or not. Thc idca ofthc obcctivity of
truthstrcngthcnsthcsubcct'srcason. itistobcpossiblc,attain-
ablc for him, currcnt attcmpts to brcak out ofsubcctivism, in
contrast,arcallicdtoadcfamationofthcsubcct.Asanidcaof
rcason, howcvcr, Hcgcl's Idcais distinguishcd from thc rcsto-
rationofthcabsolutcconccptofbcingbybcingmcdiatcdwithin
itsclf. For Hcgcl truth initsclfis notbcing, itis prccisclyin
bcingthatabstraction,thcapproachofthcsubcctthatproduccs
its conccptsnominalistically,ishiddcn. In Hcgcl's idcaoftruth,
howcvcr, thc subcctivc momcnt, thc momcnt ofrclativity, is
surpasscd in that it bccomcs awarc ofitsclf. Thc idca is con-
taincdinwhatistruc, althoughitisnotidcnticalwithit, rcason
is, thcrcforc, misundcrstood whcn rccction is cxcludcd from
thc Truc, and is not graspcd asapositivcmomcntofthc abso-
lutc. Pcrhaps nothingsays morcaboutthcnaturc ofdialcc-
tical thought than thatsclf-consciousncssofthc subcctivc mo-
mcntintruth,rccctiononrccction,istocffcctarcconciliation
with thcinusticc that thc opcrating subcctivity docs to imma-
ncnttruthinmcrclysupposingand positingas trucsomcthing
that is ncvcrwholly truc. Ifthc idcalist dialcctic turns against
idcalism, itdocs so bccauscits own principlc, bccauscthcvcry
ovcrcxtcnsionofitsidcalistclaim,isatthcsamctimcanti-idcal-
ist.Thcdialccticisaproccssintcrmsofthcimmancnccoftruth
asmuchasintcrmsofthcactivityofconsciousncss.proccss,that
is,istruthitsclf. Hcgclcmphasizcs thisinoncformulationaftcr
anothcr. Truthis itsownsclf-movcmcnt, whcrcas thc mcthod
ust dcscribcdisthcmodcofcognitionthatrcmainscxtcrnalto
its matcrial."This movcmcntis clicitcd by thc subcctin thc
activityofthinking. Inmyvicw. . . cvcrythingturnsongrasp-
ingandcxprcssingthcTruc, notonlyasSubstancc,butcqually
as Subcct.
,,
But bccausc thc matcrial that cvcry individual
38
udgmcntisconccrncdwithisconfrontcdwithitsconccptinthat
udgmcntand bccausc cvcry individual, hnitcudgmcntdisin-
tcgratcs as untruc in that proccss, thc subcctivc activity ofrc-
cction lcads truth out bcyond thc traditional conccpt ofthc
adaptationofthcidcatoitssubcctmattcr. truthcannolongcr
bcapprchcndcdasaqualitycharactcrizingudgmcnts.InHcgcl
truthiscallcd,asinthctraditionaldchnitionyctinsccrctoppo-
sition to it, agrccmcnt of thc conccpt with its actuality,' it
consistsinthccoincidcnccofthcobcctwithitsclf,thatis,with
itsconccpt.Bccausc,howcvcr,nohnitcudgmcntcvcrattains
thatagrccmcnt,thcconccptoftruthistornlooscfrom prcdica-
tivclogicand transposcd intothcdialccticas awholc. Itis ncc-
cssary, says Hcgcl, todiscard thc prcudicc thattruth mustbc
somcthing tangiblc. ' ' Hcgcl's critiqucofthc rigid scparation
ofthcmomcntsofthcudgmcntfuscstruth, insofarasitiscon-
ccivcd asmcrc rcsult, with proccss. It dcstroys thcillusionthat
truth could consistin consciousncss'smcasuringitsclfin tcrms
ofsomcindividualthingconfrontingit.
'True' and'false' belongamongthose determinate notions which are
heldtobeinertandwhollyseparateessences,onehereandonethere,
eachstandinghxedandisolatedfromtheother,withwhichithasnoth-
ingincommon. Against this viewit must be maintained that truth is
notaminted cointhatcanbegivenand pocketed ready-made. Noris
theresuchathingasthefalse,anymorethantherei somethingevi|.
... To knowsomethingfalselymeansthatthereisadisparitybetween
knowledge andits Substance. But this verydisparity is the process of
distinguishingingeneral,whichis an essential moment in knowing].
Outofthisdistinguishing,ofcourse,comestheiridentity,and thisre-
sultant identityis the truth. But itis nottruth as ifthe disparityhad
been thrown away, like dross from pure metal, noteven like the tool
which remains separate from the hnished vessel, disparity, rather,
as the negative, the self, is itselfstill directly present in the True as
such.
39
Aspectsof Hegel'sPhilosophy
Hcgclbrcakshcrcwiththcdoctrincoftruthasanadaequatio rei
. atque cogitationi, adoctrincparrotcdbythcwholcofphilosophy.
Through thc dialcctic, which is thc approach of a consistcnt
nominalism awakcncd to sclf-consciousncss, an approach that
cxamincs any andcvcry conccpt in tcrms ofits subcctmattcr
and in doingsoconvictsitofitsinadcquacy, aPlatonicidcaof
truth is adumbratcd.Thisidcais notasscrtcdassomcthingob-
viousanddircctly prcscntto thcintuition, instcad,itisarouscd
inanticipationbythcvcryinsistcncc ofintcllcctual labor, which
customarily stops with thc critiquc ofPlatonism. philosophical
rcason too has its cunning. Only whcn thc dcmand fov truth
rcfuscstohonorthcncvcrthclcssincscapablcclaimto truthmadc
incachandcvcrylimitcdandthcrcforcuntrucudgmcnt,aclaim
that at thc samc timc cannot bc dispcnscd with, only whcn it
ncgatcsthcsubcctivcadequatio throughsclf-rccction,docstruth
makc thc transitionofits ownaccord into an obcctivcidca,an
idca thatis no longcrnominalistically rcduciblc. Hcgcl also al-
ways intcrprcts thc movcmcnt that is supposcd to bc truth as
sclf-movcmcnt [Eigenbewegung] that is motivatcd as much by
thc statc ofaffairs withwhich thcudgmcntisconccrncdasby
thcsynthcsiscffcctcdbythought.Thatthcsubcctmaynotsim-
plycontcntitsclfwiththcmcrcadcquacyofitsudgmcntstothc
statcs ofafIairsudgcd dcrivcs from thc fact thatudgmcntis
notamcrcsubcctivcactivity,thattruthitsclfisnotamcrcqual-
ityof udgmcnt,rathcr,intruthsomcthingalwaysprcvailsthat,
althoughitcannotbcisolatcd,cannotbcrcduccdtothcsubcct,
somcthingthattraditionalidcalistcpistcmologicsbclicvcthcycan
ncglcctasamcrcunknown. Truthdivcstsitsclfofits subcctiv-
ity. bccauscnosubcctivcudgmcntcanbctrucandyctcachand
cvcry oncmustwant tobctruc, truthtransccnds itsclfandbc-
comcs somcthingin-itsclf. Assomcthingthatmakcs thctransi-
tioninthisway,howcvcr,somcthingthatisnotmcrclypositcd
40
any morc than it is somcthing mcrcly rcvcalcd, truth is also
incompatiblc with what ontology hopcs to discovcr through its
inquirics. Hcgcl's truth is nolongcrintimc,asnominalisttruth
was, nor is it abovc timc in thc ontological fashion. for Hcgcl
timc bccomcs a momcnt oftruth itsclf. Truth as proccss is a
passagcthrough al momcnts"as opposcd to aproposition that
containscontradictions,andassuchithasatcmporalcorc.This
liquidatcs thc hypostasis of abstraction and thc sclf-idcntical
conccpt that dominatcs traditional philosophy. If Hcgcl's
movcmcntofthcconccptrcstorcsPlatonisminaccrtainscnsc,
thisPlatonismisncvcrthclcsshcalcdofitsstaticquality, itsmythic
hcritagc, and has absorbcd into itsclfall thc spontancityoflib-
cratcd consciousncss. Dcspitc cvcrything, Hcgcl ultimatcly rc-
mainsticdtothcidcntitythcsisandthcrcforctoidcalism,butat
amomcntinthchistoryofspiritwhcnconformitychainsspirit
in a way that was not thc casc a hundrcd ycars ago, thc now
chcap critiqucofidcalism thatatthattimchadtobcwonfrom
thcsupcriorpowcrofidcalismnccdstobc rcmindcd that thcrc
is a momcntoftruth in thcidcntity thcsisitsclf. If, inKantian
tcrms,thcrcwcrcnosimilaritybctwccnsubcctandobcct,ifthc
two, as anunrcstraincd positivism would havcit,stoodinabso-
lutc and unmcdiatcd opposition to onc anothcr, thcn not only
wouldthcrcbcnotruth,thcrcwouldbcnorcasonandnoidcas
atall.Thoughtthatcomplctclycxtirpatcditsmimcticimpulsc~
thckindofcnlightcnmcntthatdocsnotcarryoutthcsclf-rccc-
tionthatformsthccontcntofthcHcgcliansystcm, namingthc
rclationshipofthcmattcrathandtothcidca~wouldcndupin
madncss. Thought that is absolutcly without rcfcrcncc~thc
complctc oppositc ofthc philosophy ofidcntity~thought that
rcmovcsallparticipationonthcsubcct'spartandallanthropo-
morphism from thc obcct, is thc consciousncss ofthc schizo-
phrcnic. Its obcctivity cclcbratcs its triumph in a pathos-hllcd
4I
narcissism. Thc spcculativc Hcgclian conccpt rcscucs mimcsis
through spirit's sclf-rccction. truthis notadaequatio butaun-
ity, and in thc dcclinc ofidcalism rcason's mindfulncss ofits
mimcticnaturcisrcvcalcdbyHcgcltobcitshumanright.
Hcrconccould obcctthatin hypostatizingspirit Hcgcl, thc
Platonicrcalistandabsolutcidcalist,indulgcdinthcsamccon-
ccptualfctishism thatoccursinthcnamcofbcingtoday. Buta
udgmcnt that invokcd this similarity would itsclf rcmain ab-
stract. Evcnifabstractthoughtandabstractbcingarcthcsamc,
as an admittcdly disputcd linc from a pocm by Parmcnidcs
claimcdatthcbcginningofWcstcrnphilosophy,thcontological
conccptofbcing has adifIcrcnt status than thc Hcgclian con-
ccptofrcason.Bothcatcgoricsparticipatcinthcdynamicofhis-
tory. Somc pcoplc, Kroncr includcd, havc tricd to list Hcgcl
amongthcirrationalistsonthcbasisofhiscritiqucofhnitcand
limitcdrccction,andthcrcarcstatcmcntsbyHcgclthatcanbc
adduccd to support that argumcnt, such as his statcment that
spcculation, likc unmcdiatcd bclicf, stands opposcd to rccc-
tion. Butlikc Kantinthcthrcccritiqucs,Hcgclmaintainsdcci-
sivclythatrcasonisonc,thatitisrcason,ratio, thought.Evcnthc
movcmcntthatis tolcadoutbcyondallhnitcconccptualdctcr-
minationsisasclf-criticalmovcmcntonthcpartofthought. thc
spcculativc conccpt is ncithcr intuition nor catcgorial intui-
tion."ThcrigorofHcgcl'sattcmpttorcscucthcontologicalproof
ofCod inoppositionto Kantmaybc qucstioncd. Butwhat im-
pcllcd him to it was not a dcsirc to cclipsc rcason but on thc
contrarythcutopianhopcthatthcblock,thclimitsofthcpos-
sibilityofcxpcricncc,"mightnotbchnal,thatsucccssmightbc
achicvcdanyway,asinthcconcludingsccncofFaust: thatspirit,
in all its wcakncss, limitations, and ncgativity, rcscmblcs truth
and is thcrcforc suitcd for knowlcdgc oftruth. Ifatonctimc
thc arrogancc ofthc Hcgclian doctrinc ofabsolutc spirit was
42
rightlycmphasizcd, today, whcn idcalismisdcfamcdbycvcry-
oncandmostofallbythcsccrctidcalists,awholcsomccorrcc-
tivc bccomcs apparcntin thc notion ofspirit's absolutcncss. It
passcsudgmcntonthcparalyzingrcsignationincontcmporary
consciousncss, which, outofits own wcakncss, is cvcrrcady to
supportthcdcgradationdonctoitbythcsupcriorforccofblind
cxistcncc. Inthcso-callcd'ontological'proofofthccxistcnccof
Cod,wchavcthcsamcconvcrsionofthcabsolutcconccptinto
cxistcncc.ThisconvcrsionhasconstitutcdthcdcpthofthcIdca
in thc modcrn world, although rcccntly it has bccn dcclarcd
inconccivablc, with thc rcsult that knowlcdgc of truth has
bccnrcnounccd, sincc truthis simply thcunityofconccpt and
cxistcncc.
IfHcgclian rcasonrcsistsbcingmcrclysubcctivc and ncga-
tivc, and rcpcatcdly functions as spokcspcrsonforwhat is op-
poscd tothissubcctivc rcason, cvcnuncarthingthc rationalin
thcirrationalwithgusto,Hcgcldocsnotsimplycompclthcobc-
dicnccofonc who would rcbclagainstthisby makingthc hct-
cronomousandcstrangcdappctizing,asthoughitwcrcrcason's
naturalsubcctmattcr,nordocshcmcrclywarnthatitisnousc
opposingwhatcannotbcchangcd.Rathcr,inhisinncrmostcorc
Hcgclscnscd thatthcnaturcanddcstinyofhumanbcingscan
bc rcalizcd only through what is cstrangcd, only through thc
world'sdomination,asitwcrc,ofhumanbcings.Humanbcings
mustappropriatccvcnthcpowcrsthatarchostilctothcm, thcy
must insinuatc thcmsclvcs into thcm, so to spcak. Hcgcl intro-
duccd thc cunning ofrcason into thc philosophy ofhistory in
ordcrto providcaplausiblcdcmonstrationofthc wayobcctivc
rcason,thcrcalizationoffrccdom,succccdsbymcansofthcblind,
irrationalpassionsofhistoricalindividuals.Thisconccptrcvcals
somcthing about thc cxpcricntial corc ofHcgcl's thought. His
thought as awholc is cunning, it hopcs to achicvcvictoryovcr
43
thcsupcriorpowcrofthcworld,aboutwhichithasnoillusions,
by turning this supcrior powcr againstitsclfuntil it turns into
somcthingdiffcrcnt. InaconvcrsationwithCocthc, handcddown
byEckcrmann,inwhichhcwasunusuallycandid,Hcgcldchncd
thcdialccticas thcorganizcdspiritofcontradiction. Thatkind
ofcunningisnotaninsubstantialclcmcntinthcdialcctic,akind
ofgrandiosc pcasantshrcwdncss thathas lcarncd to submit to
thc powcrful and adapt to thcir nccds until it can wrcst thcir
powcrfromthcm.thcdialccticoflordshipandbondagclctsthat
sccrct out.Wc knowthat throughout hislifc Hcgcl hcld tothc
Swabian dialcct, cvcn as an ostcnsiblc Prussian statc philoso-
phcr, and rcports about him rcpcatcdly notc with amazcmcnt
thcsurprisingsimplicityofthccharactcrofthismanwhowasso
cxccptionally diucult as a writcr. Hc rcmaincd unfaltcringly
faithfultohisorigins, thcprcconditionforastrongcgoandany
clcvationofthought.Ofcourscthcrcisarcsiducoffalscpositiv-
ityinthis. Hcgclfocuscsonthccircumstanccsinwhichhchnds
himsclf, likc thc pcrsonwho bclicvcs hc willrcafhrmhis valuc
by lctting onc know, through gcsturcs orwords, that hc is an
unimportant man. But thatnaivctofthcunnaivc, whoscana-
logucinthcsystcmisthcrcstorationofimmcdiacyatallitslcv-
cls,itsclftcstihcstoaningcniouscraftincss,cspcciallyincontrast
to thc stupid, pcrhdiousrcproach ofartihcialityandcxaggcra-
tion thathasbccnblabbcrcdagainstcvcrydialccticalidcasincc
thcn. Inthcnaivctofthcidcathatissoclosctoitsobcctthatit
is onintimatctermswithit, asitwcrc, thcothcrwiscso grown-
up Hcgcl prcscrvcd, as Horkhcimcrsaid, an clcmcntofchild-
hood,thccouragctobcwcakthatgivcsthcchildthcidcathatit
willultimatclyovcrcomccvcnwhatismostdifhcult.
Inthisrcgardtoo,ofcoursc,Hcgcl'sphilosophy,pcrhapsmorc
dialcctical than it itsclfimagincd, walks a narrow linc. For as
littlc as it is willing to rcnouncc knowlcdgc oftruth, its tcn-
44
dcncyto rcsignationisundcniablc. Itwouldlikctoustifywhat
cxists as rational and dispcnscwith thcrccction that opposcs
this,withasupcriorattitudcthatboastsabouthowdifhcultthc
worldisanddrawsthcmoralthatitcannotbcchangcd. Ifany-
whcrc,itishcrcthatHcgclwasbourgcois.Buttositinudgmcnt
onhimcvcninthisrcgardwouldbcasignofascrvilcattitudc.
Thc most qucstionablc, and thcrcforc also thc bcst known of
Hcgcl's tcachings, that what is rcal is rational, was not mcrcly
apologctic.Rathcr,inHcgclrcasonhndsitsclfconstcllatcdwith
frccdom. Frccdom and rcason arc nonscnsc without onc an-
othcr. Thc rcal can bc considcrcd rational only insofar as thc
idca offrccdom, that is, human bcings' gcnuinc sclf-dctcrmi-
nation,shincsthroughit.Anyoncwhotricstoconurcawaythis
lcgacyofthcEnlightcnmcntinHcgclandcampaignforthcidca
thathisLogc has nothingto dowith arationalordcringofthc
world falsihcs him. Evcn whcrc, in his latcr pcriod, Hcgcl dc-
fcndsthcpositivc~thatwhichsimplyis~thathcattackcdinhis
youth,hcappcalstorcason,whichundcrstandswhatmcrclycx-
istsasmorcthanmcrclycxisting,undcrstandsitfromthcpoint
ofvicw ofsclf-consciousncss and thc sclf-cmancipation ofhu-
manbcings.Onccannotrcmovcthcobcctivcconccptofrcason
fromabsolutcidcalism, anymorcthanonccanrcmovcits sub-
cctivc origins in thc sclf-prcscrving rcason ofthc individual,
cvcnin Kant'sphilosophyofhistory,sclf-prcscrvationturns,by
virtuc ofits own movcmcnt, into obcctivity, into humanity,"
intoatrucsocicty.ThisalonccnablcdHcgcltodchncsubcctivc
rcason,ancccssarymomcntinabsolutcspirit,assomcthinguni-
vcrsalaswcll. Evcnifitdocs notknowit,thc rcasonofthcin-
dividual, with which, in thcdialcctic ofscnsc ccrtainty, Hcgcl's
movcmcnt ofthc conccpt bcgins, is always alrcady potcntially
thc rcason ofthc spccics. This much is truc cvcnin thc othcr-
wisc falsc doctrinc of thc idcalists that scts up transccndcntal
45
consciousncss, which is an abstraction from individual con-
sciousncss, assubstantialand immancnt dcspitc itsgcnctic and
logical dcpcndcncc on individual consciousncss. Thc )anus
charactcrofHcgcl'sphilosophybccomsparticularlyobviousin
thccatcgoryofthcindividual. Hcgclsccsthroughthcmomcnt
ofillusioninindividuationaswcllashisantipodcSchopcnhaucr
docs~thcobstinacyofdwcllingonwhatonc mcrclyis oncsclf,
thc narrowncss and particularity ofindividualintcrcsts. Ncvcr-
thclcss Hcgcl did not disposscss obcctivity or csscncc ofthcir
rclationshiptothcindividualandthcimmcdiatc. Thcunivcrsal
isalwaysalsothcparticularandthcparticularthcunivcrsal.By
analyzingthisrclationship, thcdialccticgivcsanaccountofthc
social forcc hcld in which cvcrythingindividualissociallyprc-
formcdfromthcoutsctandatthcsamctimcnothingisrcalizcd
cxccptinandthroughindividuals.Thccatcgoricsofthcpartic-
ularand thc gcncral, thc individual and socicty, cannotbcput
torcstanymorcthan canthoscofsubcctandobcct, norcan
thc proccss that takcs placc bctwccn thcm bc intcrprctcd as a
proccssbctwccntwopolcsthatrctainthcirindividualidcntitics.
thccontributionsofthctwo momcnts~indccd,whatthoscmo-
mcnts actuallyarc~an bc disccrncd onlyin historical concrc-
tion. IfncvcrthclcssinthcconstructionofHcgclianphilosophy
thcunivcrsal,thcsubstantial,asopposcdtothcfrailtyandwcak-
ncss ofthcindividual, andultimatclythcinstitutionalarc most
stronglyacccntuatcd,thiscxprcsscsmorcthanacomplicitywith
thccourscofthcworld,morcthanthcchcapconsolationforthc
fragilityofcxistcnccthatrcmindsitthatitsimplyisfragilc.Whilc
Hcgcl'sphilosophydraws thcfullconscqucnccsfrombourgcois
subcctivism,thatis,itactuallyundcrstandsthcworldasawholc
as thc productoflabor~ascommodity, ifoncwill,atthcsamc
timcHcgclgivcsancxtrcmclysharpcritiqucofsubcctivity,onc
thatgocsfarbcyondFichtc'sdistinctionbctwccnthcsubcctand
46
AspectsofHegel's Philosophy
thcindividual.InHcgcl,thcnot-I, whichinFichtcwasabstractly
positcd, is dcvclopcd, subcctcd to thc dialcctic, concrctcly, and
hcncc notonlyin gcncral tcrms but in its full spccihc contcnt,
thus scrving to dclimit thc subcct. Whcrcas Hcinc, surcly not
thclcastudiciousofHcgcl'slistcncrs,couldundcrstandHcgcl's
tcachingsprimarilyasavalidationofindividuality,individuality
itsclfhnds itsclfdcaltwith roughly, cvcn with contcmpt, atnu-
mcrous lcvcls ofthc systcm. Butthis rcccts thc ambiguity of
civilsocicty,whichtrulyattaincdsclf-consciousncssinHcgcl,whcn
it comcs to individuality. To civil socicty, thc human bcing, as
unrcstraincd produccr, appcars to bc autonomous, hcirofthc
divinclcgislator,virtuallyomnipotcnt.Forthis rcason, howcvcr,
thcparticularindividual,whointhissocictyistrulyamcrcagcnt
of thc social proccss of production and whosc own nccds arc
mcrcly ground down, so to spcak, in thc proccss, is also con-
sidcrcdcomplctclyimpotcntandinsignihcantatthcsamctimc.
Inunrcsolvcdoppositiontohcpathosofhumanism,Hcgclcx-
plicitlyand implicitlyordcrs humanbcings, as thosc who pcr-
form sociallyncccssary labor, to subcct thcmsclvcs to an alicn
ncccssity. Hc thcrcby cmbodics, in thcorctical form, thc anti-
nomy ofthc univcrsal and thc particular in bourgcois socicty.
Butby formulatng itruthlcssly, hc makcs thisantinomymorc
intclligiblcthan cvcrbcforc andcriticizcsitcvcnas hcdcfcnds
it. Bccausc frccdom would bc thc frccdom ofrcal, particular
individuals, Hcgcldisdains thcillusionoffrccdom,thcindivid-
ualwho,inthcmidstofunivcrsalunfrccdom,bchavcsasthough
hcwcrcalrcadyfrccandunivcrsal. Hcgcl'sconhdcnccthatthc-
orcticalrcason canstillachicvcits goals amounts to thc knowl-
cdgc that rcason has a hopc ofrcalizing itsclf, ofbccoming a
rationalrcality,onlyifitindicatcs thcpivotalpointfromwhich
onc can dislodgc thc agc-old burdcn ofmyth. Thc burdcn is
mcrccxistcncc,whichinthclastanalysiscntrcnchcsitsclfinthc
47
individual, its pivot point is rcason, as thc rcason ofcxistcncc
itsclf. Hcgcl's apologcticsandhis rcsignationarcthcbourgcois
maskthatutopiahasputonto avoidbcingimmcdiatclyrccog-
nizcdandapprchcndcd,toavoidrcmainingimpotcnt.
How littlc Hcgcl's philosophy can bc rcduccd to bourgcois
civilityis pcrhaps mostobviousinhisstancconmorality. Itisa
momcnt inhiscritiqucofthccatcgoryofindividuality as such.
Hcwas probably thc hrsttocxprcss, in thcPhenomenolog, thc
idcathatthcriftbctwccnsclfandworldpasscsinturnthrough
thcsclf,thatitcontinucs, as Kroncrsays, onintothcindividual
anddividcs himinaccordanccwiththcobcctivcandsubcctivc
rationalityofhiswillandhisdccds.
Hcgcl kncw carlyonthat

thc individual himsclf is both somcthing socially functioning,
somcthingdchncd bythcmattcrathand, namcly, byhislabor,
and also somcthing that cxists for itsclf, with spccihc inclina-
tions,intcrcsts,andtalcnts,andthathcsctwomomcnts pointin
diffcrcnt dircctions. But thc purcly moral action in which thc
individualthinks hcishimsclfand only himsclf,actingautono-
mously, thcrcby bccomcs ambiguous, asclf-dcccption. Modcrn
analytical psychology's rccognitionthatwhatthcindividualhu-
manbcingthinksabouthimsclfisillusoryandtoalargccxtcnt
mcrcrationalizationhasprovidcdahomcforoncpicccofHc-
gclian spcculation. Hcgcldcrivcd thctransition frompurc moral
sclf-consciousncsstohypocrisy~whichthcnbccamcthcfocusof
Nictzschc's critical attack on philosophy~from its momcnt of
obcctivc untruth. Historically, ofcoursc, formulations likc thc
oncinthcPhenomenolog aboutthc hardhcart thatinsistson
thcpurityofthcmoralcommandmcntstillfallwithinthccon-
tcxtofthcpost-KantianSchillcriancritiqucofrigorousKantian
cthics,butatthcsamctimcthcyrcprcscntaprcludctoNictzschc's
notion of ressentiment, of morality as rcvcngc. Hcgcl's statc-
mcntthatthcrcisnothingmorallyrcalisnotamcrcmomcntin
48
thctransitiontohisnotionofconcrctccthicallifc[Sittlichkeit] . In
itthc rccognition thatthcmoralcanbyno mcansbc takcnfor
grantcd, that conscicncc docs not guarantcc right action, and
that purc immcrsion ofthc sclfin thc qucstion ofwhat to do
and what notto do cntanglcs onc in contradiction and futility.
HcgcltakcsanimpulscofthcradicalEnlightcnmcntfarthcr.Hc
docsnotopposc thcgoodtocmpiricallifcasanabstractprinci-
plc, a sclf-sufhcicnt idca, but instcad links it through its own
contcnt to thc production ofa truc totality~to prcciscly what
appcars undcr thcnamcofhumanityinthcCritique of Practical
Reason. Hcgcl thcrcby transccnds thc bourgcois scparation of
cthos, as somcthingthatalthoughunconditionallybindingisvalid
only forthcsubcct,from thcobcctivityofsocicty,whichisos-
tcnsibly mcrcly cmpirical. This is onc ofthc most rcmarkablc
pcrspcctivcs providcd by Hcgcl's mcdiationofthcaprioriand
thcapostcriori.Thcincisivcncssofhisformulationtakcsusby
surprisc.
Thedesignationofanindividualasimmoralnecessarly fallsawaywhen
morality in general is imperfect, and has therefore only an arbitrary
basis.Therefore,thesenseandcontentofthejudgementofexperience
issolelythis,thathappinesssimplyassuchshouldnothavebeenthelot
ofsome individuals, i.e. thejudgmentis an expression ofenvy which
coversitselfwiththecloakofmorality. Thereason,however, whyso-
called good luck should fall to the lot ofothers, is good friendship,
whichgant andwihes them,anditself,too,thisluckychance.
No mcrcbourgcoiswouldhavc talkcdthisway. Thcbourgcois
glorihcation ofwhat cxists is always accompanicd by thc dclu-
sion thatthcindividual~thatwhichcxistspurclyfor itsclf, which
is how thc subcctncccssarilyappcars tohimsclfinthccxisting
ordcr~iscapablcofthcgood. Hcgcldcstroycdthisillusion.His
critiquc ofmorality cannotbcrcconcilcdwith thatapologyfor
49
socicty, whichnccdsamoralidcologyofthcindividualandhis
rcnunciationofhappincsstosustainitsclfinitsowninusticc.
Oncc onc has sccn through thc clich ofHcgcl'sbourgcois
civility, oncwill no longcr succumb to thc suggcstion madc by
Schopcnhaucr and thcn Kicrkcgaard, who dismiss Hcgcl as a
pcrsonasconformistandinsignihcantanddcrivcthcirncgativc
vcrdictonhisphilosophynotlcastfromthat.To Hcgcl'scrcdit,
hcwas notan cxistcntial thinkcrin thc scnsc thatwas inaugu-
ratcdbyKicrkcgaardandhasnowdcgcncratcdtoasclf-satishcd
clich.Thcfactthatthcmostrcccnt~andalrcadythrcadbarc~
vcrsion ofthc cultofpcrsonality docs noththim docs not dc-
gradc Hcgcl to thc comfortablc profcssor lccturing, uncon-
ccrncd, on thc suffcrings ofmankind, thc picturc with which
KicrkcgaardandSchopcnhaucrsosucccssfullydcfamcdhimto
postcrity. Infact,Schopcnhaucrshowcdinhnitclylcsshumanity
and gcncrosity to Hcgcl than thc oldcr man had shown him,
Hcgcl grantcd SchopcnhaucrhisHabilitation dcspitcthcfactthat
Schopcnhaucr, in afoolishdcbatc, had arrogantlyplaycdhim
sclfoffagainst Hcgcl as a high-principlcd rcscarchcrwhowas
cxpcrtinthcnaturalscicnccs.Hcgcl'scritiquchadgoncbcyond
thcnotionofcxistcnccthatopposcdhimlongbcforccxistcncc,
manthc philosophcrandhis authcnticity,hadbcguntogivcit-
sclfairsandthcnbccomccstablishcdinacadcmiaaswcll.)ustas
thc cmpirical pcrson who thinks lagsbchindthc powcrandob-
cctivity ofthc idca hc thinks whcncvcr thc idca i an idca, an
idca'sclaimtotruthdocsnotlicinitsadcquacyasanillustration
ofthcthinkcr,inthcpaltryrcpctitionofwhathcisanyway. But
rathcr,thisclaimisprovcninthatwhichgocsbcyondcntanglc-
mcntin mcrc cxistcncc, in thatinwhich thcindividualhuman
bcingdivcstshimsclfofhimsclfsothathcmayhnallyrcachhis
goal. Hcgcl'sdcmcanor, full ofsuffcring, hiscountcnanccrav-
5O
agcd by thought, thc facc of onc who has litcrally consumcd
himsclfuntilhcisnomorcthanashcs, bcarwitncsstothissclf-
divcstiturc. Hcgcl's bourgcoisunprctcntiousncssworkcd to thc
bcnchtofhisimmcasurablccfforts,inscribcdwiththcirownim-
possibility, to think thc unconditioncd~an impossibility that
Hcgcl's philosophyrccctswithin itsclfas thc cpitomc ofncga-
tivity. Inthcfaccofthat,thcappcaltoauthcnticity,risk,andthc
boundary situation is amodcstonc. Ifthcrc istrulya nccd for
thcthinkingsubcctinphilosophy,ifthcrccan bc noinsightinto
thc obcctivity ofthc mattcr at hand without thc clcmcnt cur-
rcntly dcalt with undcr thc tradcmark of thc cxistcntial, that
momcntachicvcslcgitimacynotinshowingoffbutinshattcring
that sclf-positing through thc disciplinc imposcd on it by thc
thing itsclf and cxtinguishing itsclf within it. Hcgcl is almost
withoutpccrinfollowingthispath.Butassoonasthccxistcntial
momcnt asscrts itsclfto bc thc basis oftruth, it bccomcs a lic.
Hcgcl's hatrcd ofthosc who ascribcd thc right offull truth to
thcimmcdiacyofthcircxpcricnccisdircctcdto this licaswcll.
ThcwcalthofcxpcricncconwhichthoughtfccdsinHcgclis
incomparablc, itis putinto thc idcas thcmsclvcs, ncvcr appcar-
ingas mcrc matcrial,to say nothingofcxamplc or cvidcncc
cxtcrnaltothcidcas.Throughwhatiscxpcricnccd,thcabstract
idcaistransformcdbackintosomcthingliving,ustasmcrcma-
tcrial is transformcd through thcpaththoughttravcls. onc could
show thisincvcryscntcnccofthcPhenomenolog of Spirit. Hcgcl
wasinfactgrantcdsomcthingpraiscd,usuallywithoutustihca-
tion,inartists.sublimation, hctrulyposscsscdlifcinitscolorcd
rccction, in its rccapitulation in spirit. But undcr no circum-
stanccs should oncconccivc sublimation in Hcgclascquivalcnt
tointcrnalization. Hcgcl's conccptionofsclf-divcstiturc,likcthc
critiqucofavainanddcludcdsubcctivitycxistingforitsclf,a
critiquchcsharcswithCocthcandwhichmovcsoutbcyondidc-
5 I
alism, is thc oppositc ofintcrnalization, and as a pcrson Hcgcl
shows hardly a tracc ofit. Likc thc subcctofhis thcorics, thc
manHcgclhadabsorbcdbothsubcctandobcctintohimsclfin
spirit, thclifcofhisspiritisalloflifcagainwithinitsclf.Hcncc
Hcgcl's withdrawal from lifc should not bc confuscdwith thc
idcologyofscholarlyrcnunciation. As sublimatcd spirit, Hcgcl
thcpcrsonrcsoundswiththcoutwardandthcphysicalthcway
grcatmusicdocs. Hcgcl's philosophymurmursandrustlcs. As
withhisdcvotcdcritic, Kicrkcgaard,onccouldspcakofanin-
tcllcctualbodyinhim.Hisbridc,thcBaroncssMariavonTuchcr,
took it amiss whcn hc addcd thcsc words to a lcttcr shc had
writtcntohissistcr. FromthisyoucanscchowhappyIcanbc
withhcrforallthcrcstofmylifc,andhowhappythcattainmcnt
ofsuchlovc,forwhichIscarcclyhadanyhopclcftinthisworld,
ismakingmccvcnnow,insofarashappincssispartofthcdcs-
tinyofmylifc. ThcwholcantiprivatcHcgclisinthcscprivatc
words. Latcr, in Zarthutr, thc thought in thcm was givcn a
pocticizcdform. Trachtcich dcnnnachClck:Ichtrachtcnach
mcincm Wcrkc Do I covct happincss: I covctmywork]. But
thcalmosttradcsmanlikcdryncssandsobrictytowhichthcmost
cxtrcmcpathosshrivclsinHcgclgivcsthcidcaadignityitloscs
whcnitprovidcsitspathoswithafanfarc.TbcmcaningofHc-
gcl'slifcisticdtothcsubstanccofhisphilosophy.Nophilosophy
wassoprofoundlyrich, nonchcldsounswcrvinglytothccxpc-
ricncctowhichithadcntrustcditsclfwithoutrcscrvation.Evcn
thcmarksofitsfailurcwcrcstruckbytruthitsclf.
The Experiential Content
of Hegel's Philosophy
I will bc dcalinghcrc with somc modcls ofintcllcctual cxpcri-
cnccasitmotivatcsHcgcl'sphilosophy~motivatcsitobcctivcly,
not biographically or psychologically~and makcs up its truth
contcnt. Initially, thc conccpt ofcxpcricnccwillbc lcftundc-

h ncdonlythcprcscntationcanconcrctizcit.Thcconccptisnot
intcndcd tocapturc phcnomcnological ur-cxpcricncc, nor,likc
thc intcrprctation of Hcgcl in Hcidcggcr's Holzwege, is it in-
tcndcdtogctatsomcthingontological,thcWortdcsScinsword
ofBcing]orthcScindcsScicndcnBcingofbcings] . ' _ccord-
i_g to Hcgcl himsclf, nothing of this sort is mcant to bc cx-
tractcdfromhistrainofthought.Histhoughtwouldncvcrhavc
ratihcd Hcidcgr's claim that thc ncw objcct thatariscs for
consciousncss in thc coursc ofits formation is notjust any-
thingthatistruc,oran_particularbcing,butisthctruthofwhat
u truc. thc Bcingofbcings, thc appcarancc ofa_carancc.
Hcgclwouldncvcrhavccallcdthatcxpcricncc,instcad,forHc-
gclwhatcxpcricnccisconccrncdwithatanyparticularmomcnt
is thcanimatingcontradiction ofsuchabsolutctruth.Nothing
can bc known that is not in cxpcricncc
,,
~including, accord-
gly, thc Bcing into which cxistcntial ontology displaccs thc

ground ofwhat cxists and is cxpcricnccd. In Hcgclbcingand
54
TheExperientialContentofHegel'sPhilosophy
ground arc dctcrminations ofrccction" [Refexionsbestimmun
gen] , catcgorics inscparablc from thc subcct, as in Kant. Thc
suppositionthatcxpcricnccis amodc ofbcing, somcthingthat
hasprcsubcctivclybccnappropriatcdascvcnt"[ereignet] orbccn
clucidatcd" [gelichtet], is simply incompatiblc with Hcgcl's con-
ccption of cxpcricncc as a dialcctical movcmcnt which con-
sciousncsscxcrciscsonitsclfandwhichaffcctsbothits knowlcdgc
and itsobcct"inasmuchasthc ncw trucobcctissucsfromit.''
Nor,howcvcr,docsthcconccptofcxpcricnccrcfcrtoisolatcd
cmpirical obscrvations thatwould bc proccsscd synthctically in
Hcgcl's philosophy. My thcmc is thc cxpcricntial substancc of
Hcgcl'sphilosophy, notcxpcricntialcontcntin Hcgcl'sphiloso-
phy. What I havcinmindis closcrto what Hcgcl, in thcintro-
ductiontohisSystem of Philosophy, calls thc attitudcofthought
to obcctivity"~thc attitudc of his own thought. I will try to
translatcintosomcthingascloscto contcmporarycxpcricnccas
possiblc what Hcgcl csscntially undcrstood, whathcsaw about
thcworld, priortothctraditionalcatcgoricsofphilosophy,cvcn
thc Hcgclian catcgorics, andthcircritiquc. Iwillnotgointothc
controvcrsywithinintcllcctualhistoryaboutthcrclativcpriority
ofthcologicalandsociopoliticalmotifsinHcgcl'sbiography.What
I am intcrcstcd in is not how Hcgcl subcctivcly arrivcd atthis
or that doctrinc but rathcr, in thc Hcgclian spirit, thc compcl-
lingforccofthc obcctivc phcnomcnathathavcbccnrccctcd
in his philosophy and arc scdimcntcd in it. Norwill I bc con-
ccrncd with what has bccn canonizcd as Hcgcl's historical
achicvcmcnt~hisconccptionofthcnotionofdevclopmcntand
its linking with mctaphysics, which had bccn static sincc Plato
andAristotlc~orwith thosc aspccts ofhiswork thathavcbccn
absorbcd intothcindividualscholarlydisciplincs
Myinquiryis
conccrncdwithwhathis philosophycxprcsscs as philosophy, and
55
this hasitssubstancc notlcastofallinthc factthatitis notcx-
haustcdbythchndingsofindividualdisciplincs.
Itsccms timclytoappcaltothis. Thc traditionofatlcastthc
post-Kantian Ccrman Idcalism that found its most compclling
formin Hcgcl hasfadcd,andforthc most partits tciminology
sccmsfarrcmovcdfromus. Ingcncral,Hcgcl'sapproachstands
in obliquc rclationship to thc program of unmcdiatcd acccp-
tanccofthc so-callcd givcnas ahrmbasis ofknowlcdgc. Sincc
Hcgcl'sdaythatprogramhascomcalmosttobctakcnforgrantcd,
andby nomcansmcrclyinpositivismbutalso inauthcntic op-
poncntsofpositivismlikcBcrgsonandHusscrl.Thclcsshuman
immcdiacy is tolcratcd by thc omniprcscnt mcdiating mccha-
nisms ofcxchangc, thc morc fcrvcntly acompliantphilosophy
asscrtsthatitposscsscsthcbasisofthingsinthcimmcdiatc.This
kindofspirithastriumphcdovcrspcculationbothinthcpositiv-
isticscicnccsandinthciropponcnts. Itisnotthatthcrchasbccn
an arbitrary changc in stylcs ofthought or philosophical fash-
ions,asacsthcticistorpsychologistvicwsofthchistoryofphilos-
ophylikc to portrayit. Instcad, idcalismhasbccnforgottcn, or
hasatlcastbccomcamcrcculturalcommodity,boihoutofcom-
pulsionandoutofncccssity, throughthccompulsionofcritical
rccction and out ofncccssity in thc dcvclopmcntofa socicty
that has lcss and lcss fulhllcd Hcgcl's prognosis that it would
bccomc absolutc spirit, thatitwouldbcrational. Evcnidcas that
wcrc atonctimchrmlycstablishcdhavcahistoryofthcirtruth
andnotamcrcaftcrlifc,thcydonotrcmaininhcrcntlyindiffcr-
cntto what bcfalls thcm.Atthc prcscnttimc Hcgclianphiloso-
phy, andalldialccticalthought,issubcctto thcparadoxthatit
hasbccnrcndcrcdobsolctcbyscicnccandscholarshipwhilcbcing
atthcsamctimc morc timcly thancvcrinitsoppositiontothcm.
This paradox mustbc cndurcd and notconccalcd undcracry
56
TheExperlentlalContentofHegel'slhllosophy
ot"back to . . . ' oran cttort to dvdc thcshccp trom thc goats
wthn HcgcI`s phIosophy. Whcthcr wc havc onIy an acadcmc
rcnassancc ot HcgcI that t s tscIt Iong outdatcd or whcthcr
contcmporary conscousncss hnds n HcgcI a truth contcnt whosc
tmc s ducdcpcndsonwhcthcrthat paradoxs cndurcd ornot.
Itoncwshcstoavod haIthcartcdIy prcscrvngwhatpcopIc prasc
as HcgcI'sscnscotrcaIty whIc at thc samc tmc watcrngdown
hs phIosophy, onc has no chocc but to put thc vcry momcnts
n hm that causc constcrnaton nto rcIaton to thc cxpcrcnccs
hs phIosophy ncorporatcs, cvcn t thosc cxpcrcnccs arc cn-
codcdwthn t and thcrtruthsconccaIcd.
Jo do so s not to bctray HcgcI to cmprcsm but rathcr to
kccptathwthhsown phIosophy,wththcdcsdcratumotm-
mancnt crtcsm, whchsaccntraIpcccn hs mcthod. orHc-
gcIan phIosophy cIams to havc gonc bcyond thc opposton
bctwccn ratonaIsm and cmprcsm, asbcyondaIIrgd oppos-
tons n thc phIosophcaI tradton. t cIams both tocapturc sprt
ntcrprctvcIy n ts cxpcrcnccs ot thc worId and to construct
cxpcrcnccthrough thc movcmcnt otsprt. Onc s onIy takng
hs phIosophy attswordwhcnoncvrtuaIIydsrcgardsts pIacc
n thc hstory ot phIosophy and rcduccs t to ts cxpcrcntaI
corc, whch shouIdbc dcntcaIwth ts sprt. Inapassagc trom
thc ntroducton to thc Phenomenolog, ctcd by Hcdcggcr as wcII,
HcgcI hmscItdcnthcscxpcrcnccwth thc daIcctc.Onc may
ob]cct that t s prmarIy ndvduaI catcgorcs and dcas that havc
bccn scIcctcd and thc tuIIy cIaboratcd systcm s not gvcn m-
mcdatc consdcraton, whcn thc systcm s supposcd to bc dcc-
svc tor aII thcndvduaI cIcmcnts n t, butHcgcI'sownntcnton
oncc agan covcrs thc ob]ccton. Jhc systcm s not to bc con-
ccvcd n advancc, abstractIy, ts not to bc an aII-cncompassng
schcma. Instcad,ts supposcd tobcthccttcctvcccntcrottorcc
Iatcnt n thc 1ndvduaI momcnts. Jhcyarc supposcd to crystaI-
57
lizc, on thcirown andby virtuc ofthcir motion and dircction,
into awholc thatdocs not cxistoutsidc ofits particulardctcr-
minations. Thcrc is no guarantcc, ofcoursc, that rcduction to
cxpcricnccswillconhrmthcidcntityofoppositcswithinthcwholc
thatisbothaprcsuppositionandarcsultofthc Hcgclian mcthod.
Pcrhaps thcrcductionwillprovcfatalto thcclaimofidcntity.
Thcdifhcultyspecihctobcginningshouldnotbc minimizcd.
Inschoolsofphilosoph_thatmakccmphaticuscofthcconccpt
ofcxpcricncc, in thc tradition ofHumc, thc charactcr ofim-
mcdiac_~immcdiac_inrclationto thcsubcct~is itsclfthccri-
tcrionofthatconccpt. Expcricnccis supposcd to bcsomcthing
immcdiatcl_prcscnt,immcdiatcl_givcn,frcc,asitwcrc,o(any
admixturcofthoughtandthcrcforcindubitablc. Hgel'hilos-
oph_, howcvcr, challcngcs this conccptofimmcdia
)
nd with
itthccustomar_ccptocxpJcc'aucdidis
oftcnhcld tobcsupcrior, thcmcdiatcd bcing thoughtofasdc-
pcndcnt.Thcconccpt,howcvcr,hasbothaspccts.itismcdiation
u h its sublation ofmcdiation, and sois immcdiacy.
_
-
cording to Hcgcl, thcrc is nothing bctwccn hcavcn and carth
thatis not "vennittelt" mcdiatcd] , nothing, thcrcforc, that docs
not contain, mcrcly by bcing dchncd assomcthing that cxists,
thcrccctionofitsmcrccxistcncc,aspiritualmomcnt. Immc-
diacyitsclfiscsscntially mcdiatcd.'IfKantian philosophy,which
Hcgcl, for all his polcmics, prcsupposcs, trics to tcasc out thc
forms ofthc spirit as constitucnts ofall valid knowlcdgc, thcn
Hcgcl,inordcrto doawaywiththcKantianscparationofform
and contcnt, intcrprcts any and cvcry cxisting thing as somc-
thingthatis atthcsamctimcspiritual. Notthclcastsignihcant
ofHcgcl'scpistcmological hndingsis thcidcathatcvcnthcclc-
mcntsinwhich knowlcdgcimagincsitsclfto posscss its ultimatc
and irrcduciblcbasisarcin turn always thcproductsofabstrac-
tion and thcrcby ofspirit.A simplc illustration ofthis is that
58
thcso-callcdscnscimprcssionstowhich thcoldcrcpistcmology
rcduccsallknowlcdgcarcthcmsclvcsmcrcconstructionsanddo
not appcar as such in purc form in livingconsciousncss, that
cxccpt in thc artihcial conditions of thc laboratory, cstrangcd
fromlivingknowlcdgc,norcdatallispcrccivcdfromwhichthc
so-callcd highcr synthcscs would thcn bc composcd. Thosc al-
lcgcdlyclcmcntaryqualiticsofimmcdiacyalwaysappcaralrcady
catcgorically formcd, and thus thc scnsory and thc catcgorial
momcnts cannot bc clcarly distinguishcd from onc anothcr as
laycrs. "Empiricismisnotmcrclyan obscrving, hcaring, fccl-
ing,ctc.,apcrccptionofthcindividual, foritrcallysctstowork
tohnd thcspccics,thcunivcrsal,todiscovcrlaws. Nowbccausc
it docs this, it comcs within thc tcrritory of thc conccpt . . .
Hcgcl'santipositivistinsighthasbccnrcdccmcdbymodcrnsci-
cncconlytothccxtcntthatCcstaltthcoryhasshownthatthcrc
is no such thing as an isolatcd, unqualihcd scnsory this thing
hcrc",itisalwaysalrcadystructurcd. ButCcstaltthcorydidnot
upsctthcprimacyofthcgivcn,thcbclicfinits prcccdcnccovcr
thc contribution madc by subcctivity, and thcrcby harmonizc
knowlcdgc.ust asforpositivism thcgivcnwas unmcdiatcd, so
for Ccstalt thcory its unitywithformis unmcdiatcd, a kind of
thinginitsclfamidthcimmancnccofconsciousncss.Thatform
andgivcnncss,bctwccnwhichclassicalcpistcmologymadcasharp
distinction,arcnotfullycquivalcntisonlypcriphcrallyacknowl-
cdgcdbyCcstaltthcory,indistinctionslikcthatbctwccnthcgood
and thcbad Ccstalt,whichfallwithin thc Ccstaltconccptthatis
acccptcd from thc outsct. Hcgcl had alrcady gonc farbcyond
this in thcPhenomenolog of Spirit. Hc dcmolishcd thc thcsis of
mcrcimmcdiacyasthcbasisofknowlcdgcandopposcdthccm-
piricistconccptofcxpcricnccwithoutglorifyingthcgivcnasthc
bcarcrofmcaning.Itischaractcristicofhismcthodthathccval-
uatcd immcdiacy by its own critcrion and chargcd it with not
59
bcing immcdiatc. Hccriticizcsimmcdiacy in principlc and not
mcrclyasbcingatomisticandmcchanical, immcdiacyalwaysal-
rcady contains somcthingothcr than itsclf~subcctivity~with-
out whichitwould notbc givcn" atall , andby thattokcnitis
alrcady not obcctivity. 'his principlc ofExpcricncccarricswith
it thc unspcakabl_importantcondition that, in ordcr to acccpt
and bclicvcan_fact, wc mustbcincontactwithit, or, inmorc
cxact tcrms, that wc must hnd thc fact unitcd and combincd
withthcccrtaint_ofourownsclvcs."ButHcgcldocsnotsimply
sacrihcc thc conccpt ofimmcdiacy, ifhc did, his own idca of
cxpcricncc would losc its rational mcaning. Immcdiacy of
knowlcdgcis sofar fromcxcludingmcdiation,thatthctwo things
arc linkcd togcthcr,~immcdiatc knowlcdgc bcing actually thc
productandrcsultofmcdiatcdknowlcdgc. "'Onccannomorc
spcak of mcdiation without somcthing immcdiatc than, con-
vcrscly,onccanhndsomcthingimmcdiatcthatisnotmcdiatcd.
Butin Hcgclthctwomomcntsarcnolongcrrigidlycontrastcd.
Thcy producc and rcproducc onc anothcr rcciprocally, arc
formcd ancw atcach stagc, andarc to vanish, rcconcilcd, only
in thc unity ofthc wholc. And to show that, in point offact,
thcrc is a knowlcdgcwhich advanccs ncithcr by unmixcd im-
mcdiacy nor by unmixcd mcdiation, wc can point to thc cx-
amplc ofLogic and thc wholc ofphilosophy. "' ' But with this,
thc intcntion ofdcriving Hcgcl's philosophy from cxpcricncc
sccmsitsclfcondcmncdbythcvcrdictitpronounccswhcnittakcs
Kant'scriticalphilosophytothccxtrcmc.Thconlycxpcricncc"
ofwhichitcanbcaqucstioninandwithrcspccttoHcgclaltcrs
thcusualconccptofcxpcricnccdccisivcly.
It is mostdiucult to gcthold ofthc cxpcricntialcontcnt of
Hcgcl'sphilosophywhcrcitsctsitsclfofffromphilosophicsthat
takccxpcrinccas thcirprinciplc.Aswcknow, Hcgclcncrgcti-
cally acccntiatcs thc momcnt ofnot-I in spirit. But to disputc
0
TheExperlentlalContentofHegel'slhllosophy
thathc sandcaIstmustrcmanthcprcrogatvcotntcrprctvc
arts that toIIow thc maxm Kcm dch odci ch trcss dch It-
craIIy
.
rhymc or I`II cat you, n othcr words
.
comc out rght
or thcrc wII bc troubIc| whcn thcy scc a chancc to cxpIot thc
authorty ota grcat namc tor propaganda purposcs. Jhcy wouId
havc to rcducc hs statcmcnt that truth s csscntaIIysub]cct' to
an rrcIcvant statcmcnt that n thc Iast anaIyss wouId Icavc no
diferentia specica n HcgcI's systcm. Instcad
.
onc ought to Iook
tor thc cxpcrcntaI contcnt otHcgcIan dcaIsmtscIt. ut that
s somcthng hc sharcs wth thc movcmcnt otthc post-Kantan
systcms n Gcrmany as a whoIc
.
and cspccaIIy wth Ichtc and
5chcIIng. crhaps undcr thc tcnacous suggcston ot DIthcy
.
that pcrod contnucs to bc torccd too narrowIy nto thc pcr-
spcctvc otndvduaI thnkcrs and thcr dttcrcnccs. In actuaI-
ty
.
n thc dccadcs trom Ichtc's Science of Knowledge to HcgcI's
dcath
.
dcaIsm was Icss somcthng strctIy ndvduatcd than a
coIIcctvc movcmcnt. n HcgcI's tcrmnoIogy
.
an ntcIIcctuaI at-
mosphcrc. Jhc dcas wcrc ncthcr attachcd cxcIusvcIy to onc
systcmorthc othcr nor aIwaystuIIyartcuIatcdbythcndvduaI
thnkcr. Ivcn attcr thc spIt bctwccn 5chcIIng and HcgcI onc
hndsnbothotthcm-nthcAges of the Wodd n5chcIIng'scasc
.
n thcPhenomenolog n HcgcI's-tormuIatons and whoIc trans
otthought nwhchts]ustas dthcuIttodcntty thc authoras
twasn thc wrtngsotthcryouth.Jhatought
.
ncdcntaIIy
.
to
cIcar up a numbcr otdthcuItcs. Jhcsc wrtcrs do not opcratc
wthhxcd conccptsnthcmanncrotaIatcr phIosophymodcIcd
on thc sccncc thc dcaIst gcncraton opposcd. Jhc cImatc ot
coIIcctvc agrccmcnt pcrmttcd onc to cxprcss onc's opnon cvcn
whcnthc ndvduaI tormuIatonddnotachcvccompIctcIucd-
ty, tmay cvcn havc workcd aganst a conccrn tor ncsvc tor-
muIaton
.
as though such tormuIatonwouId voIatcthc contcnt
otthc coIIcctvc undcrstandngby producngtcxpIctIy. yno
6I
mcansdocsthccxpcricntialcontcntofidcalismsimplycoincidc
withitscpistcmologicalandmctaphysical positions. !hc pathos
in thcword spirit,'whichultimatclymadcitsuspcctofhubris,
rcsistcd thc hrst symptoms of thc typc of scicncc~which in-
cludcs scholarship~that has sincc scizcd powcr cvcn whcrc it
supposcdlydcalswithspirit.!hatimpulsccanbcscnscdcvcnin
passagcs likc this onc from thc Diference Between Fichte's and
Schelling's System of Philosophy, thcDiferenzschrift:
OnlysofarasreectionhasconnectionwiththeAbsoluteisitReason
and its deed a knowing. Through this connection with the Absolute,
however, reection's work passes away, only the connection persists,
anditisthesolerealityofthecognition.Thereisthereforenotruthin
isolated reection, in pure thinking,save the truthofits nullihcation.
ButbecauseinphilosophizingtheAbsolutegetsproducedbyreection
forconsciousness, itbecomes thereby an objective totality, awhole of
knowledge,anorganizationofcognitions.Withinthisorganization,every
partisatthesame timethewhole,foritsstandingisitsconnectionwith
theAbsolute.Asapartthathasotherpartsoutsideofit, itissomething
limited,andisonlythroughtheothers.Isolatedinitslimitationthepart
is defective, meaning and signihcance ithas solely through its coher-
encewith thewhole. Hencesingleconceptsbythemselvesandsingular
cognitions (Erwnntnisse) must notbe called knowledge. There can be
plentyofsingularempirical knownitems (Kenntnisse). As knownfrom
experience they exhibittheirjustihcationin experience, that is,in the
identity ofconceptand being, ofsubjectand object. Precisely for this
reason, they are not scientihc knowledge. they hnd theirjustihcation
only in a limited, relative identity. They do notjustify themselves as
necessary parts ofa totality ofcognitions organized in consciousness,
norhasspeculationrecognizedtheabsoluteidentityinthem,i. e. , their
connectionwiththeAbsolute.'
Asa critiquc ofthcinstitutionalizcd scicncc thatis as dominant
nowasitwasthcn,Hcgcl'stotalidcalismhasitstimclincss.against
somcthingclsc,notinitsclf. !hcimpulsctoclcvatcspirit,how-
cvcr dcludcd, draws its strcngth From a rcsistancc to dcad
62
TheExperientia|ContentofHege|'sPhi|osophy
knowlcdgc. arcsistanccto thc rcihcdconsciousncssthatHcgcl
both dissolvcd and, in opposition to romanticism, salvagcd as
incscapablc. Thccxpcricnccofpost-Kntian_rn )elism
rcacts againstphilistinc narrocs and contcntmntwith ihc
compartmcntalizationoflifcandor_owldgcinaccor-
dancc with thcdivisiog or. Inthisrcgard cvcnsccmingly
pcriphcral,practicaltcxtslikcFichtc'sDeduzierte Plan andSchcll-
ing's Einleitung ins Akademische Studium havc philosophical im-
port. Thcwatchword inhnity,"whichowcd so casilyfrom all
thcirpcnsasithad notfrom Kant's, takcs onitsspccihccolora-
tiononlyinrclationtowhatwcrcforthcmthcprivationsofthc
hnitc, ofcntrcnchcd sclf-intcrcst and thc drcary spccialization
ofknowlcdgcinwhichthatsclf-intcrcstwasrccctcd.Sinccthcn,
talkaboutwholcncsshasbccndivcstcdofitspolcmicalmcaning
andhasbccomcnothingmorcthananti-intcllcctualistidcology.
InthccarlyIdcalistpcriod, whcnbourgcoissocictyhadnotyct
rcallytakcnshapcasatotalityinundcrdcvclopcdCcrmany,thc
critiqucofthcparticularhadadiffcrcntkindofdignity. Inthc
thcorcticalsphcrc,idcalismrcprcscntcdthcinsightthatthcsum
totalofspccihcknowlcdgcwasnotawholc,thatthcbcstofboth
knowlcdgcand humanpotcntialslippcd throughthcmcshcsof
thcdivisionoflabor. Cocthc'sfchltnurdas gcistigcBand" But
thcspiritualbondismissing"~Faust] givcsthatscntcniiousfor-
mulation. Atonc timc, idcalism attackcd Faust's Famulus Wag-
ncr. OnlywhcnthclikcsofthatWagncrhadinhcritcdidcalism
didit rcvcalitsclftobc thc particularitythatJcgclhadrccog-
nizcd,atlcastinFichtc.Inatotalsocict_,totalitybccomcsradical
cvil.WhatrcsonatcsinHcgclalongwiththcnccdforaprogrcs-
sivcintcgrationisthcnccdforarcconciliation~arcconciliation
thctotalityhasprcvcntcdcvcrsinccitachicvcdthcrcalityHcgcl
cnthusiasticallyanticipatcdforitinthcconccpt.
63
Oncdocsnotnccdthcspcculativcconccpttoundcrstandthis
motifinthccritiqucofscicncc. thatwhatlicscloscsttothcindi-
vidualsubcct,whathasimmcdiatcccrtaintyfor him, is notthc
ground oftruth and notabsolutclyccrtain. The pcrsonal con-
sciousncss ofthc individual, which was analyzcd by traditional
cpistcmology,canbcsccntobcillusion.Notonlydocsthcbcarcr
ofpcrsonal consciousncss owc his cxistcncc and thc rcproduc-
tionofhislifctosocicty.Infact,cvcr_thingthroughwhichhcis
pccicallyconstitutcdas acognitivcsubjcct, hcncc, thatis, thc
}
9
''
!
9p
ivcrsalit_thatgovcrnshisthinking,is,asthcschoolof
]urkhciminparticularhas shown, alwa_s also socialinnaturc.
!@
c
)
ndiyj,whqconsidcrshimsclf|
itimatcbasisoftrutJ
_virtuc ofwhatis supposcd to bcimmcdiatcl_ivcn for him,
pys_q wJdeltrsipoJasocictythatfalscl_butncccssatily
thinksofitsclfasindividualistic. Whatthcindividualholds tobc
primary and irrcfutably absolutc is dcrivcd and sccondary, down
to cvcry individual piccc ofscnsory data. Thcrcforc thc indi-
vidualas hc appcars inthisworldofproscandcvcrydayis not
activcoutofthccntirctyofhisownsclfand his rcsourccs, and
hcis intclligiblc notfrom himsclf, but fromsomcthingclsc. "'
Takingasonc's pointofdcparturc thc purc immcdiacyofthc
thisthinghcrc,"whichisprcsumablywhatismostccrtain,docs
not gct onc bcyond thc contingcncy of thc individual pcrson
who simply cxists, docs notgctbcyond solipsism. As Schopcn-
haucrsaid,solipsismmaybccurablc,butitisnotrcfutablc.This
is thcpriccininsanitypaidforthatwcbofdclusion.Amodcof
'!
@
_
atundcrstandsthcindividualaszoon Jolitikon aj;d_gc
catgricsofcctivcconsciousncssas igplicitlysocialwill no
longcr cling to a notion ofcxpcricncc that hypostatizcs thjn-
qividual, cvcn if involuntaril. Expcricncc's advancc to con-
sciousncssofitsintcrdcpcndcnccwiththccxpcricnccofallh[(man
64
bcnsactsas arctroactvccorrcctontotsstartnggontnmcrc
ndvduaI cxgcrcncc. HcgcI's phIosophy IormuIatcd ths. Hs
crtguc oImmcdacy gvcsan account oIhowwhatnavccon-
scousncss trusts as mmcdatcand most ntmatc s, ob]cctvcIy,
no morc mmcdatcandprmarythan anyothcrknd oIposscs-
son. HcgcI dcstroys thc vcry mythoIogy oI somcthng hrst".
Jhat whch hrst commcnccs s mpIct, mmcdatc, abstract,
gcncraI-ts whathasnotyctadvanccd, thc morcconcrctcand
rchcr comcs Iatcr, and thc hrst s poorcr n dctcrmnatons. "'
5ccn ntcrms oIths knd oIdcmythoIogzaton, HcgcIan ph-
Iosophybccomcs thchgurc oIacomprchcnsvc commtmcntto
a Iack oI navct, an carIy answcr to a statc oI thc worId that
nccssantIy partcpatcsn wcavngts ownvcI oIIIuson. As a
mattcr oI Iact, thnkngs aIways thc ncgaton oI what wc havc
mmcdatcIybcIorcus.
,,
' Lkc5chopcnhaucr,hsantpodc, Hc-
gcI wouId Ikc torcndthcvcI. hcncc hspoIcmc aganst Kant's
doctrncoIthcunknowabItyoIthcthngntscII.'' Jhissccr-
tanIy onc oI thc dccpcst motvcs oI HcgcI's phIosophy, cvcn
though hs phIosophytscIIsunawarcoIt.
Jhc Iaycr oI thought touchcd on hcrc s dstngushcd Irom
Kantandthc whoIccghtccnth ccntury, assndccd aIrcadythc
cascnchtc,byancwcxprcssvcnccd. Havngmaturcd, thought
wants to do somcthng t had prcvousIy donc onIy uncon-
scousIy. twantstowrtcthchstoryoIsprt, to bccomcanccho
oIthc hour that has struck Ior t. Its ths, morc thanwhat thc
oIhcaI hstory oI phIosophy has dcsgnatcd as thc dcrcncc,
thatdstngushcs Gcrman IdcaIsm,andHcgcIn partcuIar, Irom
thcInIghtcnmcnt.Jhs dIIcrcnccs morc mportantcvcn than
InIghtcnmcnt'sscII-crtguc, thc cmphatcncorporatonoIthc
concrctcsub]cctandthchstorcaIworId, orthcdynamzatonoI
phIosophcaI actvty. Wth Kant, thcorctcaI phIosophyatIcast
stII drcw ts canon Irom thc postvc sccnccs wth ts cxamna-
65
tionofthcirvalidity,thatis,thcqucstionofhowscicntihcknowl-
cdgcispossiblc.Nowphilosophyturns,withitswholcarmaturc
ofsclf-rccction on thc thcory ofscicncc, to thctaskofgiving
cogcnt cxprcssion to somcthing that is pcrccivcd as ccntral in
rcalit_butslips1hroughthcmcshcsofthcindividualdisciplics.
This,andnotagrcatcrabundanccofmatcrial,iswhatmotivatcs
_hilosoph_'s turn to contcnt, thc modcrn climatc of Hcgl as
contrastcdwithKantandnowFichtc aswcll. ButHcgcldidnot
makc philosophy intoaconsistcnt intcllcctual trcatmcntofcx-
pcricnccsofrcality through spontancous, unrccctcdthinking,
cithcr in thc form ofnaivc-rcalistic thought or in thc form of
what is popularly callcd unbridlcd spcculation. Instcad, rathcr
than rcstrict himsclf to a propacdcutic cxamination ofcpistc-
---"
----- . .
mological possibilitics, hc lcd pIUospp!iy to csscntial isights
tgh critical sclf-rccction ofcritical-Enlightcnmcnt philos-
ophyandthcscicntihcmc(bo,Traincdinscicnccandusingits
mctbu, Hcgclwcntbcyond thclimitsofascicnccthatmcrcly
asccrtaincd andarrangcd data, ascicnccthataimcdatthcpro-
ccssing ofmatcrials, thc kind ofscicncc that prcdominatcd bc-
forc Hcgcl and thcn again aftcr him, whcn thought lost thc
inordinatcspanofitssclf-rc cction. Hcgcl'sphilosoph_isboth
a philosophy ofrcason and an antipositivist philohy. It at-
tacks sliib t}atcpistc
moloconsidcrs tocnstitutc knowlcdgc dcpcnd as much on
ttkIdgc vicc-sa c n frm atall
without mattcr and no mattcrwithout form. Mattcr and form
gcncratc cach othcrrcciprocally. 'Inordcr to dcmonstratc that,
howcvcr, Hcgcl himsclfmakcs usc ofa morc consistcntcpistc-
mology. Ifcpistcmolog_, thc doctrinc of thc contingcnc_ and
im_cnctrabilit_ ofcontcnt and thc indispcnsabilit_ offorms, dug
thc trcnchbctwccn mattcr and form, Hcgclcxtcndscpistcmol-
ogyuntilitbccomcsobviousthatitisnotitsplacctodigtrcnchcs,
66
ExperientialContentofHegel'sPhilosophy
thatin scttinglimits, consciousncssncccssarily transccndswhat
itdclimits. CanonicforHcgcl is Cocthc's statcmcnt thatcvcry-
thing pcrfcct points bcyond its own kind-and Hcgcl has far
morcin commonwith Cocthcthanoncmightsuspcctfromthc
supcrhcial diffcrcnccbctwccnthcdoctrincofthcur-phcnomc-
nonandthatofasclf-movingabsolutc.
Kantanchorcd`philosophyinsynthctic aprioriudgmcnts,
thcycpitomizcd,sotospcak,whatwaslcftofthcoldmctaphys-
icsaftcrthccritiqucofrcason. Butthcrcisadccp contradiction
runningthrough s_nthctic a priori judgmcnts. Ifthc_wcrc a
prioriin thc strict Kantian scnsc, thcywould hav o contcnt.
Thcywouldinfactbcforms,purclogicalpropositions,tautolo-
gicsinwhichknowlcdgcdocsnotaddanythingncwordiffcrcnt
toitsclf.If, howcvcr, thcyarcsynthctic, thatis,ifthcyarcgcn-
uincknowlcdgcandnotmcrcrcduplicationsofthcsubcct,thcn
thcy nccd thc contcnt that Kant wantcd to banish from thcir
sphcrc as contingcnt and mcrcly cmpirical. Civcn this radical
discontinuity,howformand contcnt mcctand Ft togcthcr, how
thcknowlcdgcwhoscvalidityKantwantcdtoustifyisachicvcd,
bccomcs ancnigma. Hcgcl's rcsponsc is thatform andcontcnt
arc csscntiall_mcdiatcdb_onc anothcr. This mcans, howcvcr,
thatamcrclyformalthcoryofknowlcdgc,suchascpistcmology
sctsforth, ncgatcsitsclf, itisnotpossiblc. Inordcrtoattainthc
cogcncy cpistcmology ycarns for, philosophy must brcak cpis-
tcmologyopcn. Hcnccaphilosophizingfocuscdoncontcnt,onc
that trics to formulatc cxpcricnccs in thcir ncccssity and co-
gcncy, is broughtaboutprccisclyby thc sclf-rccctionofafor-
mal philosophizing that had rccctcd it and prohibitcd it as
dogmatic.Withthistransitiontocontcnt,thcscparationofthca
priori from thc cmpirical world, a scparation that had bccn
maintaincdin thcwholcPlatonic-Aristotcliantraditionthrough
Kantandwashrstqucstioncdby Fichtc,is abolishcd. Thccm-
67

l d ` ` h ` ` h l `
|
`'"Ph pirca,graspc II itss_nt csis,ist cspccuattvcconccgt. 1-
losophy acquircs thc right and acccpts thc duty to appcal to
matcrial momcnts originatingin thc rcallifc proccss ofsocial-
izcd human bcingsas csscntialandnotmcrclycontingcnt
Thc
artiFcially rcsurrcctcd mctaphysics oftoday, whichcastigatcs that
as adcsccnt into mcrc facticity and claims to protcct thcbcing
ofbcingsfrombcings,rcgrcsscsbchind Hcgclwhcnitcomcsto
whatiscrucial,nomattcrhowmuchthatmctaphysicsmistakcnly
considcrsitsclftobcmorcadvanccd thanhisidcalism
Bccausc
ofhisidcalism,Hcgclhasbccnrcproachcdforbcingabstractin
comparisonwiththcconcrctcncssofthcphcnomcnological,an-
thropological,andontologicalschools.Buthcbroughtinhnitcly
morc concrctcncss into his philosophical idcas than thosc ap-
proachcs, and notbccausc his spcculativc imaginationwasbal-
anccdby ascnscofrcalityandhistoricalpcrspcctivcbutbyvirtuc
ofthc approachhis philosophytakcs~by virtuc, onc mightsay,
ofthccxpcricntialcharactcrofhisspcculation.Philosophy,Hc-
gclasscrts,mustcomctoundcrstandthatitscontcntisnoothcr
thanactuality. AtFrstwcbccomcawarc ofthcsccontcntsinwhat
wc call Expcricncc. ' Philosophy rcfuscs to bc intimidatcd, to
rcnounccthchopcofcomingto knowthatwholcofrcalityand
its contcnts to which thc institution ofscicncc and scholarship
barsacccssinthcnamcofvalid,watcr-tightFndings.Hcgclscnscd
thcrcgrcssivcandtyrannicalmcmcntin Kant'smodcstyandop-
poscd thc famous sayingwithwhichKant'sEnlightcnmcntcn-
dcarcditsclftoobscurantism. Ihavcthcrcforcfounditncccssary
to dcny knowlcdgc, inordcrto makc room forfaith. Thc dog-
matismofmctaphysics, thatis, thc prcconccption thatitis pos-
siblctomakchcadwayinmctaphysicswithoutaprcviouscriticism
of purc rcason, is thc sourcc ofall that unbclicf, always vcry
dogmatic, which wars against morality.
,,
' Hcgcl's antithcsis to
thisrcads,Thcscalcdcsscnccofthcunivcrschasnopowcrthat
68
ExperlentlalContentofHegel'slhllosophy
couId wthstand thcsprtoIknowIcdgc, t s compcIIcdtoopcn
tscIItotandIay outtsrchcsandtsdcpthsandoIIcr thcmIor
ts cn]oymcnt." In IormuIatons Ikc ths, thc aconan pathos
oI thc carIy bourgcos pcrod s cxtcndcd to bccomc that oI a
maturc humanknd. wc may yct succccd. 5ccn aganst thc rcs-
gnatonoIthccurrcntcra, ths mpuIsc cstabIshcs HcgcI`s truc
contcmporaryrcIcvancc. Jhc cxtrcmc oIdcaIsm, thc crtcron
by whch thc carIy HcgcI, Ikc HIdcrIn, condcmncd a sprt
pIcdgcd to "utIty" and thus unIathIuI to tscII, has ts matcr-
aIst mpIcatons. Jhcy dsappcar whcn ths knd oI cxtrcmc
dcaIsm makcs an aIIancc wth what was Iatcr caIIcd rcaIsm,
whcnsprtadapts-and oIcoursctwas madcabundantIy cIcar
to sprt thattcouId notactuaIzc tscIIcxccptby adaptng. Jhc
Iarthcr HcgcI takcs dcaIsm, cvcn cpstcmoIogcaIIy, thc cIoscr
hc comcs tosocaImatcraIsm,thcmorchc nssts, aganst Kant,
on comprchcndnghs sub]cctmattcrIrom thcnsdc out. 5pr-
t's conhdcncc that thc worId "n tscII" s sprt s not onIy a
narrow IIuson oIts own omnpotcncc. It Iccds on thc cxpcr-
cnccthatnothngwhatsocvcrcxsts outsdc oIwhats produccd
by human bcngs, that nothng whatsocvcr s compIctcIy ndc-
pcndcnt oIsocaI Iabor. Ivcn naturc, sccmngIy untouchcd by
Iabor,sdchncdasnaturcbyIaborandtothscxtcntsmcdatcd
byt. 5uchrcIatonshpsarcstrkngIycvdcntn thcprobIcm oI
thc so-caIIcd non captaIst arcas, whch accordng to thc thcory
oImpcraIsm arc a Iuncton oIthc captaIst arcas. thc Iattcr
nccd thc Iormcr Ior thc vaIorzaton oIcaptaI. Lcbnz's cIam
to havc constructcd thc worId onthc bassoIts nncr prncpIc,
a cIam that Kant rc]cctcd as dogmatc mctaphyscs, rcturns n
HcgcI as ts oppostc. What cxsts comcs to approxmatc thc
productoIIabor, wthout, howcvcr, thc naturaI momcntdsap-
pcarngwthn Iabor. II, as n HcgcI, n thc totaIty cvcrythng
uItmatcIy coIIapscs nto thc sub]cct as absoIutc sprt, dcaIsm
9
thcrcby canccls itsclfout,bccauscnodiffcrcncc rcmains through
which thc subcct would bc idcntihcd as somcthingdistinct, as
subcct.Oncc thc obccthas bccomcsubcctin thc absolutc, thc
obcctis no longcrinfcriorvis--vis thc subcct. Atits cxtrcmc,
idcntitybccomcsthcagcntofthcnonidcntical.Whilcthclimits
that prcvcntcd thisstcpfrombcingtakcncxplicitlywcrchrmly
cstablishcdin Hcgcl'sphilosophy,ncvcrthclcssthcstcprcmains
crucialforcontcntofhisphilosophy. Lcft-Hcgclianismwasnot
a dcvclopmcnt in intcllcctual history that wcnt bcyond Hcgel
anddistortcdhimthroughmisundcrstanding, tructothcdialcc-
tic,itwasapicccofthcsclf-rccctionthathisphilosophyhadto
dcnyitsclfinordcrtorcmainphilosophy.
ForthisrcasoncvcnthcidcalistfcrmcntinHcgclshouldnot
bchastily dismisscd as prcsumptuousncss. Itdrawsits strcngth
fromwhatthcso-callcdprcscicntihcmindsccsinscicncc, somc-
thingscicnccglosscsovcrinitscomplaccncy.Inordcrtobcablc
to opcratc with thcclcan, clcar conccptsitbrags about, scicncc
cstablishcs such conccpts and makcs itsudgmcnts without rc-
gardforthcfactthatthclifcofthcsubcctmattcrforwhichthc
conccptisintcndcd docs notcxhaustitsclfinconccptual spcci-
hcation. Whatfurnishcs thccanon for Hcgclian idcalismisthc
rcsistanccto practical, mcrclyvcrbaldchnitionsshownby aspirit
thathasnotyctbccn proccsscdanddrcsscdbyscicncc,thcnccd
to grasp~as thc Ccrman word Beg:]] conccpt, from ge
q
en,
grasp] implics~what thc mattcr at hand actually is and what
csscntialandbynomcansmutuallyharmoniousmomcntsitcon-
tains,rathcrthanmcrclymanipulatingconccptsastokcns.That
idcalism, which is rcproachcd with bcing unrccctivcly arro-
gant,wantsto fullydiscloscthcmattcrathandthroughitscon-
ccpt bccausc in thc lastanalysis thc thingitsclfand its conccpt
arconcandthcsamc. OnthcsurfaccitwouldsccmthatHcgc-
lian philosophy nowhcrc distanccs itsclf morc from thc prc-
70
dialccticalconccptofcxpcricnccthanhcrc.whathappcnstospirit
is ascribcd to spirit, rathcr than spirit simply arranging it, bc-
causc aftcr allit is nothing butspirit. But cvcn this most anti-
cmpiricalpointinHcgcl's philosophyisnotwithoutanobcct.It
rcgistcrs thc distinction bctwccnthcmattcrathand,thcobcct
of knowlcdgc, and thc scicntihc copy ofit, withwhich a sclf-
criticalscicncc cannot bcsatishcd. But thcconccptcannot tran-
sccnd its own arbitrary naturc, which abstracts, classih cs, and
dclimits.Hcgcldctcstcdattcmptstodoso-suchas,atthattimc,
Schclling'sandwithgood rcason. Thcybctraycd whathc carcd
mostabout, his drcam ofthc truth ofthc mattcritsclf, for thc
sakcofanintcllcctualintuitionthat docs notgobcyondthccon-
ccpt butrathcrfalls shortofitand, byusurpingthc obcctivity
ofthcconccpt,rcgrcsscstothcsubcctivityofmcrcopinion.Thcrc
isnothingthatphilosophicalthoughtismorc touchy aboutthan
somcthingvcryclosctoitthatcompromiscsitbyhidingthcdif-
fcrcncc that makcs all thc difIcrcncc in an inconspicuous nu-
ancc. HcnccHcgcltaughtthatthcmcamngsofconccptsarcboth
to bc pinncddown,more scientifco, sothatthcycanrcmaincon-
ccpts, and also to bc sct in motion," altcrcd according to thc
dictatcs ofthc obcct, inordcrnotto distortit. Thcdialccticis
cxpcctcd to claboratc this postulatc, which would othcrwisc bc
mcrclyparadoxical.Contrarytowhatithasbccomc,bothinpar-
ody and in its dogmatic pctrihcation, dialcctic docs not mcan
rcadincss to rcplacc thc mcaning ofonc conccpt with anothcr
oncillicitlyobtaincd. Notthatonc is supposcdto climinatc thc
lawofcontradiction,assccms to bc cxpcctcd ofHcgclianlogic.
Rathcr, contradictionitsclf-thccontradictionbctwccnthchxcd
conccpt and thc conccptin motion-bccomcs thcagcntofphi-
losophizing. Whcnthcconccptis pinncddown, thatis,whcnits
mcaningisconfrontcdwith whatis cncompasscdby it, its non-
idcntity-thc fact that thc conccpt and thc thing itsclfarc not
7I
oncandthcsamc~bccomcscvidcntwithinthcidcntityofcon-
ccptandthingthatisrcquircdbythclogicalformofdchnition.
Hcncc thcconccpt that rcmains truc to its own mcaning must
changc, ifitis to followits own conccption, a philosophy that
holdsthcconccpttobcsomcthingmorcthanamcrcinstrumcnt
ofthcintcllcctmustabandondchnition,whichmighthindcrit
in doing so. Thcmovcmcntofthcconccptis nota sophistical
manipulation thatwouldinscrtchangingmcaningsintoitfrom
thcoutsidcbutrathcrthccvcr-prcscntconsciousncssofboththc
idcntityofand thcincvitablcdiffcrcnccbctwccnthcconccptand
whatitissupposcdtocxprcss, aconsciousncssthatanimatcsall
gcnuincknowlcdgc. Bccauscphilosophywillnotrclinquishthat
idcntity,itmustacccptthisdiffcrcncc.
All sclf-rccction notwithstanding, howcvcr, thc words rc-
cction" and "Reexionsphilosophie" jphilosophy ofrccction] and
thcir synonyms oftcn havc adcrogatory tonc in Hcgcl. Ncvcr-
thclcss, hiscritiqucofrccction, in which cvcn Fichtc was not
sparcd,wasitsclfrccction.Thisisstrikinglycvidcntinthcsplit-
tingofthcconccptofthcsubcctthatdistinguishcshimandhis
spcculativc-idcalistprcdcccssorssodrasticallyfromKant.In
Kant,
philosophywas cngagcd in thc critiquc ofrcason, a somcwhat
naivcscicntihcconsciousncss,asscssmcntintcrmsofthcrulcsof
logic~what is currcntlycallcd phcnomcnology~was applicd
to consciousncss as aconditionofknowlcdgc. In Hcgcl thcrc-
lationship bctwccn thc two, bctwccn thc philosophical, critical
consciousncss and thc consciousncss cngagcd in dircct knowl-
cdgcofitsobcct,thcconsciousncssthatisthcobjcctofcriticism,
arclationshipthatKantdidnotconsidcr, bccomcsthcmatic,thc
obcctofrccction. In thc proccss, consciousncss as obcct, as
somcthingtobcgraspcdphilosophically,bccomcsthchnitc,lim-
itcd,and falliblc thingithadalrcadytcndcdtobcconccivcdas
in Kant,whobccauscofthishnitcncssforbadcconsciousncssto
72
wandcr of1into intclligiblc worlds. Kant's dclimitation ofcon-
sciousncss as a scicntihc consciousncss that makcs straightfor-
ward judgmcnts rcturns in Hccl as thc ncgativity of
consciousncss, as somcthing that nbcHicd. Con-
vcrscly,thcconsciousncssthatgraspsthchnitcncssofconscious-
ncss,thccontcmplatingsubcctivitythatposits"thccontcmplatcd
subcct,alsothcrcbypositsitsclfasinhnitcand~orsoisHcgcl's
intcntion~whcnhisphilosophyisfullyclaboratcd,provcsitsclf
initsinhnitcncsstobcabsolutcspirit,towhichnothingiscxtcr-
nalandin whichthcdiffcrcnccbctwccnsubcctandobcctdis-
appcars. Howcvcr dubious this claim may bc, thcrccctionof
rccction, thcdoublingofphilosophicalconsciousncss,isnomcrc
playofthoughtunlcashcdandasitwcrcdivcstcdofitsmatcrial,
itissound.Inthatconsciousncssrccalls,throughsclf-rccction,
howithas failcd to capturcrcality, howithas mutilatcdthings
with its ordcring conccpts andrcduccd thcm to thccontingcnt
statusofwhatiscloscsttohandinitsdata,"scicntihcconscious-
ncsscomcsfacctofaccinHcgclwithwhatacausal-mcchanistic
scicncc, as a scicncc ofthc domination ofnaturc, has donc to
naturc. In this Hcgcl was not so diLcrcnt from Bcrgson, who
likchim uscdcpistcmologicalanalysistocxposcthcinadcquacy
ofanarrow-mindcd,rcifyingscicncc,itslackofcongrucnccwith
rcality~whilc unrccctivc scicncc lovcs to rant and ravc about
consciousncss of this inadcquacy bcing mcrc mctaphysics.
Crantcd, in Bcrgsonthccritiqucofthcscicntihcspiritwascar-
ricd out by thc scicntihc spirit without much conccrn for thc
contradictioninthissclf-criticism.ThisiswhyBcrgsoncouldbc
athcoristofknowlcdgcandanirrationalistatthcsamctimc.his
philosophydidnotsucccssfullycomctotcrmswiththcrclation-
shipsofthctwoaspccts. Hcgcl, ahundrcd ycars oldcr, did. Hc
kncw that any critiquc of a rcifying, divisivc, alicnating con-
sciousncss that mcrclyscts up a diffcrcntsourcc ofknowlcdgc
73
fromthcoutsidcasacontrasttoitisimpotcnt,thataconccption
ofrcasonthatsupcrscdcsrcasonmustfail hopclcsslybyitsown
critcria. Hcncc Hcgcl madc thc contradiction bctwccn thc sci-
cntihcspiritand thccritiqucofscicncc, whichin Bcrgsonisan
unmcdiatcd contradiction, thc motor ofphilosophical activity.
Onlythroughrccctioncanrccctivcthoughtgctbcyonditsclf.
Contradiction, proscribcdbylogic,bccomcs anorgan ofthought.
ofthctruthofLogos.
Hcgcl'scritiqucofWisenschaf scicnccandscholarship],aword
hc uscsrcpcatcdly and with cmphasis,is not intcndcd tobcan
apologcticrcstorationofprc-Kantianmctaphysicsasopposcdto
thc scicntihc thought that has snatchcd morc and morc of its
subcctmattcr andthcoricsfromit. Hcgclhasathoroughl_ra-
tional objcction to rational scicncc. thatrational scicncc, which
imagincsitsclftobcthcbasisoftruth'slcgitimacy,trimsobccts
down to sizc and proccsscs thcmuntilthcy htinto thc institu-
tionalizcd,positivcdisciplincs,anddocssointhcscrviccofits
own ordcringconccpts and thcir immancnt practicability and
lack ofcontradiction. What motivatcs Hcgcl's conccpt ofrcih-
cation is thcidca thatscicncc is conccrncd lcss with thc lifc of
thingsthatwiththcircompatibilitywithitsownrulcs. whatacts
as though it wcrc irrcproachablc, irrcduciblc truth is itsclf a
productofaprcliminary proccssing, somcthingsccondaryand
dcrivativc. Notthclcastofthctasksofphilosophicalconscious-
ncss is that ofdissolving, through sclf-rccction, what has bc-
comccongcalcdandfrozcn through scicncc, rcturningittowhat
scicncc has rcmovcd it from. Thc vcr_ objcctivit_ ofscicncc is
mcrclysubcctivc. Hcgcl'sobcctionto thcunrccctivclaborof
thcintcllcctis as rational as hiscorrcctivc to it.Thccritiqucof
thcinstitutionofpositivistscicncc, which incrcasingly prcscnts
itsclfthcworldovcrasthcsolclcgitimatcformofknowlcdgc,is
alrcadyfullydcvclopcdinHcgcl.Longbcforcmattcrshadgonc
74
sofar,Hcgclhadrccognizcditforwhatithasnow,ininnumcr-
ablc dull and cmpty studics, rcvcalcd itsclftobc~thcunityof
rciFcation,thatis,ofafalsc~in Hcgcl's tcrms, abstractbcc-
tivitycxtcrnaltothcthingitsclf,andanaivctthatconfuscsfacts
andhgurcs, thcplastcrmodclofthcworld,withitsfoundation.
Usingthclanguagcofcpistcmologyandthclanguagcofspcc-
ulativcmctaphysics cxtrapolatcd from it, Hcgcl cxprcsscd thc
idca that thc rcihcd and rationalizcd socicty of thc bourgcois
cra, thcsocictyinwhichanaturc-dominatingrcasonhadcomc
to fruition, could bccomc a socicty worthy ofhuman bcings~
notbyrcgrcssingto oldcr,irrationalstagcspriortothcdivision
oflabor but only by applying its rationality to itsclf, in othcr
words, onlythroughahcalingawarcncssofthcmarksofunrca-
soninitsownrcason, and thctraccsofthcrationalin thcirra-
tional as wcll. Sincc thcn thc clcmcntofunrcason has bccomc
cvidcntinthcconscqucnccsofmodcrnrationality,whichthrcatcn
univcrsalcatastrophc.InParsial RichardWagncr,thcSchopcn-
haucrian,putHcgcl'scxpcricnccintcrmsofthcancicnttopos.
onlythcspcarthatinictcdthcwoundcanhcalit.Vcgcl'sphilo-
sophical consciousncss suffcrcd morc from thc cstrangcmcnt
bctwccn subcctand obcct,bctwccn consciousncss and rcality,
thanhadanyprcvious philosophicalconsciousncss.Buthisphi-
losophyhadthcstrcngthnottoccfromthissuffcringbackinto
thcchimcraofaworld andasubcctofpurcimmcdiacy. Itdid
notlctitsclfbcdistractcdfromitsawarcncss thatonlythrough
thcrcalizcdtruthofthcwholcwouldthcunrcasonofamcrcly
particularrcason, thatis, arcasonthatmcrcly scrvcsparticular
intcrcsts, disintcgratc.Thissaysmorcabouthisrccctionofrc-
cction than thcirrationalist gcsturcs into which Hcgcl somc-
timcs lcthimsclfbc mislcdin his dcspcratc attcmpts to rcscuc
thc truthofa socicty thathad alrcadybccomc untruc. Hcgcl's
75
sclf-rccctionofthcsubcctinphiloshicalconsciousncssisac-
tuallysocicty'sdawningcriticalconsciousncssofitsclf.
Thc motifofcontradiction, and with it that ofarcality that
confronts thc subcctas harsh, alicn, and cocrcivc~a motifin
whichHcgclanticipatcdBcrgson,thcmctaphysicianofow~is
gcncrallyconsidcrcd thc ovcr-archingprinciplcofHcgcl's phi-
losophy. Itis thc basis ofthc dialcctical mcthod. But itis prc-
cisclythisprinciplcthatrcquircstranslationintothcintcllcctual
cxpcricncc it cxprcsscs. It vcry casily congcals to bccomc thc
tradcmarkofavicw,formulatcdsolclyintcrmsofthchistoryof
philosophy, that subsumcs thc stagcs of spirit undcr binding
highcr-lcvcl conccpts. Thc dialcctic is rcduccd to thc kind of
clcctivcwcltanschauungagainstwhichthccriticalphilosophyof
whichHcgclwasapartdircctcdsuchadcvastatingcritiquc.Hcncc
onc cannot cvadc thc qucstion ofwhatustihcd Hcgcl in sub-
cctingcvcrythingthatconfrontcd thought, as wcllas thought
itsclf, tothcprinciplcofcontradiction. Itis cspcciallyatthispoint
inHcgcl,whowantcdtosurrcndcrtothcmovcmcntofthcmat-
tcrathand and curc thought ofits arbitrarincss, thatonc sus-
pcctshimofamomcntofarbitrarincss,ofthcolddogmatism~
andinfactspcculativcphilosophysinccSalomonMaimonhasin
many rcspccts fallcn back upon prc-Kantian rationalism. Thc
factthatHcgclcxprcsscdthcmostcuttingobcctionstothcclap-
trapschcmcofatriplicityofthcsis,antithcsis,andsynthcsisasa
mcrcmcthodologicalschcma, andthathcsaysinthcprcfaccto
thcPhenomenolo
g
that aslongasitrcmainsaschcma, that is, is
mcrcly imprcsscd upon obccts from thc outsidc, onc acquircs
thcknackquickly,isnotsufhcicnttoallaythissuspicion. Nor
is onc likcly to bc satishcd with thc statcmcnt that no isolatcd
principlc, whcthcritbcthatofmcdiation, ofbccoming, ofcon-
tradiction, or ofthc dialcctic itsclf, is, as a scparatc principlc,
76
absolutcandthckcytothctruth,thattruthconsistssolclyinthc
rclationshipofmomcntsthatcmcrgcfromoncanothcr.Allthat
couldbcmcrcasscrtion.Suspicionofthcdialccticasanisolatcd,
abstractly positcd maxim, as Hcgcl puts it, currcntly rcccivcs
conhrmationfromthcwaythcHcgclian-dcrivcdmatcrialistvcr-
sionofthcdialcctic, ofdynamic thoughtko eo{v, has bccn
distortcd in thc Eastcrn zonc, in thc abominablc abbrcviation
Diamat, to alitcral, static dogma. Nowasthcn, appcal toitsin-
augurators, who havc bccn dcgradcd to thc status ofclassics,
prcvcntsanyobcctivcrccction, callingitobcctivistdcviation,
in Diamat, Hcgcl's movcmcnt ofthc conccpt has bccn frozcn
into an articlc offaith. Bycontrast, somcthing that Nictzschc
cxprcsscdlongaftcrHcgclhasmorcincommonwiththccxpc-
ricnccthatmotivatcsthc dialcctic. Thcrcis nothingin rcality
that would corrcspondstrictlywith logic.''ButHcgcl did not
simply proclaim that, hc achicvcd it, through immancnt criti-
cismoflogicanditsforms.Hcdcmonstratcdthatconccpt,udg-
mcnt,andconclusion,unavoidablcinstrumcntsforasccrtaining
throughconsciousncsssomcthingthatcxists,alwayscndupcon-
tradictingthat cxistingthing, thatall individualudgmcnts, all
individual conccpts, all individual conclusions, arc falscby thc
critcrionofancmphaticidcaoftruth.InthiswayKant,thcmor-
tal cncmy of a mcrcly rhapsodistic thought that absolutizcs
contingcnt individual dchnitions, camc into his own in Hcgcl,
his critic. Hcgcl attacks thc Kantian doctrinc of thc limits of
knowlcdgcandyctrcspcctsit.Fromithcdcvclopsthcthcoryof
adiffcrcncc bctwccn subcctand obcctthat manifcsts itsclfin
cvcry particular. This diffcrcncc, which acts as its owncorrcc-
tivc, movcs outbcyond itsclfto bccomc morc adcquatc knowl-
cdgc. Accordingly, thcustihcation ofthc primacy ofncgation
in Hcgcl's philosophyisthatthclimitsofknowlcdgctowhichits
criticalsclf-rccctionlcadsarcnotsomcthingcxtcrnaltoknowl-
77
cdgc, notsomcthingtowhichitismcrclycondcmncdfromthc
outsidc,rathcr,thcyarcinhcrcntinallmomcntsofknowlcdgc.
Allknowlcdgc,andnotmcrclyknowlcdgcthatvcnturcsoutinto
thcinhnitc, aims, through thc mcrcform ofthc copula, atthc
wholc truth, andnoncachicvcsit. HcnccinHcgclthcKantian
limitsofknowlcdgcbccomcthcprinciplcofcpistcmologicalad-
vancc. A thingis whatitis, onlyiri and byrcasonofits limit.
Wccannotthcrcforcrcgard thclimitas onlycxtcrnaltobcing
whichisthcnandthcrc.Itrathcrgocsthroughandthroughthc
wholcofsuchcxistcncc.Thcunivcrsalityofncgationisnota
mctaphysicalpanaccathatissupposcdtoopcnadoorsbutmcrcly
thcconscqucnccofthc critiquc ofknowlcdgc, now maturcd to
sclf-awarcncss, that dcmolishcd panaccas. In othcrwords, Hc-
gcl'sphilosophyiscmincntlycriticalphilosophy,andthccxam-
inationtowhichitsubccts its conccpts, bcginningwith thatof
bcing,alwaysaccumulatcswithinitsclf,likcanclcctricalchargc,
thc spccihcobcctions thatcanbc madc to it. Ofallthc distor-
tions pcrpctratcd on Hcgcl by a dim-wittcd intclligcntsia, thc
mostpitifulis thcnotionthatthcdialcctichasto admitasvalid
cithcr cvcrything whatsocvcr or nothing whatsocvcr. In Kant,
critiqucrcmainsacritiqucofrcason, inHcgcl,whocriticizcsthc
Kantianscparationofrcasonfromrcality,thccritiqucofrcason
is simultancously a critiquc ofthc rcal. Thc inadcquacy ofall
isolatcd particular dchnitions is always also thc inadcquacy of
thcparticularrcalitythatisgraspcdinthoscdchnitions.Evcnif
thcsystcmultimatclycquatcsrcasonandrcalityandsubcctand
obcct, thcdialccticturnsitspolcmicagainstthcirrationalityof
mcrc cxistcncc, thccnduringstatcofnaturc, byconfrontinga
spccihc rcalitywithitsownconccpt,itsownrationality.Aslong
as itrcmainsunrcconcilcdandnotyctfullyrational,rcalityrc-
vcalsitsclftobcarcalityplcdgcd to dcath. Withthcconccptof
dctcrminatc ncgation, which scts Hcgcl off from Nictzschc's
78
statcmcntaswcllasfromallirrationalism,Hcgcldocsmorcthan
mcrclyopposcabstractsubsumptivc conccpts, includingthatof
ncgationitsclf.Foratthcsamctimcncgationintcrvcncsinthc
rcalitythatisthccontcntofthcsclf-criticizing conccpt. socicty.
Onc thing may bc obscrvcd with rcfcrcncc to thc immcdiatc
knowlcdgcofCod,oflcgalandcthicalprinciplcs.thcyarcstill
on cvcry sidc conditioncd by thc mcdiating proccss which is
tcrmcddcvclopmcnt,cducation,training.
,,
Dialcctical contradiction is cxpcricnccd in thc cxpcricncc of

socicty. Hcgcl's own construction, formulatcd in tcrms ofthc
philosophyofidcntity,rcquircsthatcontradictionbcgraspcdas
muchfromthcsidcofthcobcctasfromthcsidcofthcsubcct,
itisin thcdialccticalcontradictionthatthcrccrystallizcsacon-
ccptofcxpcricnccthatpointsbcyondabsolutcidcalism. Itisthc
conccptofantagonistictotality.)ustasthcprinciplcofunivcrsal
mcdiation, as opposcd to thc immcdiacy ofthc mcrc subcct,
gocsbackto thc factthatinallcatcgoricsofthoughtthcobcc-
tivity ofthcsocialproccssis priorto thccontingcncyofthcin-
dividualsubcct,sothcmctaphysical conccption ofarcconcilcd
wholc as thc quintcsscncc ofall contradictions is bascd on thc
modclofasocictythatisdividcdandncvcrthclcssunitcd.Truly
a modcl ofsocicty, for Hcgcl is not contcnt with thc gcncral
conccptofan antagonisticrcality, thc notionofur-polaritics of
bcing, for instancc. InthcPhenomenolog of Spirt, takingas his
critical pointofdcparturc whatis closcst to hand, unmcdiatcd
human consciousncss, hc accomplishcs thc mcdiation of that
consciousncss in and through thchistorical movcmcntofwhat
cxists, amovcmcntthattakcsitbcyondallmcrcmctaphysicsof
bcing. Oncc sctinmotion,thcconcrctizationofphilosophycan-
notbc stoppcd for thcsakcofphilosophy'sillusorydignity. It
is part ofthc cowardicc ofabstract thought that it shuns thc
scnsuous prcscntin amonkishfashion, modcrnabstraction takcs
79
upthsatttudcottastdousgcntItytowardsthcmomcntotthc
scnsuous prcscnt."' Jhat concrctcncss cnabIcs HcgcI to com-
pIctcIy pcrmcatc thc dcaottotaIty, whch s dcrvcd tromthc
dcaIst systcm, wth thc dca otcontradcton. Dccphcrcd, thc
IogcaI-mctaphyscaIthcoryottotaItyas thc cptomc otcontra-
dctons mcans thatsocctys notmcrcIyrvcnanddsturbcdby
contradctonsand dsproportonaItcs, rathcr,socctybccomcs
atotaItyonIybyvrtucotts contradctons. JhcsocctaIzaton
otsoccty, ts consoIdatonntowhat-nvndcatonotHcgcI-
s truIy morcIkcasystcm than an organsm, has rcsuItcdtrom
thc prncpIc otdomnaton, thc prncpIc otdvisontscIt, and
t pcrpctuatcs t. 5occty has survvcd, rcproduccd, and cx-
tcndcd tscIt, and has dcvcIopcd ts torccs, onIy through ts d-
vson nto thc opposng ntcrcsts otthosc who command and
thosc who producc. HcgcI mantancd hs awarcncss otths n
thc tacc otaII scntmcntaIty, aII romantcsm, aII rcgrcssvc rc-
turnotthoughtand rcaItytopaststagcs.IthcrthctotaItycomcs
nto ts ownby bccomng rcconcIcd, that s,taboIshcs ts con-
tradctoryguaItybycndurng tscontradctons to thc cnd,and
ccascs to bc a totaIty, or what s oId and taIscwII contnuc on
untIthccatastrophcoccurs.Assomcthngcontradctory,soccty
as awhoIcmovcsbcyondtscIt. JhcGocthcan-McphstophcIan
prncpIc thatcvcrythngthatcomcs ntobcngdcscrvcs to pcr-
sh mcans nHcgcIthatthcdcstructonotcachndvduaIthng
sdctcrmncdbyndvduaIzatontscIt,bypartcuIarty, thcIaw
otthc whoIc. Jhc ndvduaI by tscItdocs not corrcspond to
ts conccpt. Its thsImtaton otts cxstcncc whch consttutcs
thc hntudc andthcrunotthcndvduaI."AssomcthngspIt
ottanddctachcd, thcndvduaIsnthcwrongwhcnrcgardcd
tromthc pont otvcwot]ustcc and apcaccthatwouIdbc trcc
ot thc prcssurc otthc whoIc. y attcndng onIy to thcr own
advantagc, ndvduaIsarcdcIvcrcdovcrtoImtaton,stupdty,
80
and nsgnhcancc, a soccty that s hcId togcthcr and survvcs
onIy through thc unvcrsaI momcntn thc partcuIaradvantagc
taIscompIctcIyas aconscgucncc otts drvngtorcc. thcsctor-
muIatons arc not mctaphorcaI daIcctcaI ways ot cxprcssng
smpIc statcmcnts about tactuaI mattcrs, not mcrcIy a brtaton
wth HcgcI, as Marx says Iatcr n accIcbratcdpassagc. Instcad,
n a ccrtanscnsc thcy transIatc HcgcIanphIosophy back nto
whatthadpro]cctcdntothcIanguagcotthcabsoIutc. As though
thc daIcctc had bccomctrghtcncd ottscIt, nthcPhilosophy of
Right HcgcI brokc ott such thoughts by abruptIy absoIutzng
onc catcgory-thc statc. Jhs s duc to thc tact that whIc hs
cxpcrcncc dd ndccd asccrtan thc Imts otbourgcos soccty,
Imts contancd nts own tcndcnccs, as abourgcosdcaIsthc
stoppcdatthatboundarybccauschc sawnorcaIhstorcaItorcc
on thc othcr sdc ott. Hc couId not rcsoIvc thc contradcton
bctwccn hs daIcctc and hs cxpcrcncc. t was ths aIonc that
torccd cgcI thccrtcto mantanthcaHrmatvc.
Jhc ccntraI ncrvc otthcdaIcctcas a mcthod s dctcrmnatc
ncgaton. It s bascd on thc cxpcrcncc ot thc mpotcncc ota
crtcsm that kccps to thc gcncraI and poIshcs ott thc ob]cct
bcngcrtczcd bysubsumngttrom abovc undcraconccptas
tsrcprcscntatvc. OnIythccrtcaIdcathatunIcashcsthctorcc
storcd upntsownob]cctstruttuI,truttuIboth torthcob]cct,
by hcIpng t to comc nto ts own, and aganstt, rcmndng t
that ts notyct tscIt. HcgcI tcIt thcstcrItyotaII so-caIIcdn-
tcIIcctuaI work thattakcs pIaccwthn thc gcncraIsphcrc wth-
outdrtyngtscItwththcspcchc, butrathcrthan Iamcntthc
gavctacrtcaIandproductvcturn.JhcdaIcctccxprcsscsthc
tact that phIosophcaI knowIcdgc s not at homc n thc pIacc
whcrc tradton has scttIcd t, a pIacc whcrc t bourshcs aII too
casIy, unsaturatcd, as twcrc, wth thc hcavncss and thc rcss-
tanccotwhatcxsts. hIosophcaIknowIcdgcbcgnsonIywhcrc
8I
topcnsupthngsthattradtonaI thoughthasconsdcrcdopaguc,
mpcnctrabIc, and mcrc products otndvduaton. HcgcI's da-
IcctcaI statcmcnt, Jhc rcaI s nothng but an dcntty ot thc
gcncraI and thc partcuIar,""rctcrs to ths. utths shttsnot
ntcndcd to rcward phIosophytor ts cttort by rcturnng t to
asccrtanngthcdataotanncohcrcntcxstcncc, and uItmatcIy
to postvsm. lo doubtthcrc s asccrct postvstmpuIscatwork
nHcgcInhsdchcatonotthcguntcsscnccotwhats. ut thc
torcc thatspcchcndvduaI knowIcdgc rcvcaIssaIways thatot
thc nadcguacyotts mcrc ndvduaIty. Wattss aIways morc
than tscIt. Jo thc cxtcnt to whch thc whoIc s at work n thc
mcrocosmotthc ndvduaI, onchas groundstorspcakngabout
arcprscotLcbnz n HcgcI, howcvcrdccdcdIy HcgcI opposcs
thcabstractncssotthcmonadnothcrrcspccts. JocxpIanthat
ntcrmsotunrcbcctcdntcIIcctuaIcxpcrcncc.tsomconcwants
to gan knowIcdgc ot somcthng rathcr than covcr t up wth
catcgorcs, hc wII havc to surrcndcr to t wthout rcscrvaton,
wthoutthccovcrotprcconccptons,buthcwIInotsuccccdun-
IcssthcpotcntaItorthcknowIcdgcthatsactuaIzcdonIythrough
mmcrson n thc ob]ccts aIrcady watngn hm as thcory. Jo
thscxtcntthcHcgcIandaIcctctoIIows,wthphIosophcaIscIt-
conscousncss, thc path ot aII productvc thought, that s, aII
thought that docs not smpIy rcconstruct or rccaptuIatc what
hascomcbctorc.Jhatpath, tobcsurc, sconccaIcdtromt, onc
mght aImost bcIcvc, wth HcgcI, thatthas tobc hddcn trom
t n ordcrtor thought to bc productvc. Its ncthcr a thcory
arrvcdatbynducton noronctromwhchonccouIdmakcdc-
ductons. What mostshocks thc nnoccntrcadcrotthcPhenom
enolo
g
of Spirit, thc suddcn bashcs otIIumnaton thatInk thc
hghcst spccuIatvc dcas wth thc actuaI poItcaI cxpcrcncc ot
thc rcnch KcvoIuton and thc agc otlapoIcon, s what s ac-
tuaIIy daIcctcaI. It Inks thc gcncraI conccpt and thc aconccp-
82
tuaI ce:-aspcrhapsArstotIc dd thc pq ouoo-cachn
tscIt, to ts oppostc, aknd otpcrmancntcxpIosongntcdby
thccontactotcxtrcmcs. Jhc HcgcIan conccptotthc daIcctc
acgurcstsspcchccharactcr, anddstngushcstscIttromshaI-
Iow vcrsons n vtaIst phIosophy Ikc that otDIthcy, through
ts movcmcntnandthroughthccxtrcmcs. dcvclopmcntas ds-
contnuty. ut t too arscs trom thc cxpcrcncc otan antago-
nstc soccty, t docs not orgnatc n somc mcrc conccptuaI
schcma. Jhc hstoryotan unrcconcIcd cpoch cannot bc a hs-
toryotharmonous dcvcIopmcnt. tsonIydcoIogy, dcnyngts
antagonstc charactcr, that makcs t harmonous. Lontradc-
tons, whch arcts truc and onIyontoIogy, arcatthc samc tmc
thc tormaI Iaw ota hstory that advanccs onIy through contra-
dcton and wth unspcakabIc suttcrng. HcgcI rctcrrcd to hs-
toryas a "sIaughtcrbcnch,
,,
anddcsptchs much-ctcd optmsm

about hstory-5chopcnhaucrcaIIcdtvIc-thchbcrotHcgcI's
phIosophy, thc conscousncss that cvcrythng that cxsts both
ncgatcstscItncomngntotsownandpcrshcssbynomcans
sodttcrcnttrom5chopcnhaucr'sEin Gedanke asthcoHcaIhs-
tory otphIosophy, rcpcatng 5chopcnhaucr's nvcctvcs, wouId
havct.
HcgcI's noton thatts onIythcdcathatsaturatcs tscItwth
thcwcghtotts ob]cctrathcr thanshootng out bcyond twth-
outdcIay that, as "dctcrmnatc ncgaton," sworthanythng, has,
otcoursc, cntcrcd thcscrvccotthcapoIogctc aspcct, thc Icgt-
maton otwhat cxsts. Jhc dca, whch bccomcs truth onIy by
compIctcIy absorbng what opposcs t, rcpcatcdIy succumbs to
thc tcmptaton to cxpIan thatwhatrcsstststscItdca, truth.
orthatthcoryotHcgcI'shas rcccntIybccnctcdbyGcorgLu-
kcs, 'notonIynordcrto dctamc Itcraturcthatdcvatcstrom
cmprcaI rcaIty, but abovc and bcyond that to rcvvc onc ot
HcgcI's most dubous thcscs,thatotthcratonaIty otthc rcaI.
83
Accordng to HcgcI's dstncton bctwccn abstractand rcaI pos-
sbIty, onIysomcthngthathasbccomcrcaIsactuaIIypossbIc.
Jhs knd otphIosophy sdcs wth thc bg guns. It adopts thc
]udgmcntotarcaItythataIwaysdcstroyswhatcouIdbcdttcr-
cnt. Ivcn,hcrc, howcvcr, onc shouId not]udgc HcgcIsoIcIyon
thcbassotonc'sconvctons. crsstcntnvoIvcmcntwthHcgcI
tcachcs onc-and ths s probabIy truc otcvcry grcat phIoso-
phy-thatonccannotscIcctwhatoncIkcs tromhs phIosophy
and rc]cctwhatonchndsrrtatng. Itsths grm ncccsstyand
notandcaIotcompIctcncssthatmakcs HcgcI'scIamto systcm
a scrous and substantaI onc. Jhc truth otthatcIamIcsnthc
skndlon, not n ts pIausbIty. Hcncc rcscung HcgcI-and onIy
rcscuc, not rcvvaI, s appropratctorhm-mcans tacng up to
hs phIosophywhcrctsmostpantuIandwrcstngtruth trom
twhcrctsuntruthsobvous. AcsthctccxpcrcnccmayhcIpus
to do thswth thc doctrnc otabstract and rcaIpossbIty. Lct
mc guotc trom ; Icttcr about Jhomas Mann's IatcnovcIIa The
Black Swan [Die Betrogene], trom I954.
IfI am not mistaken, the hgure ofKen has all the earmarks ofan
Americanfrom thelate fortiesorthehfties andnotfrom thedecade
following the FirstWorldWar. . . . Now, one might say that this is a
legitimateexerciseofartisticfreedom, andthatthedemandforchro-
nological hdelity is secondary, even when it is a question ofextreme
precisionintheportrayalofhumanbeings. But I doubtwhetherthis
argument,whichcomesupasthoughitwereself-evident,istrulyvalid.
Ifyou seta work in the I920s and have it take place after the First
rather than the Second World War, then you havegood reasons for
doingso~themostobviousbeingthatsomeonelikeFrauvonTmmler
isunimaginabletoday,atadeeperleveltheattempttodistancewhatis
closesttohandisprobablyinvolved~totransposeitmagicallytoapre-
historic world, the same worldwithwhose special patinaKrl is also
concerned.Butwiththiskindoftranspositionofthedatesoneassumes
akindofobligation,asinthehrstmeasureofapieceofmusic,whose
desiderataremainwithoneuntilthelastnote,whichachievesequilib-
84
rium.Idonotmeantheobligationofexternalhdelitytoperiodcolor
butrather thattheimages theworkofartconjuresupmustmanifest
themselvesashistoricalimagesatthesametime,anobligationthatfor
immanentaestheticreasonscan hardlydispensewiththatexternalob-
ligation. ForifIamnotmistaken,onerunsupagainst theparadoxical
stateofaffairs thattheevocationofsuch images, thatis,thatwhichis
actuallymagical aboutthe artobject,is moresuccessful, themoreau-
thentictheempiricaldetailsare. Onewouldalmostthinkthatthereis
notasimpleoppositionbetween thepermeationoftheworkwithsub-
jectivityandthe demands ofrealism, whichinacertain sense resound
throughoutthewhole ofyouroeuvre, such as oureducation and his-
torywouldleadusto thinkbutthatinsteadthegreatertheprecision
onemaintainswithregard tothehistorical details, includingthosere-
gardingtypesofhuman beings, themorelikelyoneis toachievespiri-
tualization and attain the world ofthe imago. I hrst arrived at these
eccentric thoughts by way ofProust, who in this regard reacted with
idiosyncraticexactness,andtheycametomeagaininreadingtheBlack
Swan. Atthe moment it seems to me as though this kindofprecision
canatoneforsomeoftheburdenofsinunderwhicheveryartistichc-
tionlabors,itisasthoughthathctioncouldbehealedofitselfthrough
exactimagination.
5omcthngsmIar Ics bchnd HcgcI's thcorcm. Ivcn nthc work
otart, whchscsscntaIIydticrcnttromaIImcrccxstngthngs
byvrtucottsowntormaIIaw,thctuIhIImcntotthstormaIIaw,
ts own csscntaI naturc, ts possbIty" n thc cmphatc scnsc,
dcpcnds on thcdcgrcc otrcaIty t has absorbcd nto tscIt, no
mattcrhow transtormcd and rcconhgurcd thatrcaIty may bc.
IvcnthcdcathatopposcsrcaItynhoIdngtastto apossbIty
thatsrcpcatcdIydctcatcddocssoonIybyrcgardngthatposs-
bItytromthcpontotvcwotts rcaIzaton, as apossbItytor
rcaIty, somcthng that rcaIty tscIt, howcvcr wcakIy, s puttng
outtccIcrs to, and notsomcthng atwouIdhavcbccn so ncc,"
thc tonc otwhch rcsgns tscItto taIurctromthc outsct. Jhat
s thc truth contcnt otHcgcI's phIosophy, cvcn n thosc Iaycrs
ott whcrc, as n hs phIosophy ot hstory and cspccaIIy thc
85
ExperientialContentofHegel'sPhilosophy
prctacc to thcPhilosophy of Right, hcrcsgnshmscIIto rcaItyor
appcarstovndcatctwhIcsnccrngatthoscwhowouIdrctorm
thc worId. It was thc mostrcactonary and not at aII thc IbcraI
progrcssvc cIcmcnts n HcgcI that pavcd thc way tor a Iatcr
socaIst crtguc otabstractutopansm-onIy, otcoursc, n thc
turthcr hstory otsocaIsm to provdc n turn thc prctcxt tor a
rcncwcdrcprcsson.JhcdctamatonotaIIthoughtthatprotcsts
thc grm mmcdacy otwhatgocs onn thc Iastcrn zonc undcr
thcnamcotpraxs,adctamatonthatscustomarythcrcnowa-
days, s thc most cxtrcmc cvdcncc otths. ut onc shouId not
hoId HcgcI rcsponsbIc tor thcmsusc othsmotts todrapca
mantIc otdcoIogy ovcr thc ongong horror. DaIcctcaI truth
Iays tscItopcn tosuch msusc. tstragIcbynaturc.
Atthc samc tmc, thcrc s no dcnyng thc untruth otHcgcI's
]usthcaton ot what cxsts-somcthng thc Lctt-HcgcIans rc-
bcIIcd aganst n thcr day and whch n thc mcantmc has n-
crcascd to thc pont otabsurdty. Morc than any othcr oths
tcachngs, that otthcratonaItyotthc rcaI sccms to contradct
thc cxpcrcncc otrcaIty, ncIudng that otts so-caIIcd ovcraII
tcndcncy. ut that dca s dcntcaI wth HcgcIan dcaIsm. A
phIosophytorwhchaIIthatcxstsdssoIvcsntosprtasarcsuIt
ottsmovcmcntandas thctotaItyotthatmovcmcnt,andwhch
thcrctorc procIamsthcdcnttyotsub]cctand ob]cctnthcwhoIc
whcn t s thcr nondcntty n thc partcuIar that nsprcs t-
such aphIosophywIIapoIogctcaIIytakcthcsdcotwhatcxsts,
whch s supposcd to bc dcntcaI wth sprt. ut]ust as rcaIty
provcd thc thcss otthc ratonaIty otthc rcaI to bc wrong, so
thc conccpton thatcharactcrzcs thc phIosophy otdcntty
has
taIcd to hoId up phIosophcaIIy. Jhc dttcrcncc bctwccn sub-
]cctandob]cctcannotbc cradcatcd nthcoryanymorc than t
hasbccnrcsoIvcd nthccxpcrcncc o!rcaIty tothcprcscnt. It
thc hstory otHcgcIan phIosophy attcr HcgcI sccms a wcak
86
cnng,arcsgnatonotthcpowcrtocomprchcndandconstruct,
whcncomparcd wththccttorts otsprt, whchwcrcncvcr morc
powcrtuI than n HcgcI's comprchcnson otthc rcaI, ncvcrthc-
Icss, thc proccss that brought t to that pont s rrcvcrsbIc. It
cannot bc attrbutcd soIcIy to ntcIIcctuaI shortsghtcdncss, tor-
gcttuIncss, and an untortunatcIy rccmcrgcnt navct. In good,
and trghtcnng, HcgcIan tashon, thc Iogc otthc mattcrtscIt
s atworkn thatproccss. Jhc phIosophcaIdcathatwhatpcr-
shcs mcrts ts tatc provcs truc, cvcn tor HcgcI hmscIt, as thc
ur-bourgcos thnkcr, HcgcI s sub]cct to Anaxmandcr's ur-
bourgcos maxm. Kcasonbccomcs ncapabIcotcomprchcndng
rcaItynotmcrcIybccauscottsownmpotcnccbutbccauscrcaI-
tys not rcason. Jhc dcbatc bctwccn Kant and HcgcI, n whch
HcgcI'sdcvastatngargumcnthadthcIastword,snotovcr,pcr-
haps bccausc what was dccsvc, thc supcror powcr ot IogcaI
strngcncy, s untruc n thc tacc otthc Kantan dscontnutcs.
Jhrough hscrtgucotKant, HcgcIachcvcdamagnhccntcx-
tcnson otthc practccotcrtcaI phIosophybcyondthctormaI
sphcrc, at thc samc tmc, n dong so hc cvadcd thc suprcmc
crtca! momcnt, thccrtguc ottotaIty, otsomcthng nhntc and
concIusvcIy gvcn. Jhcn hc hghhandcdI_ dd awa_ wth thc
barrcr attcr aII, wth thc cxpcrcncc ot somcthng that cann
bc dssoIvcd n conscousncss, whch was thc n_crmot cx_cr-
cncc ot Kant's transccndcntaI phIosoph_, and hc stguIatcd a
unan
_
ty otknowIcdgc that bccomcs scamIcss through ts ds-
coWcsantDathassomcthng
_
m___
_tcgcI tnougbt away thc dttcrcncc bctwccn thc cond-
toncd and thc absoIutc and cndowcd thc condtoncd wth thc
scmbIanccotthcuncondtoncd. In thc IastanaIyss,bydongso
hc dd an n]ustcc to thc cxpcrcncc on whch hc drcw. Jhc
cogntvc powcr ot hs phIosophy vanshcs aIong wth ts
87
TheExperientialContentof Hegel'sPhilosophy
groundngncxpcrcncc.JhccIamthathc dscIoscsthcpartc-
uIaraIongwththcwhoIcbccomcsIIcgtmatc,bccauscthatwhoIc
tscIts not, asthc tamousscntcncctromthcPhnomnolo
g
wouId
havc t, thc truc, and bccausc thc athrmatvc and scIt-assurcd
rctcrcncc to thatwhoIc as thouhonc had a hrm grasp otts
hcttous.
Jhcrcsnoway to makcthscrtcsmIcssharsh, butcvcnso,
tshouIdnotdcaIsummarIywthHcgcI.IvcnwhcrcHcgcIbcs
!n thc tacc ot cxpcrcncc, ncIudng thc cxpcrcncc that mot-
vatcs hs own phIosophy, cxpcrcncc spcaks trom hm. Itthc
sub]cct-ob]ccttowardwhchhsphIosophydcvcIopssnotasys-
tcmotrcconcIcdabsoIutcsprt, sprtncvcrthcIcsscxpcrcnccs
thcworIdasasystcm. Jhcword systcm,"bcngmorcrratonaI
than thc word Itc," capturcs thc icmorscIcss consoIdaton ot
aII partaI momcnts andacts otcvIsocctyntoawhoIcthrough
thc prncpIcotcxchangcmorcaccuratcIy,cvcntItc"smorc
appropratc to thcrratonaItyotthc worId, tsIackotrcconcI-
aton wth thc ratonaI ntcrcsts ota scIt-conscous humanty.
ut thc ratonaIty otthat consoIdaton nto a totaIty s tscIt
rratonaIty, thc totaIty otthc ncgatvc. Jhc whoIc s thc un-
truc," notmcrcIybccausc thc thcss ottotaIty stscItuntruth,
bcng thc prncpIc otdomnatonnbatcd to thc absoIutc, thc
dca ot a postvty that can mastcr cvcrythng that opposcs t
through thc supcror powcr ot a comprchcndng sprt s thc
mrror magc otthc cxpcrcncc otthc supcrorcocrcvc torcc
nhcrcnt n cvcrythng that cxsts by vrtuc otts consoIdaton
undcrdomnaton.JhssthctruthnHcgcI'suntruth. Jhctorcc
ot1hc whoIc, whch t mobIzcs, s not a mcrc tantasy on thc
partotsprt, t s thc torcc otthc rcaI wcb otIIuson nwhch
aII ndvduaI cxstcncc rcmans trappcd. y spcctyng, n op-
poston to HcgcI, thc ncgatvty otthc whoIc, phIosophy sats-
88
hcs,torthcIasttmc,thcpostuIatcotdctcrmnatcncgaton, wmch
sapostng. Jhc ray otIght that rcvcaIs thc whoIctobc untruc
n aII ts momcnts n nonc othcr than utop:a, thc utopa otthc
whoIctruth,whchsstIItobcrcaIzcd.
Skoteinos, or How to Read Hegel
Ichhabe nichtsalsRauschen.
Ihavenothingbutmurmuring.
Rudol Borchardt'
Jhcwaysnwhch HcgcI's grcatsystcmatcworks,cspccaIIythc
Science of Logc, rcsst undcrstandng arc guaItatvcIy dttcrcnt
trom thoscotothcr ntamous tcxts.WthHcgcIthctasks not
smpIy to asccrtan, through ntcIIcctuaI cttort and carctuI cx-
amnatonotthcwordng,amcanngotwhosccxstcncconchas
nodoubt. Kathcr, atmany pontsthc mcanngtscItsunccrtan,
and no hcrmcncutc art has yctcstabIshcd t ndsputabIy, and
nanycasc thcrc s no HcgcI phIoIogyandnoadcguatc tcxtuaI
crtcsm. oraIIthcrpcttncss andressentiment, 5chopcnhaucr's
tradcs about HcgcI's aIIcgcd bombast cvdcnccd arcIatonshp
to thcmattcrtscIt, atIcastncgatvcIy,IkcthcchIdandthccm-
pcror'sncwcIothcs,n astuatonwhcrcrcspccttorcuIturcand
tcar otcmbarrassmcnt mcrcIy dodgc thc ssuc. In thc rcaIm ot
grcatphIosophyHcgcI s nodoubtthconIyoncwthwhom at
tmcsoncItcraIIy docs notknowand cannotconcIusvcIydctcr-
mnc what s bcng taIkcd about, and wth whom thcrc s no
guarantcc that such a]udgmcnts cvcn possbIc. Onc cxampIc
90
Skoteinos,orHowtoReadHegel
otths nmattcrsotprncpIc s thcdstnctonbctwccn thc cat-
cgorcsotground andcausaItyn thcsccondbookotthcLogc;
adctaIcd cxampIcs provdcdby somc scntcnccs trom thc hrst
chaptcrotthatbook.
Consequently, becoming is essence, its reective movement, is the
movementofnothingto nothing, andsobacktoitself.The transition,
orbecoming,sublatesitselfinitspassage, theotherthatin thistransi-
tion comes tobe,isnotthe non-beingofabeing, butthenothingness
ofanothing,andthis,tobethenegationofanothing,constitutesbeing.
Beingonlyi asthemovementofnothingtonothing,andassuchitis
essence, and thelatterdoesnothave thismovementwithin it,butisthis
movementasabeingthatisitselfabsolutelyillusory,pure negativity,
outsideofwhichthereisnothingforittonegatebutwhichnegatesonly
itsownnegative,whichlatteri onlyinthisnegating.I
Jhcrc arc anaIogous thngs n thc carIy HcgcI, cvcn n hsDi
ference between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy, thcDi
ferenzschrift, whch s cxtrcmcIy cIcar as a prospcctus. Jhc
concIuson ot thc sccton on thc rcIatonshp otspccuIaton to
commonscnsc rcads,
Theonlyaspectofspeculationvisibletocommonsenseisitsnullifying
activity, and even this nullihcation is not visible in its entire scope. If
commonsensecouldgraspthisscope,itwouldnotbelievespeculation
to be its enemy. For in its highest synthesis ofthe conscious and the
non-coscious,speculationalsodemandsthenullihcationofconscious-
nessitself. Reasonthusdrownsitselfand itsknowledgeanditsreec-
tionoftheabsoluteidentity,initsownabyss. andinthisnightofmere
reection and of the calculating intellect, in this night which is the
noo
9
dayoflife,commonsenseandspeculationcanmeetoneanother.
OnIy thc ngcnous and prccsc magnaton otan mpassoncd
mcmbcrotaphIosophcaIscmnarwIIbcabIctoIIumnatcthc
mcanng otthc Iast scntcncc, whch s a match tor HIdcrIn's
mostadvanccd prosc otthc samc ycars, wthoutdongvoIcncc
9I
to t. thatthcnghtotmcrcrcbccton"snghttormcrcrcbcc-
ton, butItc, whch s conncctcd wth noon, s spccuIaton. or
nHcgcIthcconccptotspccuIaton,rcmovcdtromtstcrmnoI-
ogcaI shcII, mcans n turn nonc othcr thanItc torccd to turn
nward, n ths, spccuIatvc phIosophy, 5chopcnhaucr's n-
cIudcd, and muscarcntmatcIyrcIatcd. Jhc passagcbccomcs
susccptbIc otntcrprctaton n thc Ight otknowIcdgc ot thc
gcncraItranotHcgcI'sthought,cspccaIIythcconccptuaIstruc-
turcotthcchaptcr,buttcannotbcntcrprctcdtromthcword-
ngotthc paragraph aIonc. Jo thc pcrsonwho hoIds doggcdIy
to thc wordng and thcn n dsappontmcnt rctuscs to gct n-
voIvcdwth HcgcIbccausc othsuntathomabIcguaIty, onc can
ottcrIttIcbutgcncraItcs,wththcnadcguacyotwhch HcgcI
rcproachcdthcmcrcIyrcbcctvcundcrstandng,ashccaIIst,n
thattcxt. Onc cannot smpIy skp ovcrthcpassagcs nwhcht
rcmansuncIcarwhatsbcngdcaItwth,thcrstructurcmustbc
ntcrrcd trom thcsubstancc otHcgcI's phIosophy. Jhcrc s a
sort otsuspcndcd guaIty assocatcd wth hs phIosophy, n ac-
cordancc wth thc dca that truth cannot bc graspcd n any n-
dvduaIthcssoranydcImtcdpostvcstatcmcnt.ormnHcgcI
toIIows ths ntcnton. lothng can bc undcrstood n soIaton,
cvcrythngstobcundcrstood onIynthccontcxtotthcwhoIc,
wth thcawkwardguaIhcatonthatthc whoIcn turn Ivcs onIy
n thc ndvduaI momcnts. In actuaIty, howcvcr, ths knd ot
doubIcncssotthcdaIcctccIudcsItcraryprcscntaton,whchs
otncccssty hntc whcn t uncguvocaIIy statcs somcthng un-
cguvocaI. Jhs swhyonchas to makc so many aIIowanccs tor
tn HcgcI. Jhat t cannot nprncpIc achcvc thc unty otthc
whoIc and ts parts at onc bIow bccomcs ts wcak spot. Ivcry
sngIcscntcnccnHcgcI'sphIosophyprovcstscItunsutabIctor
that phIosophy, and thc torm cxprcsscs ths n ts nabIty to
grasp any contcntwth compIctc adcguacy. Itths wcrc not thc
92
casc, thc tormwouIdbc trccotthc povcrtyand thctaIIbItyot
conccptsthatHcgcItcIIsusabout.Jhsswhyundcrstandngot
HcgcI dccomposcs nto momcntsthat arc mcdatcd by onc an-
othcrandyctcontradctory. HcgcImakcshmscItnacccssbIcto
anyoncwhosnottamIarwthhsovcraIIntcnton.Jhatntcn-
tons tobc gIcancd hrstand torcmosttromhscrtgucotcar-
IcrphIosophcsandtromhscrtgucothsowntmcs.Atcvcry
pontoncmustbcarn mnd, howcvcrprovsonaIIy,whatHcgcI
s attcr, onc must IIumnatc hm trombchnd, soto spcak. Hc-
gcI rcgurcs rcpcatcd rcadngs, and rcgurcs thcm ob]cctvcIy
andnotmcrcIytotamIarzconcscItwthhssub]cctmattcr.ut
toncstakcs cvcrythng on ths onccantaIsty hmagan. Onc
thcncasIycrcatcswhathasthustarbccnmostn]uroustontcr-
prctaton, namcIy an cmpty conscousncss otthc systcm that s
ncompatbIcwththctactthatthcsystcms notntcndcdto torm
anabstracthghcr-ordcrconccptwth rcgardtotsmomcntsbut
rathcrtoachcvctstruthonIynand throughthcconcrctc mo-
mcnts.
An csscntaI cIcmcnt n HcgcI hmscItIurcs onc nto ths m-
povcrshcdundcrstandngtrom abovc. What s supposcd to bc
thc whoIc and thc outcomc otthc whoIc-thc constructon ot
thc sub]cct-ob]cct, thc dcmonstraton that truth s csscntaIIy
sub]cct-s n tact prcsupposcd by cvcry daIcctcaI stcp, n ac-
cordancc wth HcgcI's own dcathat thc catcgorcs otbcng arc
aIrcady n thcmscIvcs what hs phIosophy otthc conccpt uIt-
matcIy rcvcaIs thcr naturc to bc n and tor tscIt. Jhs s cx-
prcsscdmostopcnIynHcgcI'sgrcatEncclopedia of the Philosophical
Sciences:
ThishnitudeoftheEndconsistsinthecircumstance, that,inthepro-
cessofrealizingit, thematerial,whichisemployedas a means, isonly
externally subsumed under it and made conformable to it. But, as a
matter offact, the objectis the concept implicitly. and thus when the
93
concept,intheshapeofEnd,isrealisedintheobject,wehavebutthe
manifestationoftheinnernatureoftheobjectitself.Objectivityisthus,
a itwere,onlyacoveringunderwhichtheconceptliesconcea!ed.Within
therangeofthehnitewecanneverseeorexperience thattheEndhas
beenreallysecured.Theconsummationoftheinhnite End, therefore,
consists merelyinremovingtheillusionwhichmakesitseemyetunac-
complished.TheGood, theabsolutelyGood,iseternallyaccomplishing
itselfintheworld.andtheresultis thatitneedsnotwaituponus,but
isalreadybyimplication,aswellasinfullactuality,accomplished.This
is the illusionunderwhichwelive. Italonesupplies atthe same time
theactualizingforceonwhichtheinterestintheworldreposes. Inthe
courseofitsprocessthe Ideacreatesthatillusion,bysettinganantith-
esis toconfrontit, andits actionconsists in gettingrid oftl;eillusion
whichithascreated.Onlyoutofthiserrordoesthetrutharise. Inthis
factliesthereconciliationwitherrorandwithhnitude.Errororother-
being, whensuperseded, isstillanecessarydynamicelementoftruth.
fortruthcanonlybewhereitmakesitselfitsownresult.
Jhs gcts nthcwayotthatpurc abandonmcntto thc mattcrat
hand and ts momcnts nwhchthcntroducton tothcPhenom
enolo
g
pIaccs ts trust. HcgcI docs not opcratc so concrctcIy as
that ntroducton wouId havc t. Jhc soIatcd momcnts go bc-
yond thcmscIvcs,ntact, onIy bccausc thcdcnttyotsub]cctand
ob]ccts prcconccvcd. Jhc rcIcvancc otthcndvduaIanaIyscs
s rcpcatcdIy dsruptcd by thc abstract prmacy ot thc whoIc.
Mostotthccommcntarcs, howcvcr, McJaggart's ncIudcd, taI
bccausc thcy rcIy on thc whoIc. Jhc ntcnton s takcn tor thc
dccd, andorcntatonto thc gcncraI drccton otthcdcas stakcn
torthcrcorrcctncss, to toIIow thcm throughwouId thcnbcsu-
pcrbuous. HcgcI hmscIts byno mcans nnoccntotthsnadc-
guatcwayotprocccdng. IttoIIowsthcIncotIcastrcsstancc, t
saIwayscascrtohndonc'sbcarngsnandcaasonamapthan
to cxamnc thc cogcncy otts cIaboraton. Jhus HcgcI hmscIt
somctmcstaItcrsandmakcsdowthtormaIdccIaratons,thcscs
that say that somcthng s so whcn thc work has not yct bccn
94
donc. Among thc ntcrprctvc tasks whosc tmc s rpc not thc
IcastandnotthcsmpIcststhcscparatonotsuchpassagcstrom
thoscnwhch thnkngsrcaIIygong on. LcrtanIyn compar-
sonwthKantthc schcmatccIcmcnts arc Icsspromncntn Hc-
gcI. utthcsystcmottcntorcctuIIyntcrtcrcswththcprogram
otsmpIy Iookng on" [reines Zuehen] . Jhatwas unavodabIc t
thc whoIc wcrc not to bccomc hopcIcssIy tangIcd. In ordcr to
prcvcnt that, HcgcI somctmcs cngagcs n pcdantry, somcthng
thatII bccomcs onc who has contcmptuous thngs to say about
vcrbaIdchntons and thcr Ikc. Kcgardng thc transton trom
cvIsocctyto thc statc, wc rcad n thcPhilosophy of Right,
Theconceptofthis Ideahasbeingonlyasmind,assomethingknowing
itselfandactual,becauseitistheobjectihcationofitself,the movement
running through the form ofits moments. Itistherefore (A) ethical
mindinitsnaturalorimmediatephase~theFamily.Thissubstantiality
losesitsunity, passesoverintodivision, andintothephaseofrelation,
i.e. into (B) CivilSociety~an associationofmembersasself-subsistent
individualsinauniversalitywhich, becauseoftheirself-subsistence, is
onlyabstract. Theirassociationisbrought aboutbytheirneeds,bythe
legalsystem~themeanstosecurityofpersonandproperty~andbyan
externalorganizationforattainingtheirparticularand common inter-
ests. Thisexternalstate (C)isbroughtbacktoandwelded intounityin
the Constitution of the State which is the end and actuality ofboth the
substantialuniversalorderandthepubliclifedevotedthereto.
Intcrmsotcontcnt, thcconhguratonotthcdynamc-daIcctcaI
and thc conscrvatvc-athrmatvc momcnts s as much a dctcr-
mnantotthccxccssotrgdgcncraItyn cvcrythngpartcuIar
that comcs nto bcng as t s dctcrmncd by t, and notonIy n
thcPhilosophy of Right. HcgcI's Iogc s notonIy hs mctaphyscs,
tsaIso hs poItcs. Jhcart otrcadnghm shouIdtakcnotcot
whcrcsomcthng ncwbcgns, somc contcnt, and whcrc a ma-
chnc that was not ntcndcd to bc a machnc s smpIy runnng
95
Skoteinos,orHowtoReadHege|
and oughtnotto kccpondong so. Atcvcry momcntoncnccds
to kccp twosccmngIy ncompatbIc maxmsnmnd. panstak-
ng mmcrson ndctaI, and trcc dctachmcnt. Jhcrc s noIack
othcIpavaIabIc. What common scnscwouIdconsdcrmadncss
has ts momcnts ot cIarty n HcgcI, cvcn tor common scnsc.
Lommon scnsc can usc thcm to approach HcgcI tt docs not
torbd tscItto do so out ot hatrcd-hatrcd bcng, ot coursc,
somcthngHcgcIhmscIt, nthcDiferenzchrift, dagnoscdasn-
hcrcnt n common scnsc.' Ivcn thc cryptc chaptcrs havc scn-
tcnccsIkcthoscnthcdscussonotIIusorybcng[Schein] whch
cxprcss,attcrthctact,thatsub]cctvcdcaIsmandphcnomcnaI-
smarcntcndcdpoIcmcaIIy. Jhusilluor being sthcphcnom-
cnonotsccptcsm, and thcAppcaranccotdcaIsm, too,ssuch
animmediacy, whchsnotasomcthngorathng,ngcncraI,not
an ndttcrcntbcng thatwouId stIIbc, aparttromts dctcrm-
natcncssand conncxonwth thcsub]cct."
Jhc pcrson who rctrcats to HcgcI's ovcraII conccpton whcn
taccdwthHcgcI'scIaboratonothsthoughts,substtutngadc-
tcrmnaton otthc poston otthc dctaI wthn thc systcm tor
transparcncy n thc ndvduaI anaIyss, has aIrcady rcnounccd
rgorous undcrstandng, has captuIatcd bccausc HcgcI smpIy
cannotbc undcrstood rgorousIy. WhcrcHcgcI s cmphatcaIIy
rc]cctcd-n postvsm n partcuIar-hc s hardIy cvcn gvcn
consdcraton nowadays. Instcadotbcngsub]cctcdto crtcsm,
hc s rc]cctcd as dcvod ot mcanng. Sinnleere, or abscnsc ot
mcanng, samorccIcgantwordtorthcoIdaccusatonotnsut-
hccntcIarty. 5omconcwhocannotstatcwhathcmcanswthout
ambguty s notworth wastng tmc on. Lkc thc dcsrc torcx-
pIctdchntons, towhchtsrcIatcd, thsconccptotcIartyhas
survvcd thc phIosophy nwhch torgnatcdand has bccomc
autonomous. JhcconccptotcIartystakcntromndvduaIds-
cpIncsnwhchthasbccn prcscrvcd as dogmaand rcappIcd
96
to a phIosophy that Iong ago sub]cctcd t to crtcaI rcbccton
and thcrctorc ought not to havc to compIy wth t ungucston-
ngIy. Jhc Lartcsan conccpts otcIarty and dstnctncss, stII
coupIcd wth onc anothcr as Iatc as Kant, arc trcatcd n thc
grcatcstdctaIn Dcscartcs'sPrinciples of Philosophy:
Indeed, in theirwholelives,many menneverperceiveanythingwhat-
ever accurately enough to make a surejudgment about it, because a
perception upon which a sure and unquestionablejudgment canrest
mustnotonlybeclear,itmustalsobedistinct.Icall'clear'thatpercep-
tion whichis presentand manifest toanattentive mind.justaswe say
thatweclearlyseethosethingswhicharepresenttoourintenteyeand
actuponitsufh cientlystronglyand manifestly. On the otherhand, I
call'distinct'thatperceptionwhich,whileclear,issoseparatedandde-
lineatedfromallothersthatitcontainsabsolutelynothingexceptwhat
isclear."
Jhcsc scntcnccs, whch arc otgrcat conscgucncc hstorcaIIy, arc
by no mcans as cpstcmoIogcaIIy unprobIcmatc as sound com-
monscnsc, now as thcn, mght wsh thcm to bc. Dcscartcs prc-
scnts thcm as tcrmnoIogcaIstpuIatons. "cIaram voco!Iam . . .
pcrccytoncm. "Hcdchncs cIartyanddstnctncsstor purposcs
otrcachngagrccmcnt.WhcthcrthcknowIcdgctscIt,ntsown
charactcr,satshcs thc two crtcrarcmans undctcrmncd-tor
thc sakc otthc mcthod.* Lartcsan doctrnc docs not bothcr wth
* A philosophical history of clarity would need to refect on the fact that origi
nally clarity was both an attribute of the divine when contemplated and its mode
of manifestation, the radiant aura of Christian and Jewish mysticism. With the
ongoing process of secularization clarity becomes something methodological, a
mode of knowledge made absolute-knowledge that satisfes its methodological
rules, without regard to the derivation and aim of the ideal and without regard
to the content. Clarity is the hypostatized form of accessible subjective conscious
ness of some object. It becomes a fetish for consciousness. Its adequacy to its
objects suppresses the objects themselves and ultimately transcendent meaning
as well; at that point philosophy is to be only a "striving for ultimate clarity." The
word enlightenment probably marks the height of this development. Its depoten-
97
thc phcnomcnoIogyotcogntvcacts-asthoughthoscactswcrc
tobcdcaItwthIkcmathcmatcaIaxomatcs, wthoutrcgardto
thcrown structurc. ut t s thsmathcmatcaIdcaI thatdctcr-
mncs thc twomcthodoIogcaInorms, wthrcspcctto contcntas
wcII. Dcscartcsknows noothcrway to cxpIan thcm thanthrough
comparsonwththcscnsoryworId. scutcacIarcanobsvdcr
dcmus, guac, ocoIo ntucnt pracscnta, sats torttcr ct apcrtc
IIum movcnt" _ust as wc say that wc cIcarIy scc thosc thngs
whch arc prcscnt to our ntcnt cyc and actupon tsuthccntIy
strongIy andmantcstIy| . 'OncshouIdnotassumc thatprccscIy
hcrc, n thc dscusson otcIarty, Dcscartcswas makngdo wth
amcrcmctaphor-scut"-thatotncccsstydvcrgcstromwhat
ts supposcd to cxpIanand stscItthcrctorc anythngbutcIcar.
Hc must havc dcrvcd thc dcaI otcIarty trom scnsc ccrtanty,
towhch thc taIk aboutthccycaIIudcs. utaswc know, nDcs-
cartcstssubstratum,thcscnsory-spataIworId, thcres extensa, s
dcntcaI wth thc ob]cct otgcomctry, compIctcIy dcvod otdy-
namcs. Dssatstacton wth ths dca produccd Lcbnz's thcory
otannhntcsmaIcontnuumIcadngtromrcprcscntatonsthat
arc obscurc and contuscd to rcprcscntatons that arc cIcar, an
dcatakcnupby Kantnoppostonto Dcscartcs.
Clearnessisnot,asthelogiciansassert,theconsciousnessofarepresen-
tation. Acertaindegreeofconsciousness, thoughitbe insufhcientfor
recollection, mustbe metwitheven in manyobscurerepresentations,
sinceintheabsenceofallconsciousnessweshouldmakenodistinction
betweendifferentcombinations ofobscurerepresentations, which yet
tiation is no doubt connected with the fact that memory of the prototype of
clarity, light, which the pathos of clarity continues to presuppose, has since died
out. As though looking back to the past, the jugendtil, a paradoxical truce be
tween romanticism and positivism, formulated the double nature of clarity; a
motto of jacobsen's reads, "Light over the land! that is what we wanted." When
Husserl discusses "levels of clarity," he is involuntarily using a metaphor from
the temple precincts of the jugendtil, the profane sacred sphere.
98
weareabletodoinrespectofthecharactersofmanyconcepts,suchas
thoseofrightorequity,oraswhenthemusicianinimprovisingstrikes
severalkeysatonce. Butarepresentationisclear,whentheconscious-
nesssufhcesfor theconciousness ofthe distinction ofthisrepresentation
fromothers.
In othcr words, t s "dstnct" n thc Lartcsan scnsc, wthout
thatguarantccngts truth. Kantcontnucs,
Ifitsufhcesfordistinguishing,butnotforconsciousnessofthedistinc-
tion,therepresentationmuststillbeentitledobscure.Therearethere-
fore inhnitely many degrees ofconsciousness, down to its complete
vanishing.
I I
KantwouId nothavc thoughtotdcvaIungaII thcscIcvcIs othcr
than thcdcaIhghcstIcvcI, any morc than LcbnzwouIdhavc.
that hghcst IcvcI, howcvcr, s sczcd upon as cIartyby thc sc-
cnthc conccpt otknowIcdgc,]ust as though t wcrc a thng n
tscItthatwasavaIabIcatanytmcadatwII,and]ustasthough
thad not, n thc cra attcrDcscartcs, showntscIttobcahypos-
tass. KatonaIst n thc hstorcaI scnsc, thc dcaI otcIarty dc-
mandsmatknowIcdgctrmandshapctsob]cctapror,as though
thc ob]cct had to bc a statc mathcmatcaI ob]cct. Jhc norm ot
cIarty hoIds onIy whcrc ts prcsupposcd that thcob]ccttscIts
such that thc sub]cct's gazc can pn t down Ikc thc hgurcs ot
gcomctry.WhcnthatdcaIsdccIarcdtobcgcncraIIyvaId,ana
pror dccson smadcaboutthc ob]cct,and knowIcdgc, undcr-
stood n thc smpIcst scnsc otthc schoIastc and Lartcsan ade
quatio, s supposcd to orcnt tscIt accordngIy. LIart_ can bc
dcmandcd otaII knowIcdgc onIy whcn thas bccn dctcrmncd
th
g
tthcobjcctsundcrnvcst_atonarctrccotaIId_namcguaI-
tcsthatwouIdcauscthcmto cIudcthcgazcthattrcstocagturc
and hoIc thcm unamb(hc dcsdcratum otcIarty bc-
comcsdoubIyprobIcmatc whcnconsstcnt thought dscovcrs that
thcob]cctottsphIosophzngnotonIyrunsrghtovcrthcknowcr
99
as though onsomc vchcIc butsnhcrcntIy nmoton, thcrcby
dvcstng tscItottsIastsmIartywth thc Lartcsanres extensa,
mattcrcxtcndcdn spacc.JhccorrcIatcotthsnsghts that thc
sub]cct too s not statc Ikc a camcra on a trpod, rathcr, thc
sub]ccttscItaIsomovcs,byvrtucottsrcIatonshpto thcob]cct
thatsnhcrcntIynmoton-oncotthcccntraItcnctsotHcgcI's
Phenomenolo
g
. accd wth ths, thc smpIc dcmand tor cIarty
and dstnctncss bccomcs obsoIctc. JhctradtonaIcatcgorcsdo
not rcman ntact wthn thc daIcctc, thc daIcctc pcrmcatcs
cachotthcmandaItcrstsnhcrcntcompIcxon.
Dcsptc ths, thc praxs otknowIcdgc cIngs to thc prmtvc
dstrctonbctwccnwhatscIcarandwhatsuncIcar,acrtcron
thatwouIdbcsutabIconIytorastatcsub]cctandastatcob]cct.
It docs so, no doubt, out otcxccssvc zcaI tor thc spccaIzcd
actvtcs otthc ndvduaI dscpIncs, whch cstabIsh thcr ob-
]ccts and thcr ob]cct domans wthout rcbccton and sct dog-
matcnormstorthcrcIatonshpotknowIcdgctotsob]ccts.LIarty
anddstnctncsstakcasthcrmodcIahxcdconscousncsso!thngs,
and n tact, n an carIcr dscusson otthc dcaI ot cIarty, Dcs-
cartcs,nthcsprtothssystcm,taIksaboutthcthngnanavc-
rcaIstcmanncr.
AndasIobservedthatinthewordsIthink,henceIam,thereisnoth-
ingatallwhichgivesmeassuranceoftheirtruthbeyondthis,thatIsee
veryclearly thatin orderto thinkitis necessarytoexist, I concluded
that I might take, as a general rule, the principle, that all the things
whichwe veryclearlyanddistinctlyconceivearetrue,onlyobserving,
however,thatthereissomedifhcultyinrightlydeterminingtheobjects
whichwedistinctlyconceive.
'
In thc dthcuIty Dcscartcs notcs, that o!corrcctIy dctcrmnng

whatts thatwcconccvc dstnctIy, thcrcstrsa tantmcmory
ot thc tact that n thc cogntvc acts ot thc sub]cct thc ob]ccts
thcmscIvcsdonot smpIy accommodatc to thatdcmand. Itthcy
I00
dd, cIarty and dstnctncss, whch tor Dcscartcs arc attrbutcs
ottruth, couId not prcscnt dthcuItcs nturn. ut oncc ts ac-
knowIcdgcdthatcIartyand dstnctncss arcnotmcrccharactcr-
stcs otwhats gvcn, and arc not thcmscIvcs gvcn, onccan no
Iongcr cvaIuatc thcworth otknowIcdgc n tcrms othowcIcarIy
and uncguvocaIIyndvduaItcms otknowIcdgc prcscntthcm-
scIvcs. Whcn conscousncss docs not conccvc thcm as pnncd
down and dcnthcd Ikc thngs-photographabIc, as twcrc-t
hnds tscItotncccssty n conbct wth thc Lartcsan ambton.
Kchcd conscousncsstrcczcsob]cctsntothngsnthcmscIvcsso
thatthcycanbcavaIabIctosccnccandpraxsas thngstoroth-
crs. OtcoursconccannotgrossIyncgIcctthcdcmandtorcIarty,
phIosophy shouId not succumb to contuson and dcstroy thc
vcrypossbItyotts cxstcncc. Whatwc shouId takctromthss
thcurgcnt dcmand thatthc cxprcsson htthc mattcrcxprcsscd
prccscIy, cvcn whcrc thc mattcr at hand tor ts part docs not
contorm to thccustomary noton otwhatcanbc ndcatcd cIcarIy.
HcrctoophIosophystaccdwthaparadox. tosaycIcarIysomc-
thng that s uncIcar, that has nohrm outInc, that docs notac-
commodatc to rchcaton, tosaytnsuchaway, thats, thatthc
momcnts thatcIudcthccyc'shxatnggazc,orthatarcnotacccs-
sbIcataII, arcndcatcdwththcutmostdstnctncss.Jhs,how-
cvcr, s not a mcrcIy tormaI dcmand but rathcr a part otthc
vcry substancc phIosophy s attcr. Jhs dcmand s paradoxcaI
bccausc Ianguagc and thc proccss otrchcatonarcntcrIockcd.
Jhc vcry torm otthc copuIa, thc s," pursucs thc am otpn-
pontngtsob]cct,anamtowhchphIosophyoughttoprovdc
a corrcctvc, n ths scnsc aII phIosophcaI Ianguagc s a Ian-
guagc n opposton to Ianguagc, markcd wth thc stgma otts
own mpossbIty. Jhc poston thatwouId postponc thc tuIhII-
mcnt ot ths dcmand-thc dca that thc rcgurcmcnt otcIarty
docs nothoIdmmcdatcIyortorthc soIatcdndvduaIpartbut
I 0I
s achcvcd through thc whoIc-docs not go tar cnough. As a
systcmatcphIosophcrHcgcImayhavchopcd to doths,buthc
dd not tuIIy rcdccmthc promsc. In actuaIty, phIosophy cIudcs
thatdcmand,buttdocssonthctormotdctcrmnatcncgaton.
Ithastotakcupthatcausccvcnwthrcgard to prcscntaton, to
sayconcrctcIywhat tcannot say, to try to cxpIanthcImts ot
cIarty tscIt. hIosophy docs bcttcr to statc that t wII dsap-
pontthccxpcctatonthattwIItuIbIItsntcntoncompIctcIyn
cvcrymomcnt,cvcryconccpt, andcvcryscntcncc, than,ntm-
datcd by thc succcss otthc ndvduaI dscpIncs, to borrow a
norm trom thcm ntcrms otwhch tmustdccIarcbankruptcy.
hIosophysconccrncdwthsomcthngthathasnopIaccwthn
a prcgvcnordcr otdcas and ob]ccts such as thc navct otra-
tonaIsmcnvsons,somcthngthatcannotsmpIyuscthatordcr
as tssystcmotcoordnatcsandbcmappcdontot. Inthcnorm
otcIarty, thc oId copy thcory otrcaIsm has cntrcnchcd tscIt
wthnthc crtgucotknowIcdgc,unconccrncdwththc Iattcr's
actuaIrcsuIts. OnIy thatrcaIsmaIIowsonctobcIcvcthatcvcry
ob]cctcan bc rcbcctcd wthout gucston or dsputc. ut phIos-
ophyhastorcbcctonmatcraIconcrctcncss,dcbnton,and tuI-
hIImcnt]ustas t has to rcbcct on Ianguagc and ts rcIatonshp
tothcmattcrathand.JothccxtcnttowhchphIosophymakcs
anongongcttorttobrcakoutotthcrchcatonotconscousncss
and ts ob]ccts, t cannot compIy wth thc ruIcs otthc gamc ot
rchcd conscousncsswthoutncgatngtscIt,cvcnthough nothcr
rcspccts t s not pcrmttcd smpIy to dsrcgard thosc ruIcs tt
docs not want to dcgcncratc nto cmpty words. Wttgcnstcn's
maxm, Whcrcot onc cannot spcak, thcrcotonc must bc s-
Icnt,"' n whch thc cxtrcmc otpostvsm spIIs ovcr nto thc
gcsturc otrcvcrcnt authortaran authcntcty, and whch tor that
rcason cxcrts a knd ot ntcIIcctuaI mass suggcston, s uttcrIy
antphIosophcaI. It phIosophy can bc dcbncd at aII, t s an
I 02
cttort to cxprcss thngsonccannotspcakabout, to hcIpcxprcss
thcnondcntcaI dcsptc thc tactthatcxprcssngtdcnthcstat
thc samc tmc. HcgcI attcmpts to do ths. ccausc t can ncvcr
bc sad drcctIy, bccausc cvcrythng drcct and unmcdatcd s
taIsc-and thcrctorc ncccssarIy uncIcar n ts cxprcsson-hc
trcIcssIy says tn mcdatcdtorm. Jhs s onc rcason whyHcgcI
nvokcs totaIty, howcvcr probIcmatc that conccpt may bc. A
phIosophy that rcIngushcs thscortn thc namc otatcmpt-
ngIy mathcmatczcd tormaI Iogc dcncs ts own conccpt a
pror-ts ntcnton-and aconsttutvc partotthatntcnton s
thcmpossbItythatWttgcnstcnandhstoIIowcrshavcturncd
ntoataboootrcasononphIosophy, ataboo thatvrtuaIIyaboI-
shcs rcason tscIt.
KarcIy has anyonc Iad out a thcory otphIosophcaI cIaruy,
nstcad, thc conccpt otcIarty has bccn uscd as though twcrc
scIt-cvdcnt.* In HcgcI cIarty s ncvcr madc thcmatc, at most,
thsoccurse contrro, whcnHcgcIdctcndsHcracItus. Jhcob-
scurty otths phIosophy, howcvcr, chcby conssts n thcrcbcng
protound spccuIatvc thought contancd n t, thc conccpt, thc
dca, s torcgn to thc undcrstandngand cannotbc graspcd by
t, though t may hnd mathcmatcs gutc smpIc."' In tcrms ot
ts mcanng, tnot ItcraIIy, thc dcsdcratum otcIarty strcatcd
*Alfred North Whitehead probably came closest in his metaphysical speculations
in Adventures ofIdeas (New York, MacMillan, 1932). Clarity and distinctness, he
says, can exist only if the "subject" is posited as being strictly identical with the
"knower" and the "object" with the "known": "No topic has suffered more from
this tendency of philosophers than their account of the object-subject structure
of experience. In the first place, this stru.cture has been identified with the bare
relation of knower to known. This subject is the knower, the object is the known.
Thus, with this interpretation, the object-subject relation is the known-knower
relation. It then follows that the more clearly any instance of this relation stands
out for discrimination, the more safely we must utilize it for the interpretation
of the status of experience in the universe of things. Hence Descartes' appeal to
clarity and distinctness" (p. 225).
I03
nHusscrI'sIea; thcconccptotcxactncssnthattcxtshouIdbc
cguatcdwththctradtonaIconccptotcIarty. HusscrIrcscrvcs
ttormathcmatcaIordchntcmantoIds'andaskswhcthcrhs
own phcnomcnoIogcaImcthodmustorcanbcconsttutcdas a
gcomctryotcxpcrcnccs". 'HavcwchcrcaIsoto scckattcra
dchntc systcm otaxoms and to crcctdcductvc thcorcs upon
t?"'' HusscrI's answcr gocs bcyond that mcthod. Hchas rcaI-
zcd that thc possbIty ot dcrvngdcductvc thcorcs trom a
dchntc systcm otaxoms cannot bc dctcrmncd mcthodoIog-
caIIy, but onIy on thc bass otcontcnt. Jhs touchcs on thc so-
caIIcdcxactncss otconccpt tormaton,whchaccordngto Hus-
scrIsacondtonotdcductvc thcory. Its
innosenseamatterofourarbitrarychoiceandoflogicaldexteritybut
inrespectoftheassumedaxiomaticconcepts,which musthoweverbe
presentable in immediate intuition, presupposes exactness in the ap-
prehended essence itself But to what extentexactessencescan be
foundinanessence-domain,andwhetherexactessenceshgureinthe
substructure ofall essences apprehendedinreal intuition, and there-
fore alsoofall the components ofthe essence, these are matters that
depend throughoutonthepeculiarnatureofthedomain.
I S
In thc ncxt paragraph HusscrI dstngushcs dcscrptvc trom
cxactsccnccs and says otthc tormcr,
Thevageness oftheconcepts,thecircumstancesthattheyhavemobile
spheresofapplication,isnodefectattachingtothem,fortheyareatly
indispensabletothesphereofknowledgetheyserve,or,aswemayalso
say,theyarewithinthisspheretheonlyconceptsjustihed. Ifitbehoves
us to bringto suitable conceptual expression theintuitablecorporeal
dataintheirintuitivelygivenessentialcharacters,wemustindeedtake
themaswehndthem.Andwedonothndthemotherwisethaninux,
andtypicalessencescaninsuchcasebeapprehendedonlyinthatessen-
tialintuitionwhichcanbeimmediatelyanalysed.Themostperfectge-
ometryanditsmostperfectpracticalcontrolcannothelpthedescriptive
student ofnature to express precisely (in exactgeometricalconcepts)
I 04
thatwhichinsoplain,sounderstanding,andsoentirelysuitableaway
he expresses in the words. notched, indented, lens-shaped, umbelli-
form,andthelike~simplyconceptswhichareessentiallyandnotacci-
dentallyinexact,andarethereforealsounmathematical. ' "
AccordngIy,phIosophcaIconccpts,asmobIcconccpts,arcds-
tngushcd trom cxact conccpts byvrtuc otthc naturc otwhat
thcy attcmpt to grasp. Atthcsamc tmc, ths scts Imts to Hus-
scH's nsght. It acgucsccs n thc dstncton bctwccn thc hxcd
and thc mobIc, a dstncton dcrvcd trom thc phIosophy ot
rcbccton, whcrcas HcgcI's daIcctc dch ncs cach as nhcrcntIy
mcdatcd by thc othcr. ut whIc HusscrI s n othcr rcspccts
happy to]on n thc chorus that ccnsurcs HcgcItorhs crtguc
otthcIaw otcontradcton, as aIogcanHusscrIconccdcssomc-
thng thatsccrtanIy trucotHcgcIhmscIt,who trcd tar morc
vgorousIythan HusscH toconstructconccptsnsuchawaythat
thc Itc otthc thng tscItwouId bc mantcstcd n thcm, rathcr
than constructng thcm n accordancc wth thc abstract cpstc-
moIogcaI dcaIotcIarty. "WhoIIy mmcrscd n thc sub]cct aIonc,
hc sccmcd to dcvcIop t onIy out ottscIt and tor ts own sakc,
scarccIyoutothsownsprttor thcsakcotthoscIstcnng, and
yct t sprang trom hm aIonc, and an aImost patcrnaI carc tor
cIartyattcnuatcd thc rgdscrousncssthatmghthavc rcpcIIcd
thc acccptanccotsuchtroubIcsomcthoughts.
,,
ItthcdcmandtorcIartygctstangIcdupIngustcaIIybccausc
IanguagcdocsnotactuaIIypcrmtthcwordsthcmscIvcscIarty-
cvcn nths rcgard thc dcaI otcIartyconvcrgcswth thc math-
cmatcaI-at thc samc tmc, n Ingustc tcrms cIarty s dcpcn-
dcntonthcatttudcotthoughttoob]cctvtynsotarasonIywhat
s truc canbcsadwthcompIctccIarty. LompIctc transparcncy
ot cxprcsson dcpcnds not onIy on thc rcIatonshp bctwccn
cxprcsson and thc mattcr rcprcscntcd but aIso on thc sound-
ncss otthc]udgmcnt. Itt s untoundcd or rcprcscnts a taIsc
I05
Skoteinos,orHow to ReadHegel
concIuson,twIIrcsstadcguatctormuIaton, ttdocsnottuIIy
grasp thc mattcr at hand, twII bc vaguc n rcIaton to t. Lan-
guagc, whch s not an ndcx ottruth, s ncvcrthcIcss an ndcx
ottaIschood. ut tHcgcI'svcrdctthat nondvduaIscntcncc
canbc phIosophcaIIytruchoIds outsdchsownwork,thcncach
scntcncc shouId aIso bc controntcd wth ts Ingustc nadc-
guacy. In HcgcIan tcrms onc couId say-grantcd, wthout rc-
gard to HcgcI'sown Ingustc praxs-thatthcuncIartytor whch
hc ncvcr ccascs to bc rcproachcd s not smpIy a wcakncss, t s
aIso thc torcc that drvcs hm to corrcct thcuntruthotthc par-
tcuIar, an untruth that acknowIcdgcs tscItn thc uncIarty ot
thcndvduaIscntcncc.
cstabIcto mcct thc dcmandsotthsprcdcamcntwouIdbc
aphIosophcaIIanguagcthatwouIdstrvctorntcIIgbItywth-
outcontusngtwthcIarty. AsancxprcssonotthcthngtscIt,
Ianguagc s not tuIIy rcducbIc to communcaton wth othcrs.
lor, howcvcr-and HcgcI kncw ths-s tsmpIy ndcpcndcnt
otcommuncaton.OthcrwsctwouIdcIudcaIIcrtguc,cvcnn
ts rcIatonshp to thc mattcr at hand, and wouId rcducc that
rcIatonshp to an arbtrary prcsumpton. Languagc as cxprcs-
sonotthcthngtscItandIanguagcascommuncatonarcntcr-
wovcn.JhcabIt,to namcthc mattcrathands dcvcIopcdundcr
thccompuIson tocommuncatct, andthatcIcmcntotcocrcon
sprcscrvcdnt, convcrscIy,tcouIdnotcommuncatcanythng
that t dd not havc as ts own ntcnton, undstractcd by othcr
consdcratons. Jhs daIcctc pIaystscItoutwthnthc mcdum
otIanguagc tscIt, ts notmcrcIy ataII tromgracconthc part
otannhumancsocaIzcaIthatwatchcstomakcsurcthatnoonc
thnksanythngthatcannotbccommuncatcd.IvcnaIngustc
approachotthc utmostntcgrtycannotdoawaywththcantag-
onsmbctwccn whats ntscItand whatstorothcrs. WhIc n
Itcraturc ths antagonsm may go on bchnd thcbacks ot thc
I 06
tcxts,sotospcak, phIosophyscompcIIcdtotakctntoaccount.
Jhs s madc morc dtbcuItby thc hstorcaI momcnt, nwhch
communcaton dctatcdbythcmarkct-thc rcpIaccmcntotIn-
gustcthcorybycommuncatonthcoryssymptomatcotths-
wcghs upon Ianguagc to such an cxtcnt that Ianguagc torcbIy
puts a stop to communcaton n ordcr to rcsst thc contormty
otwhat postvsm caIIs ordnary Ianguagc. " Languagc wouId
rathcr bccomc unntcIIgbIc than dshgurc thc mattcr at hand
throughacommuncatonthatgctsnthcwayotcommuncatng
t. ut thc Ingustccttorts otthc thcorctcan run up agansta
Imt that thcy havc to rcspcct tthcy do not want to sabotagc
thcmscIvcs as much through bdcIty as through nbdcIty. Jhc
momcntotunvcrsaIty n Ianguagc, wthout whchthcrc wouId
bcno Ianguagc, docs rrcvocabIcdamagcto thc compIctc ob]cc-
tvcspccbctyotthcpartcuIarthngtwantstodcbnc.Jhccor-
rcctvc to ths Ics n cttorts to achcvc ntcIIgbIty, howcvcr
unrccognzabIc thosc cttorts may bc. Jhs ntcIIgbIty s thc
oppostc poIcto purc Ingustc ob]cctvty. Jhctruthotcxprcs-
sonbourshcsonIynthctcnsonbctwccnthctwo.Jhstcnson,
howcvcr, s not thc samc thng as thc vaguc and brutaI com-
mandmcnt otcIarty, whch tor thc most part amounts to thc
n]uncton that onc spcak thc way othcrs do and rctran trom
anythngthatwouId bc dcrcntand couId onIybc sad dttcr-
cntIy. Jhc rcgurcmcnt ot cIarty mposcs a tutIc dcmand on
Ianguagc, adcmand twants tuIm!cd contnuousIy, hcrcandnow,
mmcdatcIy. ItaskssomcthngIanguagccannotgrantnthcm-
mcdacy otts words and scntcnccs-somcthng tcan grantonIy,
and tragmcntarIy at that, n thcr conhguraton. cttcr wouId
bcan approach thatcarctuIIyavodcddcbntonsas mcrcstpu-
Iatons and modcIcd conccpts as tathtuIIy as possbIc on what
thcy say n Ianguagc, makng thcm vrtuaIIy namcs. Itnothng
cIsc, thc Iatcr, matcraI" phcnomcnoIogy was prcparaton tor
I07
that. Jhc ctiortthc !ngustc scnsorum has to makc to achcvc
prccson s tar grcatcr than thc mcchanca! cttort to capturc
ordancddcbntons. hcwhomakcshmsc!tthcs!avcothsown
words makcs thngs cascr tor hmsc!tby shovng thc words n
tront otthc thngtsc!t, howcvcr much hc battcrs hmsc!tthat
hc s makngthardcr. lcvcrthc!css, thatwayotprocccdng s
nadcguatc. orthcwords n cmprca! !anguagcsarcnot purc
namcsbuta!ways 0oe:,postngs,aswc!!, productsotsub]cctvc
conscousncsswhch to thatcxtcnta!sorcscmb!cdcbntons. Hc
who dsrcgards ths dc!vcrs hmsc!t ovcr to a sccond knd ot
rc!atvtyntcarngwords awaytrom thc rc!atvtyotdcbnton,
a sccond rc!atvty that s a rcsduc otthc arbtrarncss othow
wcarcto undcrstand thcm.h!osophca!!anguagchasnorcm-
cdy tor ths but to takc carc to usc thosc words, whch wou!d
ncccssar!yta!tthcywcrcuscd!tcra!!yasnamcs,nsuchaway
thatthcrarbtrarncsssdccrcascdthroughthcrposton. Jhc
!ngustc conbguraton and thc gazc tocuscd ntcnsc!y on thc
ndvdua! word comp!cmcnt onc anothcr. Jogcthcr thcy cx-
p!odcthc !aycrotmcdocrc tactagrccmcnt, thcstcky!aycrbc-
twccnundcrstandngandthcmattcrathand.Jhctruc!ngustc
mcthodcou!d bc comparcdwth thc way thc cmgr!carns!an-
guagc. Impatcntandundcrprcssurc,hcmaynotuscthcdcto-
naryas muchasrcadwhatcvcrhccangctacccssto. ythatmcans,
numcrouswordsw!!bcrcvca!cdncontcxtbutw!!bc!ongsur-
roundcd by an outcr arca otndctcrmnatcncss, pcrmttng r-
dcu!ous contusons, unt!thcwords dccphcr thcmsc!vcs through
thcabundancc otcombnatonsnwhch thcy appcarand do so
bcttcr and morc tu!!y than wou!d havc bccn possb!c wth thc
dctonary, whcrccvcn thcchocc otsynonymssattcctcdby thc
!cxcographcr's narrowncss and !ackot1ngustcsophstcaton.
Oncnotnsgnbcantrcason tor thc rctractorncss otHcgc!'s
tcxtssprobab!ythat Hcgc!, wthhscxccssvcconbdcnccnthc
I08
ob]cctvc sprt, bcIcvcd thathccouId avod ths knd otadmx-
turc otthc aIcn, thathccouIdsaythcunsayabIc nhsordnary
manncr otspccch. Dcsptc ths, thc cIcmcnts asscmbIcd n hs
work-onccpts,]udgmcnts, syIIogsms-arc not unntcIIgbIc.
It s onIy that thcy pont bcyond thcmscIvcs and cvcn n tcrms
otthcrowndca arc no morccapabIcottuIhIImcntnsoIaton
thanarc thccomponcntsotcxtraphIosophcaIIanguagc, whch
arc not awrc thatths s truc otthcm. rom ths pont otvcw,
thc task ot undcrstandng phIosophy, and cspccaIIy HcgcI's
phIosophy,wouIdbc that otundcrstandngthcthngsthatwouId
not hoId upbctorc thc currcnt norm otcIarty. thnkngwhats
mcant cvcn whcrc not cvcrythng mpIcd n t can bc rcprc-
scntcd clare et ditincte. 5ccn trom thc pont otvcw otsccncc
and schoIarshp, thcrc s a momcntotrratonaIty n thcmakcup
otphIosophcaI ratonaIty, andtsup to phIosophy to absorb
thsmomcntwthoutthcrcby sgnngtscItovcrtorratonaIsm.
JhcdaIcctcaImcthodasawhoIcsan attcmpttocopcwthths
dcmand by trccng thought trom thc spcII ot thc nstant and
dcvcIopng t n tar-rcachng conccptuaI structurcs. IhIosoph-
caI cxpcrcncc cannot dspcnsc wthcxcmpIary obvousncss, wth
thc ths s thc way t s" wthn thc horzon ot ncradcabIc
vagucncss. It cannot stop thcrc, but thc pcrson tor whom such
obvousncss docs notbash outnanywaydurngthcrcadngot
ths or that wcghty passagc n HcgcI's Logc, thc pcrson who
docs not notcc what has bccn capturcd thcrc, cvcn tt s not
tuIIyartcuIatcd,wIIundcrstand no morc than apcrsoncnrap-
turcd wth thc vagucncss otphIosophcaI tccIng. anatcpro-
poncnts otcIartywouId Ikc to cxtngushsuch suddcn bashcs
otIIumnaton. IhIosophy s supposcd to pay ncash, and on
thcspot,nvoIvcmcntnphIosophyscvaIuatcdbymcansotthc
baIanccshcct, onthc modcIotancxpcndturc otIabor that has
to havc ts cguvaIcntn wagcs. ut phIosophy s aprotcstaganst
I09
thcprncpIcotcguvaIcncc,andnthatrcgardtsunbourgcos
cvcnas bourgcos phIosophy. Jhc pcrsonwhodcmands a pay-
otttromt-Why shouId I bc ntcrcstcd n ths?"-s chcatng
hmscItotts ItcbIood, thc rhythm otcontnuty and ntcrmt-
tcncynntcIIcctuaIcxpcrcncc.
JhcspcchctyotphIosophyasaconhguratonotmomcntss
guaItatvcIy dttcrcnt trom aIackotambgutyncvcrypartc-
uIar momcnt, cvcnwthnthcconhguraton,bccauscthcconbg-
uraton tscIt s morc, and othcr, than thc guntcsscncc otts
momcnts. LonstcIIaton s not systcm. Ivcrythng docs not bc-
comcrcsoIvcd, cvcrythngdocs notcomc outcvcn, rathcr,onc
momcntshcdsIghtonthcothcr,andthcbgurcs thatthcnd-
vduaI momcnts torm togcthcr arc spcchc sgns and a IcgbIc
scrpt. Jhs s not yctartcuIatcd n HcgcI, whosc modc otprc-
scntaton s charactcrzcd by a sovcrcgnIy ndttcrcnt atttudc
towardIanguagc, atanyratcthas notpcnctratcdnto thcchc-
msmothsownIngustctorm.IntsaII-too-smpIcmndcdcon-
hdcncc n thc totaIty, thc Iattcr Iacks thcsharpncss dcrvcd trom
thccrtcaIscIt-awarcncssthat,ncombnatonwthrcbcctonon
thc ncccssary dsproporton, couId brng thcdaIcctcnto Ian-
guagc. Jhs sdcadIy, bccausc HcgcI's tormuIatons, whch nc-
thcrcanbcnorarcntcndcdtobcconcIusvc,ncvcrthcIcssottcn
soundas thoughthcywcrc.HcgcI'sIanguagchasthcdcmcanor
otthcIanguagcotdoctrnc. Whatgvcstthatarsthcprcpon-
dcrancc otguas-oraIdcIvcryovcr thcwrttcntcxt. Vagucncss,
somcthngthatcannotbccImnatcdndaIcctc, bccomcs a dc-
tcctn HcgcI bccausc hcdd notncIudcan antdotc to tn hs
Ianguagc,aIthoughnothcrrcspccts,nthcsub]cctmattcroths
phIosophy, wth ts cmphass on and uItmatcIy ccIcbraton ot
aIIknds otob]cctvty, hc provdcd tIbcraIIy. Hc wouId havc
prctcrrcdtowrtcnthctradtonaIphIosophcaImanncr,wth-
out thc dttcrcncc bctwccn hs and tradtonaI thcorybcng rc-
I I0
bcctcd n hs Ianguagc. Jhc IoyaI ntcrprctcr ot HcgcI has to
takc accountotths dchccncy. It s up to hm todo what HcgcI
taIcd to do. to producc as much concscncss ottormuIaton as
possbIcn ordcr torcvcaIthcrgorotthcdaIcctcaImovcmcnt,
argorthatsnotcontcntwthsuch concscncss. Jhcrcs prob-
abIy no onc tor whom thc phIoIogcaI norm-probIcmatc n
any casc-ot tcasng out thc author's sub]cctvcIy ntcndcd
mcanngs Icss appropratc than HcgcI. or hs mcthod, whch
cannotbc scparatcd tromthc mattcrat hand, s ntcndcd to sct
ts ob]cctn moton, not to dcvcIop hs own thoughts. Hs tcxts
arc not tuIIy workcd out-whch ncccssarIy mcans ndv-
duatcd-bccauscthcrntcIIcctuaImcdumsaIsonottuI!yworkcd
outnthcwaywc havc comcto takc tor grantcdnthc hundrcd
and htty ycarssncc thcn. Atthattmconc provdcd kcywords
torthc rcadcr, cntranccs, as t wcrc, such as occur n musc. In
thcScience of Logc, ths knd otaprorstccommuncaton thcn
bccomcs thc tcrmcntota noncommuncatvc tcxt and makcs t
hcrmctc.
Jhcmostwdcsprcadob]cctonto HcgcI'saIIcgcdIackotcIar-
tys thatotcguvocaton, wcbndtcvcnn\bcrwcg'sHistory of
Philosophy. 21 HcgcI's phIosophytccmswthcxampIcsotcguvo-
caton. At thcbcgnnng otthcSubjective Logic, tornstancc.
Whatthenatureoftheconceptis,cannomorebestatedoffhandthan
cantheconceptofanyotherobject.. . . Nowa|thoughitistruethatthe
conceptistoberegarded,notmere|yasasubjectivepresuppositionbut
astheabso|utefoundation,yetitcanbesoon|yinsofarasithasmade
itse|fthe foundation.Abstractimmediacyisnodoubtahrst, yetinso
farasitisabstractitis,onthecontrarymediated,andthereforeifitis
tobegraspedinitstruthitsfoundationmusthrstbesought.Hencethis
foundation, though indeed an immediate, must have made itse|fim-
mediatethroughthesub|ationofmediation.
22
Wthoutgucston, thc conccpt otthc conccpt [Begriff s uscd
dticrcntIyatthctwodcrcntponts.InonccasccmphatcaIIy,
I I I
as "absoIutc toundaton," that s, ob]cctvcIy, nthc scnsc otthc
thngtscIt,whchscsscntaIIysprt, butconccptsarc tobcnot
onIy that but aIso thc "sub]cctvc prcsupposton," somcthng
madc, undcrwhchthoughtsubsumcsts Othcr. Jhc tcrmnoI-
ogyscontusngbccausccvcnnthcsccondcasctsthcsnguIar
and not, as oncwouId cxpcct, thc pIuraI that s uscd, probabIy
bccausc n prncpIc thc dca that thc conccpt s thc rcsuIt ot
sub]cctvc synthcss s as much a part otHcgcI's conccpt otthc
conccpt as thc dca thattcxprcsscs thc nhcrcnt naturc otthc
mattcr at hand. In contrast to many othcr HcgcIan cguvoca-
tons, thc undcrstandng otths onc s madc cascr by thc tact
thatthcdttcrcnccsnthctwo conccptsotthcconccptarcmadc
thcmatc n thc chaptcr "Jhc Lonccptn GcncraI. " HcgcI pro-
vdcsthc]usthcaton tor thscguvocaton atcw pagcsIatcr, whcn
hc cxpounds on thc unty ot thc two conccpts. "I wII conhnc
myscIthcrctoarcmarkwhchmayhcIponctograspthcnotons
hcrcdcvcIopcdandmaymakctcascrtobndonc'sbcarngs n
thcm. Jhc conccptwhcn t has dcvcIopcd nto aconcrctccxs-
tcncc that s tscIt trcc, s nonc othcr than thc I or purc scIt-
conscousncss. "Jhcob]cctvcconccpt,whchaccordngto Hc-
gcIsthcconccptotthcthngtscIt,whchdcvcIopcd
tobccomc
ts cxstcncc, somcthng cxstng n tscIt, s at thc samc tmc,
accordng to thc gcncraI thcss ot HcgcI's systcm, sub]cctvty.
HcnccnthcIastanaIyssthcnomnaIstcsdcotthcconccpt,as
somcthngsub]cctvcIy tormcd, concdcswththc rcaIstc sdc,
thc conccpt as somcthngcxstng ntscIt, whch n thccoursc
otthc mcdatons otthcLogc stscItshown to bc sub]cct, cgo.
JhsstructurcsprototypcaItorthcmcdocrcguaItyotthcob-
]cctonsto HcgcI'scguvocatons.WhcrcHcgcIstormaIIyguIty
otcguvocaton, t s usuaIIy a gucston otponts hc s makng
thatarc gcrmanc to thc contcnt, ancxpIcatonothow two ds-
tnctmomcnts arcboth dttcrcntand onc and thc samc. Ob]cc-
tons thatarc transccndcnt to HcgcI scarccIy touch hm. 5uch
I I 2
ob]cctons assumc thc prncpIc otdcntty. tcrms must rcman
wthn thc mcanng oncc gvcn thcm by dcbnton. Jhs s purc
nomnaIsm, conccpts shouId bc nothng but dcntbcaton tags
torthc untyng charactcrstcs ota mantoId. Jhc morc sub]cc-
tvcthcr tormaton, thc Icss oncshouIdattackthcm, as tthcr
cxtcrnaI, artbcaIguaIty wouId thcrcbybc rcvcaIcd. Lommon
scnsc ratonaIzcs thsbysayngthatvoIatng thc dchnton wouId
dcstroy ordcrn thnkng. Jhs protcstsccms so unamcnabIc to
chaIIcngc bccausc tsbascd onaconccpton thatdocsnotwant
to know about anythng n thc ob]cct that couId gvc thc Ic to
what sub]cctvc sprt has mposcd on t. Jhat conccpton cncr-
gctcaIIy rcssts thc cxpcrcncc that wants to Ict thc mattcr at
hand spcaktortscIt, pcrhapssuspcctngthatnthctaccotthat
cxpcrcncctsownsccmngIyncorruptbIcconccptottruthwouId
bcIcdtocontcsstsuntruth.lomnaIsmspartotthcbourgcos
bcdrock, taccompancs thcconsoIdatonoturbansmacrossaII
ts phascs, and n thc most dvcrsc natons thc ambvaIcncc ot
that proccss s scdmcntcd n t. lomnaIsm hcIps to trcc con-
scousncsstromthcprcssurcotthcauthortyotthcconccptthat
hadcstabIshcd tscItas unvcrsaIty, tdocssobydscnchantng
thc conccptand makngtamcrc abbrcvaton torthc partcu-
Iartcstcovcrs. ut such cnIghtcnmcntsaIwaysaIsotsoppo-
stc. hypostass ot thc partcuIar. Jo ths cxtcnt nomnaIsm
cncouragcs thc bourgcosc to bc suspcous otcvcrythng that
wouId rcstran soIatcd ndvduaIs n thcr pursut ot happ-
ncss," thc unrcbcctvc pursut otthcr own advantagc, as bcng
mcrc IIuson. lothngunvcrsaIshouIdcxstthatwouIdrcmovc
thcbIndcrsotthcpartcuIar, thcbcIctthattscontngcncysts
Iaw. What's a conccpt anyway?"-ths gcsturc aIways cxprcsscs
somcthng cIsc as wcII. that thc ndvduaI has moncy to carn
and that s morc mportant than anythng cIsc. Itthc conccpt
wcrc to bc autonomous n such a way that t dd not cxhaust
I I3
tscItn thc partcuIars otwhch t s composcd, thc bourgcos
prncpIc otndvduaton wouId bc shakcn to ts corc. ut that
prncpIc s aII thc morc sptctuIIy dctcndcd torbcng IIuson,
aII thcmorcsonthatunvcrsaItynthcbadscnscrcaIzcstscIt
through ndvduaI ntcrcsts and burcsndvduaIntcrcsts bc-
ncatht nturn. JhsIIusons stubbornIy mantancdbccausc
othcrwscthoscwhoarcundcrtsspcIIcouIdnoIongcrcontnuc
on unchaIIcngcd, norcouId thcycontnuc to bcIcvcn thc mc-
taphyscsotwhat's mncs mnc," thcsacrcdncssotposscsson
as such. rom ths pontotvcw, ndvduaItys thc sub]cctbc-
comc propcrty. lomnaIsm, whchs ant-dcoIogcaI, has bccn
dcoIogy trom thc vcry bcgnnng. HcgcI'sLogc wantcd to dc-
vcIop ths daIcctc wth ts own mcans,whcharcnotobvousIy
rcbcctons otsoccty-Icavng an dcoIogca! rcsduc, namcIythat
torthcIbcraIthcunvcrsaItythatruIcsnandabovcndvduaIs
wouId bc transbgurcd and wouId bccomc somcthng postvc.
OnIy ths knd otdcoIogcaI turn pcrmts HcgcI to ncutraIzc
thc socaI daIcctc otthc gcncraI and thc partcuIarby makng
ta IogcaI onc. In bcng procIamcd rcaIty, thc conccpt, whch
torHcgcIstobcrcaIty,rcmansconccpt. uttorHcgcI, as tor
Iato, thc mcasurc ot thc conccpts thc cIammadcby thc mat-
tcrathandandnotthcsub]cct'sdchntoryactvty.HcnccHcgcI
suspcnds thcdcnttyotthc conccpt as acrtcronotruth. Its
onIythatcrtcron,howcvcr,thatdcgradcstothcstatusotcguv-
ocatonsomcthngthatchangcsthcmcanngotconccpts torthc
sakcotthcrownsubstancc.
5tII, HcgcI dd not smpIy ovcrturn thc prncpIc otdcntty,
rathcr, hc rcstrctcd t, dcspsng and rcspcctng t at thc samc
tmc n hs way. OnIy by vrtuc otthat prncpIc, that s, onIy
whcnthcItcotthcthngcxprcsscdbythcconccptscomparcd
wththcmcanngspcchcoandwhcnthcoIdmcanngsthcrcby
dshonorcd asnvaId, sthc
othcr mcanngconsttutcd. Onthc

I I4
Skoteinos,orHowtoRead Hegel
onc hand, HcgcI handIcs tcrms thc way nonphIosophcaI Ian-
guagc unthnkngIy trcats many otts words and word cIasscs.
as thc occason rcgurcs. WhIcsomcIaycrsotmcanng rcman
constant n such words, othcrs arc acgurcd accordng to thc
contcxt. hIosophcaI Ianguagc s pattcrncd onnavc Ianguagc
to thc cxtcntthat, skcptcaIotsccntbcIanguagc, tuscscontcxt
to sottcn thc rgdty otts systcm otdchnton. In HcgcI such
occasonaI cguvocatons occurwth cxprcssons Ikc thc "unmit
telbar" unmcdatcdormmcdatc|hcuscssoIavshIy. Whcn Hc-
gcI wants to saythat thc mcdatons n thc thngtscItand not
bctwccnscvcraIthngs,hco!tcnuscs"unmittelbar" torthngsthat
arc mcdatcd [ "mittelbar"] : to saythatacatcgorysunmittelbar ts
oppostc thus mcans somcthng Ikc, t s ts oppostc n tscIt,
rathcr than onIy through rcIatonshp to somcthng cxtcrnaI to
t. "Jhc cxcIusvc rcbccton s thus a postng otthc postvc as
cxcIudng ts oppostc, so that ths postng s mmcdatcIy thc
postng otts oppostc whch t cxcIudcs. "' AccordngIy, mc-
datonstscItmmcdatc,bccausc what s postcd, mcdatcd, s
nothngdttcrcnttromwhatsprmary,bccauscthstscItspos-
tcd. 5mIarIy, and cvcn morcbIatantIy, hc says naIatcr notc,
"Its vcry mportant to notcc that thc un mcdatcd dcntty o
torm s postcd hcrc wthout thc movcmcnt otthc tact tscIt, a
movcmcnt prcgnantwth contcnt. Itoccurs nthc tactas thss
ntsbcgnnng.JhuspurcbcngsmmcdatcIynothng."Hcrc
"mmcdatcIy" sounds smpIy paradoxcaI, but what s mcant s
that nothng s not a catcgory addcd to purc bcng trom thc
outsdc, nstcad, as somcthnguttcrIyunspccbcd, purc bcng s
n tscIt nothng. A thoroughgong tcrmnoIogcaI anaIyss ot
HcgcI'sIanguagccouIdmakcacompIctcIstngotsuch cguvo-
catonsand prcsumabIycIartythcm. ItwouIdhavc to dcaIwth
tcchncaItcrmsIkcRefexion rcbccton| aswcII. oIIowngads-
tncton currcnt n post-Kantan dcaIsm, that word covcrs thc
I I5
bntc, rcstrctcd usc otth ntcIIcct and, somcwhatmorcbroadIy,
thc postvstc sccnthc atttudc as a whoIc, but t aIso covcrs,
wthnthcovcraIIarchtccturcotthcLogc, thc "Refexionsbestim
mungen, " thc dctcrmnatonsotrcbccton, thats, thc crtcaIrc-
bccton otthc ob]cctvc, ntaI, guas-ArstotcIanthcoryotthc
catcgorcs, whchs thcnconvctcd n turnotbcngIIusoryand
sIcdonwardto thccmphatcconccptotthcconccpt.
Onthcothcrhand, thccguvocatons mayrcaIIybccguvoca-
tons. a phIosophcaI tcchnguc throughwhch thc daIcctc ot
thought hopcs to rcaIzc tscItn Ianguagc, occasonaIIy wth a
somcwhat hcavyhandcd tcndcncy, antcpatng Hcdcggcr, to
gvc Ingustcstatcsotattars autonomyvs--vs what s mcant,
IcsscmphatcaIIythannHcdcggcr,ccrtanIy,andthcrctorcmorc
nnoccntIy. In thc Phenomenolo
g
, tor nstancc, HcgcI s aIrcady
]uggIng thc mcanng ot ''rinnerung'' [rccoIIccton or nward-
zaton| .
Asitsfulhllmentconsistsinperfectlyknowingwhatitis,inknowingits
substance,thisknowingisitswithdrawalintoitselfinwhichitabandons
its outerexistence and gives its existential shape overto recollection.
Thusabsorbedinitself,itissunkinthenightofitsself-consciousness,
but in that night its vanished outer existence is preserved, and this
transformedexistence~theformerone, butnowrebornoftheSpirit's
knowledge~isthenewexistence,anewworldandanewshapeofSpirit.
Intheimmediacyofthisnewexistence the Spirithastostartafreshto
bringitselftomaturityasif,forit,allthatprecededwerelostandithad
learnednothingfromtheexperienceoftheearlierSpirits.Butrecollec-
tion, the inwardizing, ofthat experience, has preserved itand is the
innerbeing,andinfactthehigherformofthesubstance.Soalthough
thisSpiritstartsafreshandapparentlyfromitsownresourcestobring
itselftomaturity,itisnoneofthelessonahigherlevelthatitstarts.
JhcmosthackncycdtunctonaIcguvocatonsthatwth"aufhe
ben" [canccI, prcscrvc, subIatc|, but ths tcchnguc can bc ob-
scrvcdnmorcsubtIccascsas wcII, sccrctpIaysonwords, HcgcI
I I6
Skoteinos, orHowtoReadHegel
p!aystrcks wth thc conccptotnothngncss n partcu!ar. 5uch
!ngustc hgurcs shou!d bc takcn not!tcra!!y but ronca!!y, as
too!cry. Wthoutbattngan cyc, Hcgc! uscs !anguagc to convct
!anguagcotthccmptyprctcnscottssc!t-satsbcdmcanng. Jhc
tunctonot!anguagc n such passagcs s notapo!ogctcbutcrt-
ca!. It dsavows thc hntc]udgmcntthatn ts partcu!ar!tyacts
as though t had thcabso!utc truth, ob]cctvc!y and wthoutbcng
ab!c to do anythng about t. Iguvocaton s ntcndcd to dcm-
onstratc,wth!ogca!mcans,thcnappropratcncssotstatc!ogc
torsomcthng thats nhcrcnt!y mcdatcd and thatby vrtuc ot
cxstng s n thc proccss otbccomng. Jurnng !ogc aganst t-
sc!ts thcda!cctca!sa!tnsuch cguvocatons.
Jhccurrcnt undcrstandng otcguvocatonshou!d notbcac-
ccptcd uncrtca!!y. A scmantc ana!yss that dssccts cguvoca-
tons sccntbca!!y s a ncccssary but by no mcans sutbccnt
condton ota !ngustc stocktakng otph!osophy. +o bc surc,
onc cannot undcrstand ph!osophy wthout scparatng thc
mcanngsotthctcrms"mmancnt"andtscorrc!atvc"transccn-
dcnt". thc!ogca!mcanng, whch has todowthwhcthcrornot
thoughtrcmanswthnthc prcsuppostonsotthcthcorcmwth
whch t s conccrncd, thc cpstcmo!ogca! mcanng, whch has
to do wth whcthcr thc dca procccds trom thc mmancncc ot
conscousncss, thcso-ca!!cd contcxtotthcgvcnwthnthcsub-
]cct,andthc mctaphysca! mcanng, whchhasto dowth whcthcr
know!cdgc rcmans wthn thc boundarcs ot possib!c cxpcr-
cncc. Jhc chocc ot thc samc word tor thc dttcrcnt ,er, or
gcncra, howcvcr,snotaccdcnta!,cvcnnthccurrcnttcrmno!-
ogy. Jhus thc cpstcmo!ogca! and mctaphysca! mcanngs ot
"transccndcnt"arcconncctcd, thatwhchsabso!utc!ytransccn-
dcntncpstcmo!ogca!tcrms,thc Kantanthng-n-tsc!t,thats,
that whch cannotbctoundwthnthcstrcamotconscousncss,
wou!da!sobcmctaphysca!!ytransccndcnt.Hcgc!cxtcndcdthat
I I7
to thc thcss that Iogc and mctaphyscsarc onc and thc samc.
Ivcnn prcdaIcctcaI Iogc, cguvocatons do notgIossovcrab-
soIutcdttcrcnccsbut rathcrbcarwtncsstotbc untyotwhats
dttcrcnt. IIIumnatng thcm rcgurcs nsght nto that unty as
much as t rcgurcs notng thc dttcrcnccs. DaIcctcaI phIoso-
phy mcrcIy hcIpcd to scIt-conscousncss a statc otattars that
prcvaIcd n tradtonaI tcrmnoIogy and ts hstory aganst ts
wII. HcgcI'scguvocatons tccdonthsstatcotattars,cvcntn
hsthoughtthcmomcntotdstnctonoccasonaIIyIangushcsn
tavorotthcmomcntotundttcrcntatcdsamcncss.
5uch Iaxtcs notwthstandng, wcbnd supcrIatvcs appIcd to
Ianguagc throughout HcgcI's wrtngs. Languagc s sad to bc
thcpcrtcctcxprcsson. . . torthcmnd,"'thchghcstpowcr
posscsscd by manknd." lordocs thcLogc dcvatc trom ths.
It dcaIs wth thc cIcmcnt otcommuncaton". Inthc matcraI
worIdwatcrtuIhIIsthctunctonotths mcdum, nthc sprtuaI
worId,sotarasthcanaIogucotsucharcIatonhasapIaccthcrc,
thc sgn n gcncraI, and morc prccscIy Ianguagc, s to bc rc-
gardcdas tuIhIIngthattuncton."JhcPhenomenolo
g
, accord-
ng to whch Ianguagc bcIongs to thc stagc otcuIturc, tcnds n
thcsamcdrccton. Inspccch,scIt-conscousncss,guandcpcn-
dcntscparatcndvduaIty,comcsassuchntocxstcncc,sothat
t cxsts tor othcrs. " AccordngIy t appcars that HcgcI, rc-
markabIycnough,ddnotadmtIanguagc,whchhc accordcda
pIacc n thc thrd book otthcLogc, to thc sphcrc otob]cctvc
sprt but csscntaIIy conccvcd tas a mcdum," or somcthng
tor othcrs, " as thc bcarcr otcontcnts otsub]cctvc conscous-
ncssrathcrthanancxprcssonotthcIdca.lomnaIstctcaturcs
arc nowhcrc abscnt n HcgcI's systcm, whch protcsts thc cus-
tomary dchotomy andconsdcrs tscItcompcIIcdtoabsorbwhat
s contrary to t, andwhosc tcnorrcssts thc tutIc cttortto sm-
pIyrcscnd thccrtgucotthcautonomyotthcconccpt.Jo thc
I I8
cxtcnttowhchhcdcvotcdhsattcntontot-andtoracontcm-
poraryotHumboIdttsstrknghowIttIchcconccrncdhmscIt
wthIanguagc-HcgcIwantcd to sccIanguagcmorcaswhatwc
wouId now thnk otas a mcans otcommuncaton than as thc
mantcstatonottruth that, strctIy spcakng, Ianguagc, Ikc art,
oughttohavcbccntorhm. Hsavcrsontoornatcandcmphatc
tormuIatons s n harmony wth ths, hc has unknd thngs to
say about thc wtty taIk" otthc sprt aIcnatcd trom tscIt, ot
mcrc cuIturc. ' Gcrmans hadIong rcactcd ths way toVoItarc
and Ddcrot. Jhcrc Iurks n HcgcI thc acadcmc rcscntmcnt ot
aIngustc scIt-rcbccton thatwouId dstancc tscItaII too much
trom mcdocrc compIcty, hs styIstc ndttcrcncc cvokcs hs
dcadIy rcadncss to makc common causc wth prccrtcaI con-
scousncss through thc rcbccton otrcbccton,totorttythc na-
vc nthcrcompIasancc through unnavct. HcgcI wouId hardIy
havc wshcdtorIanguagctoopposcthatcompIcty,pcrhapsbc-
causchsownIngustccxpcrcncc,ordchccncy, sprccptatcd
nt. HsIngustcpraxstoIIows asIghtIyarchacconccpton ot
thc prmacy otthc spokcn ovcr thc wrttcn word, thc knd ot
noton hcId by thoscwhocIngstubbornIy tothcr daIcct. Jhc
ottcn-rcpcatcd rcmark, orgnaIIy Horkhcmcr's, that onIy
somconcwhoknows5wabancanrcaIIyundcrstand HcgcI,sno
mcrcapcu about Ingustcdosyncrascs, tdcscrbcs thcvcry
gcsturcotHcgcI's Ianguagc. HcgcIdd notstop atscorntorIn-
gustc cxprcsson, dd not wrtc protcssoraIIy, unconccrncd wth
cxprcsson-that practcc dd not bccomc cstabIshcd untI thc
cra ot thc dccInc ot thc unvcrstcs, nstcad, cvcn t uncon-
scousIy, hc rascd hs skcptcaI rcIatonshp to Ianguagc, whch
ncIncdto Iackotcogcncy, toastyIstcprncpIc. Hcwastorccd
ntothsbyanapora. Hcdstrustcd hgh-handcd,nsomcscnsc
brutaI, Ingustccxprcsson andyctwas torccd to a spcchcIn-
gustc torm by thc spccuIatvcnaturcoths phIosophy, whch
I I9
was thoroughIy dctachcd trom thc common scnsc otcvcryday
Ianguagc. In ts nconspcuous way, hs soIuton was gutc rad-
caI. As onc who dcspscdtuI!yartcuIatcdIanguagc, hc dd not
cntrust hmscIt to thc Ianguagc otcuIturc, thc currcnt phIo-
sophcaI]argon, as somcthngprcgvcnand mcchancaI, butn-
stcad, paradoxcaIIy, hc chaIIcngcd thc prncpIc otbxcdncss,
whch s ndspcnsabIc tor thc cxstcncc otanythng Ingustc.
Jodaywcspcakotantmattcr, HcgcI'stcxtsarcanttcxts.WhIc
thc cxtrcmc abstracton achcvcd and rcgurcd by thc grcatcst
oths tcxts nvoIvcscxtrcmccttorts onthcpartotanob]cctvat-
ngthought thatsdctachcd
tromthcmmcdacyotthc cxpcr-
cncng sub]cct, hs books arc not actuaIIy books but rathcr
annotatcd Iccturcs, ottcn thcy arc mcrc rcvcrbcratons, not n-
tcndcd to bccogcntcvcnn pubIshcdtorm. Icccntrctcs such
as thc tactthat hc cdtcd onIy a smaII portonoths work, that
mosttt, cvcn thctuIItorm othscompIctc systcm, cxsts onIy
nthcnotcbooksothsIstcncrs oras asortotmanuscrptdratt
that can bc tuIIy concrctzcd onIy on thc bass ot thc notcs-
thcsc tcaturcs arc nhcrcnt n hs phIosophy. Jhroughout hs
Itc HcgcIwas anArstotcIannwantngtorcduccaII phcnom-
cna tothcrtorm.Jhs s howhcprocccdcdcvcnwth thccon-
tngcnt phcnomcnon otthc acadcmc Iccturc. Hs tcxts arc ts
Iatoncdca.JhatathoughtthatmadcsuchcxtravagantcIams
shouId havc torcgonc transmsson n spccbc, dcbntvc torm
can bc cxpIancd onIy n tcrms otts dcaI otprcscntaton, thc
ncgatonotprcscntaton. Atthcsamctmc, nthcIooscncssota
dcIvcrythatcvcnwhcn mosthghIy cIaboratcdscIoscrto spccch
thantowrtng, onccanIooktoracorrcctvctothchubrsotthc
concIusvc and dcbntvc otwhchHcgcI'sworkwas accuscd cvcn
durnghsItctmc. y no mcans docs ths dcmcanorcharactcr-
zconIythoscpartsotHcgcI'ssystcmthatcxstmcrcIyasadsto
mcmory and that hc dd not pubIsh or pubIshcd onIy n con-
I20
Skoteinos,orHowtoRead Hege|
dcnscd torm, on thc contrary, tcIcarIybccomcs morc cxtrcmc
ovcr thc ycars. Itprcsscd, oncmayrcgard thcPhenomenology as
abook, wth thc Science of Logc thss noIongcrpossbIc. Kcad-
ng thcLogic caIIsto mnd H. G. Hotho'sdcscrptonotthcDoz
ent HcgcIdurnghs crInpcrod.
Exhausted, morose, hesat thereasifco||apsed into himse|f, his head
bentdown,andwhi|espeakingkeptturningpagesandsearchinginhis
|ong fo|io notebooks, forward and backward, high and |ow. His con-
stantc|earingofhisthroatandcoughinginterruptedanyowofspeech.
Everysentencestooda|oneandcameoutwitheffort,cutinpiecesand
jumb|ed. Every word, everysy||ab|edetacheditse|fon|yre|uctant|yto
receive a strange|y thorough emphasis fromthe meta||ic-empty voice
with itsbroadSwabian dia|ect, asifeachwere the mostimportant . . . .
E|oquence that ows a|ong smooth|y presupposes that the speaker is
hnishedwiththesubjectinsideandoutandhasitbyheart,andforma|
ski||hastheabi|itytog|ideongarru|ous|yandmostgracious|yinwhat
is ha|f-baked and superhcia|. Thisman,however, had toraiseup the
mostpowerfu|thoughtsfromthedeepestgroundofthings,andifthey
weretohavea|ivingeffectthen,a|thoughtheyhadbeenponderedand
workedoveryearsbeforeandeveragain,theyhadtoregeneratethem-
se|vesinhiminanever|ivingpresent.
HcgcIthcIccturcrrcbcIIcdaganstthc hardcncdmmancnccot
Ianguagc, and nthc proccss hs ownIanguagc ranntoa brck
waII.JhchrstchaptcrotthchrstbookotthcLogic samcmoraI
to thsntcnton, "cng, purc cng, wthoutanyturthcrdctcr-
mnaton,"ananacoIuthonthattrcswthHcbcIancunnngto
hnd away out otthc prcdcamcnt that"ndctcrmnatcmmcd-
acy," cvcn tcIothcdnthc torm ota prcdcatv
5
statcmcntIkc
"cngs thc most gcncraI conccpt, wthout any turthcr dctcr-
mnaton,"wouIdthcrcbyrcccvcadchntonthroughwhchthc
scntcnccwouIdcontradcttscIt. Itoncopposcdthstrck,sayng
that, strctIy spcakng, purc namcs cannot bc undcrstood and
ccrtanIy cannot nvoIvc thcr contradctons, sncc onIy propo-
I2I
Skoteinos,orHowt oReadHegel
stons, not mcrc conccpts, contradct thcmscIvcs, HcgcI mght
shrcwdIy agrcc, notng thatthc ob]ccton motvatcs thc brstan-
tthcss to hs brst thcss, and thathc hmscItcxpIans that such
bcngsnothng. utnsuchsophstrcsaphIosophyotdcntty
thatwantstohavcthcIastwordcvcnnthchrst,andatanyprcc
ncIudngthcshabbcst,s notmcrcIypIayngdumb.JhcdaIcc-
tc'sprotcstaganstIanguagccannotbcvoccddrcctIycxccptn
Ianguagc. Hcncc that protcst s condcmncd to mpotcnt para-
dox, andtmakcs avrtuc outotthatncccssty.
Jhc nsghts n Hotho's dcscrpton go rght to thc corc ot
HcgcI's Itcrary torm. Jhat torm s thc compIctc oppostc ot
lctzschc'smaxmthatonccanonIywrtcaboutwhatoncsbn-
shcdwth,whatsbchndonc.JhcsubstanccotHcgcI'sphIos-
ophy s proccss, and t wants to cxprcss tscIt as proccss, n
pcrmancntstatu nacendi, thcncgatonotprcscntatonassomc-
thngcongcaIcd, somcthngthatwouId corrcspond to whatwas
prcscntcd onIytthcIattcrwcrctscItsomcthngcongcaIcd. Jo
makc an anachronstc comparson, HcgcI'spubIcatonsarc morc
Ikc bIms ot thought than tcxts. Jhc untutorcd cyc can ncvcr
capturcthc dctaIs otahImthcwaytcan thoscotastII magc,
andsotswth HcgcI'swrtngs. JhssthcIocusotthctorbd-
dngguaItynthcm, andtsprccscIyhcrcthatHcgcIrcgrcsscs
bchndhs daIcctcaIcontcnt.Jobcconsstcnt,thatcontcntwouId
rcgurcaprcscntatonantthctcaI to t. JhcndvduaImomcnts
wouId nccd to bc so sharpIy dstngushcd IngustcaIIy, so rc-
sponsbIy cxprcsscd, that thc sub]cctvc proccss otthought and
!tsarbtraryguaItywouId drop awaytromthcm. Itonthc con-
trary thc prcscntaton s assmIatcd wthout rcsstancc to thc
structurc otthc daIcctcaI movcmcnt, thc prcc that thc spccu-
Iatvcconccpt'scrtgucottradtonaIIogchas to payto thcIat-
tcrsscttoo Iow. HcgcI dd not dcaIwththsadcguatcIy. AIack
otscnstvty to thc Ingustc stratumasawhoIcmaybcrcspon-
I22
sbIcIorths,thccrudcncssoIsomcthngsmhsacsthctcsarouscs
that suspcon. crhaps, howcvcr, thc antIngustc mpuIsc n
hs thought, whch pcrccvcsthcImtsoIanypartcuIarcxstng
thng as Imts oIIanguagc, was so dccp that as a styIst HcgcI
sacrbccdthcprmacyoIob]cctbcatonthatgovcrncdhsocuvrc
as a whoIc. Jhs man who rcbcctcd on aII rcbccton dd notrc-
bcct on Ianguagc, hc movcd about n Ianguagc wth a carcIcss-
ncss thats ncompatbIc wth what hc sad. n thc prcscntaton
hswrtngsattcmptadrcctrcscmbIancctothcsubstancc.Jhcr
sgnbcatvccharactcrrcccdcs n IavoroIammctc onc, aknd
oIgcsturaIorcurvIncarwrtngstrangcIyat odds wth thc soI-
cmn cIams oI rcason that HcgcI nhcrtcd Irom Kant and thc
InIghtcnmcnt. DaIccts arc anaIogous, Ikc thc 5wabanwthts
untransIatabIc "Hano,"rcpostorcsoIgcsturcsthatItcraryIan-
guagcs havc gvcn up. Jhc romantcsm that thc maturc HcgcI
trcatcd wth contcmpt, but whch was thc Icrmcnt oI hs own
spccuIaton, may havc takcn ts rcvcngc on hm by takng ovcr
hs Ianguagc nts IoIksy tonc. AbstractIy bowng, HcgcI's styIc,
Ikc HIdcrIn's abstractons, takcs on a muscaI guaIty that s
abscnt Irom thc sobcr styIc oIthc romantc 5chcIIng. At tmcs
t makcs tscIIIcItnsuch thngs as thc usc oIantthctcaI part-
cIcsIkc "abcr" but| Ior purposcs oImcrcconnccton.
Nowbecauseintheabsolute,theformis onlysimpleself-identity, the
absolutedoesnotdetermine itselF, for determination isaformofdif-
ferencewhich, in thehrstinstance,countsas such. Butbecauseatthe
sametimeitcontainsalldifferencesandform-determinationwhatever,
orbecauseitisitselftheabsoluteformandreection,thedifferenceof
thecontentmustalso appearin it.But, emphasis added by Adorno]
theabsoluteitselfis absoluteidentity, thisisitsdetermination,forinit
allmanifold nessoftheworld-in-itselfandtheworldofAppearance,or
ofinnerandoutertotality,issublated.
lodoubtHcgcI'sstyIcgocsaganstcustomaryphIosophcaIun-
dcrstandng, yctnhswcakncsscshc pavcs thcwayIoradIIcr-
I23
cnt knd otundcrstandng, onc mustrcad HcgcIby dcscrbng
aIongwth hmthccurvcsothsntcIIcctuaImovcmcnt,bypIay-
nghsdcaswth thcspccuIatvc caras thoughthcywcrcmus-
caI notcs. hIosophy as awhoIcs aIIcdwthartn wantngto
rcscuc,nthcmcdumotthcconccpt,thcmmcssthatthccon-
ccpt rcprcsscs, and hcrc HcgcI bchavcs Ikc AIcxandcr wth
thc Gordanknot. HcdscmpowcrsndvduaIconccpts,uscsthcm
as though thcy wcrc thc magcIcss magcs otwhat thcy mcan.
HcnccthcGocthcan"rcsducotabsurdty"nthcphIosophyot
absoIutc sprt. What t wants to usc to gctbcyond thc conccpt
aIwaysdrvcstbackbcncaththcconccptnthcdctaIs.JhconIy
rcadcr who docs]ustcc to HcgcI s thc onc who docs not dc-
nouncchmtorsuchndubtabIcwcakncssbutnstcadpcrccvcs
thc mpuIsc nthatwcakncss. who undcrstandswhythsorthat
mustbcncomprchcnsbIcandntactthcrcbyundcrstandst.
HcgcIhasatwotoIdcxpcctatonotthcrcadcr,notIIsutcdto
thc naturc ot thc daIcctc. Jhc rcadcr s to boat aIong, to Ict
hmscItbcborncbythccurrcntandnottotorccthcmomcntary
to Ingcr. Othcrwsc hc wouId changc t, dcsptc and through
thc grcatcst hdcIty to t. On thc othcr hand, thc rcadcr has to
dcvcIopanntcIIcctuaIsIow-motonproccdurc,tosIow down thc
tcmpo at thccIoudypIaccs n such away that thcy do notcvap-
oratcandthcrmotoncanbcsccn. Itsrarcthatthc two modcs
otopcraton taII to thc samc actotrcadng. Jhc actotrcadng
has to scparatcntotspoIartcsIkcthccontcnttscIt. In accr-
tanscnscMarx'sstatcmcntthatphIosophypasscsovcrntohs-
toryaIrcadycharactcrzcsHcgcI. * WthHcgcIphIosophybccomcs
*"When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge
loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a sum
ming-up of the most general results, abstractions which arise from the observa
tion of the historical development of men. Viewed apart from real hitory, these
abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever. They can only serve to
facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its
I24
thc actvty otIookng at and dcscrbng thc movcmcnt otthc
conccpt, and n ths scnsc thc Phenomenology of Spirit outIncs a
vrtuaI hstorography otsprt. Itsas though HcgcIhadhastIy
trcdto modcI hs prcscntaton onths, to phIosopbzcas though
onc wcrc wrtng hstory, as though through onc's modc ot
thnkngonc couId torcc thcuntyotthc systcmatc and thchs-
torcaI that s conccvcd n thc daIcctc. rom ths pcrspcctvc
thcIackotclarte nHcgcI's phIosophywouIdbcthcrcsuItotthc
hstorcaI dmcnsonntrudng nto t.Jhc traccs otthc cmpr-
caI cIcmcnt that s ncommcnsurabIc wth thc conccpttakc rct-
ugc n thc prcscntaton. ccausc that cIcmcnt cannot bc tuIIy
pcrmcatcd by thc conccpt, ts nhcrcntIyrcsstantto thc norm
otclarte, whch, athrstcxpIctIyandIatcrwthoutrcmcmbcrng
t,was dcrvcdtromthcdcaIotasystcm thatsopposcdto hs-
torcaIrcaIty as toaIIcmprcaI rcaIty.WhIc HcgcIstorccdto
ntcgratc thc hstorcaI momcntnto thc IogcaI, and vcc vcrsa,
hs attcmptto dosoturnsntoacrtgucothsown systcm. Jhc
systcm has to acknowIcdgc thc conccptuaI1rrcducbIty otthc
conccpt, whch s nhcrcntIy hstorcaI. n tcrms otIogcaI-sys-
tcmatccrtcrathchstorcaI,aIIcIscnotwthstandng,sdsturb-
ng, t s a bInd spot. HcgcI ccrtanIy saw thatn thcPhilosophy
of Right, aIthough otcoursc hc thcrcby dsavowcd onc ot hs
ccntraIntcntonsandoptcdtorthccustomaryscparatonottbc
hstorcaIandthcsystcmatc.
To consider particu|ar |aws as they appear and deve|op in time is a
pure|yhistorica|task. Likeacquaintancewithwhatcanbe|ogica||yde-
separate strata" (Karl Marx, The German Ideolog, in The Mar-Engels Reader, ed.
Robert Tucker, New York: Norton, 1972, p. 1 19). A variant is even more pointed:
"We know only a single science, the science of history. History can be regarded
from two perspectives and can be divided into the history of nature and the
history of mankind. The two cannot be separated; as long as human beings exist,
the history of nature and the history of human ,beings determile one another"
(Mar-Engels Gesamtausgabe, ed. D. Ryazonov, vol. 5, section 1 , Berlin, 'Marx-En
gels Archiv, 1932, p. 567).
I25
duced froma comparison ofthese laws withpreviouslyexistinglegal
principles, thistaskisappreciatedandrewardedinitsownsphereand
has no relation whatever to the philosophical study ofthe subject-
unlessofcoursethederivationofparticularlawsfromhistoricalevents
is confused with theirderivationfromtheconcept, and thehistorical
explanationandjustihcationisstretchedto becomeanabsolutelyvalid
justihcation. This difference, which isvery important and should be
hrmlyadheredto,isalsoveryobvious.Aparticularlawmaybeshown
to be wholly grounded in and consistent with the circumstances and
with existinglegally established institutions, and yetitmay be wrong
and irrationalinitsessentialcharacter, like anumberofprovisions in
Romanprivatelawwhichfollowedquitelogicallyfromsuchinstitutions
asRomanmatrimonyandRomanpatriapotestas.Butevenifparticular
lawsarebothrightandreasonable,stillitisonethingtoprovethatthey
have thatcharacter~which cannotbe trulydone except by means of
theconcept~andquiteanothertodescribetheirappearanceinhistory
orthecircumstances, contingencies, needs,andeventswhichbrought
abouttheirenactment.Thatkindofexpositionand(pragmatic)knowl-
edge,basedonproximateorremotehistoricalcauses,isfrequentlycalled
explanationorpreferablycomprehensionby those who think that
toexpoundhistoryinthiswayistheonlything,orrathertheessential
thing,theonlyimportantthing, tobedoneinordertocomprehendlaw
oran established institution, whereas whatis reallyessential, the con-
ceptofthething, theyhavenotdiscussedatall.
In thc conccptuaI aspcct that rcssts thc HcgcIan movcmcnt
otthc conccpt, nondcntty gansthcuppcrhand ovcr thc con-
ccpt.Wthnthatsystcm,whatwouIduItmatcIybcthctruththat
wouId hoId out aganstthc systcmotdcnttybccomcstsbIcm-
sh, that whch cannotbc rcprcscntcd. HcgcI's rcadcrs havc aI-
waysbccnupsctbyths. HcgcI,thcrcstoratonstIbcraI,svoIatng
abourgcos taboo. What sdspIaycd ssupposcdto bchnshcd,
concIudcd, n accordancc wth thc morcs ot thc cxchangc ot
commodtcs, whcrc thc customcrnssts thatwhat s dcIvcrcd
to hm attuIIprcc shouId cmbodythc tuIIguanttyotIabortor
whch hcs payng thc cguvaIcnt. Itthcrc sanythngIctttobc
donc on what hc buys, hc tccIs chcatcd. Jhc conccptuaI Iabor
I26
and cttort that HcgcI's phIosophy cxpccts not mcrcIy ottscIt
butaIsootthcrcadcr, nascnscthatguaItatvcIy surpasscs cvcry
customarystandard otrcccpton, s hcId agansthm,asthough
hc had not cxpcndcd cnough swcat. Jhc taboo cxtcnds to thc
markctpIacc'sdosyncratccommandmcntthatthctraccsotthc
human n thc product bc crascd, that thc product tscIt cxst
purcIy n tscIt. Jhc tctsh charactcr otthc commodty s nota
mcrc vcI, tsan mpcratvc. LongcaIcdIabornwhch onc no-
tccs that thcIaborsthatothumanbcngsswardcdottnds-
gust. ItshumansmcIIrcvcaIstsvaIuctoconsstnarcIatonshp
bctwccn sub]ccts rathcrthan somcthng adhcrng to ob]ccts, as
t s pcrccvcd. ropcrty, thc catcgory undcr whch bourgcos
soccty subsumcs ts sprtuaI goods as wcII, s notabsoIutc pos-
scsson. Whcn thatbccomcscvdcnt,tsccms as thoughwhats
mosthoIyhasbccnvoIatcd. 5choIarsarc tondotbccomngout-
ragcd about thcorcms and dcas thcy cannot takc homc tuIIy
provcn. Dscomtort wth thc conccptuaI charactcr nhcrcnt n
HcgcI's phIosophy s thcn ratonaIzcd to bccomc thc snccrng
asscrton that thc onc ncrmnatcd cannot hmscItaccompIsh
whathchoIdsothcrsto.HcnccthcwcII-knownaccountotHcgcI
by Gustav KmcIn, thc chanccIIor otJ\bngcn \nvcrsty. Wth
undaggngIychcaprony, K\mcInasks, "DO you undcrstandt?
Docs thcconccptmovc around on ts own n you, wthout any
contrbuton trom you?Docs tchangc ntotsoppostc,anddocs
thchghcrumtyotthccontrarcscmcrgctromthat?"'Asthough
twcrcagucstonotthcmuch-nvokcd-whcthcrnadmraton
ordcrogaton-"spccuIatvcmnd"sub]cctvcIytakngsomcspc-
caI Icaps n ordcr to brngottsomcthngthat HcgcI ascrbcs to
thc conccpttscIt, as though spccuIatonwcrcan csotcrc capac-
ty and not rcdccton's crtcaI scIt-awarcncss, antagonstcaIIy and
ntmatcIyrcIatcd to rcdccton thc wayrcasonwas rcIatcd to thc
ntcIIcct n Kant. Jhc hrst rcgurcmcnt tor rcadng HcgcI cor-
I27
Skoteinos,orHowtoRead
rcctIy s to rd oncscItotdccpIy rootcd habts Ikc thcsc, whch
thccontcntotHcgcI's phIosophyshows tobctaIsc. It suscIcss
tostruggIcandtwtchIkcthccaIphandthcgrandvzcrnthc
torm otstorks, vanIy pondcrng thc word mutabor. Jhc trans-
tormaton otbntcnto nbntc dctcrmnatons thatHcgcI taught
s ncthcr a tact otsub]cctvc conscousncss, nor docs t rcgurc
anyspccaI act. Whats mcants aphIosophcaIcrtgucotph-
Iosophy, acrtguc]ust asratonaIas phIosophytscIt. Jhc onIy
sub]cctvc dcsdcratum s not to bccomc obstnatc but rathcr to
undcrstand motvatons,aswth Kantand chtc, nordocs any-
onc capabIc ot dong so nccd crcduIousIy to acccpt thc movc-
mcnt otthcconccptas arcaItysugcncrs.
JhcscdcsdcrataotarcadngotHcgcI,howcvcr,canbc pro-
tcctcdtrom dvagaton onIy tthcy arc suppIcmcntcd through
thc most acutc and pcrsstcnt attcnton to dctaI. GcnctcaIIy,
pcrhaps, thc !attcr comcs hrst, onIy whcn t taIs catcgorcaIIy
may thc rcadcr's dynamcaIIy dctachcd atttudc provdc a cor-
rcctvc.WhatIcads onctomcroIogysprccscIythcndsputabIc
Iackotdttcrcntatonbctwccn conccptsandrcbcctons.thcIack
otgraphc powcr.^ttmcscvcnthcIcgcndarysympathctcrcadcr
otthc carIy nnctccnthccnturymusttccIhshcadspnnng.Jhc
rcIatonshp otthc catcgorcs to thc whoIc s hardIy cvcr cm-
phatcaIIy dstngushcd trom thcr spcchc rcstrctcd mcanng
n a spcchc passagc. "Ide" Idca| mcans on thc onc hand thc
absoIutc, thc sub]cct-ob]cct, but onthc othcr hand, as thc ntcI-
IcctuaI mantcstaton ot thc absoIutc t s supposcd to bc somc-
thngothcrthanthcob]cctvctotaIty.othappcarnthcSubective
Logc. Jhcrc "Idca ottcn mcans thc sub]cct-ob]cct. "thc abso-
Iutc Idca aIonc s bcng, mpcrshabIc Itc, scIt-knowng truth,
andsaIItruth,or. "thc IdcahasnotmcrcIythcmorcgcncraI
mcanng otthc truc bcng, otthc unty otconccpt and rcaIty,
butthc morc spccbc onc otthcuntyotsub]cctvc conccpt and
I28
ob]cctvty.
..
Onthcothcr hand, c!scwhcrcnthcsamc sccton
ot thc Subjective Logic, thc thrd, Hcgc! dstngushcs thc Idca
tromthcob]cctvc tota!ty.
NowtheIdeahasshownitselftobe theconceptliberatedagainintoits
subjectivityfromtheimmediacyinwhichitissubmergedintheobject,
to be theconceptthat distinguishes itselffrom its objectivity, which
howeverisnolessdeterminedbyitandpossessesitssubstantialityonly
in thatconcept. . . . Butthis must be understood more precisely. The
concept,havingtrulyattaineditsreality,istheabsolutejudgementwhose
subject,asself-related negativeunity,distinguishesitselffromitsobjec-
tivityandisthelatter'sbeing-in-and-for-self,butessentiallyrelatesitself
toitthroughitself.
Andcorrcspondng!y,
NowthedeterminatenessoftheIdeaandtheentirecoursefollowedby
thisdeterminatenesshasconstitutedthesubjectmatterofthescienceof
logic,fromwhichcoursetheabsoluteIdeaitselfhasissuedintoanex-
istenceofitsown,butthenatureofthisitsexistencehasshownitselfto
bethis,thatdeterminatenessdoesnothavetheshapeofacontent,but
existswhollyas form, and that accordingly the Ideais the absolutely
universalIdea'
na!!yhcuscsbothn thcsamcargumcnt.
The Idea,namely, inpositingitselfas absoluteunityofthepurecon-
cept and its reality and thus contractingitselfinto the immediacyof
being,is the totality in this form~nature. Butthisdeterminationhas
notissued from a processofbecoming,norisitatransition,aswhen
above,thesubjectiveconceptinitstotalitybecomesobjectivity,andthe
subjective end becomes life. On thecontrary,the pure Ideainwhich
the determinateness or reality ofthe conceptis itselfraised into con-
cept, isanabsoluteliberationforwhichthereisnolongeranyimmedi-
atedeterminationthatisnotequallypositedanditselfconcept, inthis
freedom,therefore,notransitiontakesplace,thesimplebeingtowhich
theIdeadeterminesitselfremainsperfectlytransparenttoitandisthe
concept that, in its determination, abides with itself. The passage is
I?9
therefore tobe understood hereratherin this manner, thatthe Idea
freelyreleasesitselfinitsabsoluteself-assuranceandinnerpoise.
]ustas n HcgcI"touI"cxstcncc s scparatcd tromthcrcaIthat
s ratonaI, so dcsptc cvcrythngthcdcancvtabIyrcmansXWpt<
trom rcaIty, sct apart trom t, n thatrcaIty s aIso "touI" cxs-
tcncc. 5uchncongrutcsarcscattcrcdthroughoutHcgcI'smost
mportanttcxts. Hcnccthctasksthcds]unctonotwhatsspc-
cbctromwhatsmorcgcncraI,whatsnotducandpayabIchie
et nunc; thc two arc ntcrtwncd n thc Ingustc hgurcs HcgcI
Ikcstousc. Hcwas tryng towardottthc dangcrota bght nto
thc gcncraI whcn hc toId a Iady at a tca party who had askcd
hmwhatoncshouIdbcthnkngatthsorthatpontnhstcxt,
"prccscIy that." ut thc gucston was not as sIIy as thc way t
was dcaItwthmakcs tsccm.Jhcgucstoncrmay havc notccd
that cmpty conscousncss, that s, what a paragraph accom-
pIshcsn tcrms ottsIogcalcohcrcncc, usurps thc pIacc otac-
tuaI accompIshmcnt, whcrcas whcthcrtrcgurcs that Iogc or
notdcpcndsonwhatsaccompIshcd.Jhcgucstonotwhatonc
shouIdbcthnkngatanypartcuIarpontvoccsataIscdcmand
nsotarastrcportsamcrcIackotcomprchcnsonandhopcsto
bcrcscucdthroughIIustratons,whch,asIIustratons,mssthc
mark, but tgutc propcrIymcans thatcvcryndvduaIanaIyss
hastobctoIIowcdthrough, thatnrcadngoncmustgcthoIdot
statcs ot attars that arc dscusscd and accuratcIy statcd and
undcrgo transtormaton, not mcrc gudcIncs. Jhc most trc-
gucntwcakncss nntcrprctatons otHcgcIsthatthcanaIysss
nottoIIowcd throughntcrmsotthccontcnt, nstcad, thcword-
ngsmcrcIy paraphrascd. orthcmostpartsuchcxcgcssthcn
bcarsthcsamcrcIatonto thcthngtscItas thcroadsgntothc
road onc has travcIcd, as 5chcIcr]okngIy putt. Inmanycascs
HcgcIhmscItddnotcarryoutthcactvtyottoIIowngthrough
butrcpIaccdtwthcrcumIocutousdccIaratonsotntcnton.In
I30
thcPhilosophy of Right, tornstancc, HcgcImakcsaprctcnscota
spccuIatvcdcductonotmonarchybutdocsnotcarrytout,and
torthat rcason thc rcsuIts arc vuIncrabIc to aII manncr otcrt-
ctsm.
Thisultimateselfinwhichthewillofthestateisconcentratedis,when
thustakeninabstraction,asingleselfand thereforeisimmediateindi-
viduality.Henceitsnaturalcharacterisimpliedinitsveryconception.
The monarch, therefore, isessentiallycharacterizedasthisindividual,
in abstraction from all his other characteristics, and thisindividualis
raisedtothedignityofmonarchyinanimmediate,natural,fashion,i.e.
throughhisbirthinthecourseofnature.Thistransitionoftheconcept
ofpureself-determinationintotheimmediacyofbeingandsointothe
realmofnatureisofapurelyspeculativecharacter,andapprehension
ofitthereforebelongstologic.Moreover,thistransitionisonthewhole
thesame as thatfamiliartousin the natureofwilling, and there the
process is to translate something fromsubjectivity (i.e. some purpose
heldbeforethemind)intoexistence(seeParagraph8).Buttheproper
formofthe Idea andofthetransitionhereunderconsiderationisthe
immediateconversionofthepureself-determinationofthewill(i.e.of
thesimpleconceptitself)intoasingleandnaturalexistentwithoutthe
mediationofaparticularcontent(likeapurposeinthecaseofaction).
.. . Addition. It is often alleged against monarchy that itmakes the
welfareofthestatedependentonchance,foritisurged, themonarch
maybeill-educated, hemayperhapsbeunworthyofthe highestposi-
tionin the state, and itis senseless thatsuch astateofaffairs should
existbecauseitissupposedtoberational.Butallthisrestsonapresup-
position which is nugatory, namely that everything depends on the
monarch's particular character. In acompletely organized state, it is
onlyaquestionoftheculminatingpointofformaldecision. . . , hehas
onlytosayyesanddotthei,becausethethroneshouldbesuchthat
the signihcant thing i its holder is not his particular make-up. . . .
Whateverelsethemonarchmayhaveinadditiontothispowerofhnal
decisionispartandparcelofhisprivatecharacterandshouldbeofno
consequence. Ofcourse there maybe circumstancesinwhichitis this
private character alone which has prominence, but in that event the
stateiseithernotfullydeveloped,orelseisbadlyconstructed.Inawell-
I 3I
organizedmonarchy,theobjectiveaspectsbelongstolawalone,andthe
monarch'spartismerelytosettothelawthesubjectiveIwill.
IthcraIIthcbadcontngcncytbatHcgcIdsputcsscondcnscd
ntoths"IwII"attcraII,orthcmonarchstruIyonIyayca-saycr
who couId bc dspcnscd wth. rcgucntIy, howcvcr such wcak-
ncsscsaIsocontancrucaIadstoundcrstandng. Inbcttcrcascs
than thcawkwardIydcoIogcaIPhilosophy of Right, mmancntb-
dcItyto HcgcI'sntcntonrcgurcsoncto suppIcmcntorgo bc-
yond thc tcxt n ordcr to undcrstand t. Jhcn t s uscIcss to
pondcrcryptcndvduaItormuIatonsandgctnvoIvcd|nottcn
unrcsoIvabIc controvcrscs about what was mcant. Kathcr, onc
mustuncovcrHcgcI'sam, thc sub]cct mattcr shouId bcrccon-
structcd trom knowIcdgc ott. Hc aImostaIways has ccrtan s-
sucs n mnd cvcn whcn hs own tormuIatons taI to capturc
thcm.WhatHcgcIwas taIkngaboutsmorcmportantthanwhat
hcmcant.JhccrcumstanccsandthcprobIcmhavctobc dcvcI-
opcdtrom HcgcI's programandthcn thoughtthrough on thcr
own. n HcgcI's phIosophy thc prmacy otob]cctvty ovcr thc
ntcndcd tran ot thought, thc prmacy otthc spcchc statc ot
attars undcrconsdcraton, consttutcs an authorty n oppos-
ton to hs phIosophy. Itwthn a paragraph thcprobIcmats-
sucstandsoutasbcngoutIncdandrcsoIvcd-and thcsccrctot
thc phIosophcaI mcthod mayIcnthctactthatto undcrstand
aprobIcmand to soIvc tarc actuaIIyoncand thcsamc thng-
thcn HcgcI's ntcnton bccomcs cIcar too, whcthcr ts that thc
cryptc contcnt oths thought now dscIoscs tscItotts ownac-
cordorthat hs thoughtsbccomcartcuIatcd through what thcy
thcmscIvcsmsscd.
JhctaskotmmcrsonnthcdctaIrcgurcs consdcratonot
thc ntcrnaI structurc otHcgcI's tcxts. Its notthccustomary
progrcssvc Incar dcvcIopmcnt otdcas, any morc than t s a
I32
scgucncc otdscrctc, dttcrcntatcd ndcpcndcnt anaIyscs. Jhc
comparsonwthawcb that thcstructurcsomctmcs provokcs s
aIso naccuratc. t gnorcs thc dynamc momcnt. What s char-
actcrstc, howcvcr, s thc tuson otthc dynamc momcnt wth
thc statc. HcgcI'swcghtychaptcrs rcsstthcdstnctonbctwccn
conccptuaIanaIyss,"commcntary,"andsynthcssasprogrcsson
to somcthngncwthatsnotcontancdwthnthc conccpttscIt.
Jhsmakcs tdtbcuItto dccdc whcrc to stop.
Hefaltered eveni nthe beginning, tried to goon, startedonce more,
stoppedagain,spokeandpondered, therightwordseemedtobemiss-
ingforever,butthenitscoredmostsurely, itseemedcommonandyet
inimitablyhtting,unusualandyettheonlyonethatwasright . . . . Now
onehadgraspedtheclearmeaningofasentenceand hoped mostar-
dently to progress. In vain. Instead ofmoving forward, the thought
keptrevolvingaround thesame pointwithsimilarwords. Butifone's
wearied attention wandered and strayed afew minutesbeforeit sud-
denlyreturned with a start to the lecture, itfounditselfpunished by
havingbeen torn entirely out ofthe context. For slowly and deliber-
ately, making use ofseemingly insignihcant links, some full thought
hadlimiteditselfto thepointofone-sidedness,hadsplititselfintodis-
tinctionsandinvolveditselfincontradictionswhosevictorioussolution
eventuallyfound the strength to compel thereunihcationofthe most
recalcitrantelements. Thusalways takingupagaincarefullywhathad
gonebeforeinordertodevelopoutofitmoreprofoundlyinadifferent
formwhatcamelater, moredivisive and yetevenricherinreconcilia-
tion, the most wonderful stream ofthought twisted and pressed and
struggled, now isolating something, now very comprehensively, occa-
sionally hesitant, thenbyjerks sweepingalong, itowedforward irre-
sistibly.
roadIy spcakng, oncmghtsay that nthc HcgcIansystcm,
as nHcgcI'soraIdcIvcry,anaIytcandsynthctc]udgmcnts arc
not as strctIy dstngushcd as n thc Kantan ^L. In ths rc-
gard as wcII, HcgcI s composngsomcthnganaIogous to a mu-
scaI rcprsc otprc-Kantan and cspccaIIy Lcbnzan ratonaIsm,
I33
mcdatcdbysub]cctvty, andths torms thc pattcrntorhs prc-
scntaton. Jhc prcscntaton tcnds to takc thc torm otthc ana-
Iytc]udgmcnt,IttIcasHcgcIIkcdthatIogcaItorm,thcabstract
dcnttyotthcconccpt.Jhcmovcmcntotthought, thccntrancc
ot somcthng ncw, docs not add anythng to thc grammatcaI
conccpt thattormsthc sub]cct, as tdocs wth Kant. Jhcncws
thcoId.JhroughthccxpIcatonotthcconccpts,nothcrwords
through what, accordng to tradtonaIIogcand cpstcmoIogy,
s accompIshcdbyanaIytc]udgmcnts, thcconccpt's Othcr, thc
nondcntcaI, bccomcs cvdcnt wthn thc conccpt tscIt, somc-
thngmpIcd nts mcanng, wthoutthc scopc otthc conccpt
bcngntrngcd upon. Jhc conccptsturncdthsway and that
untItbccomcs cIcarthattsmorcthanwhatts.Jhcconccpt
brcaks up whcn t nssts on ts dcntty, and yct t s onIy thc
catastrophcotsuchtcnactythatgvcsrsctothcmovcmcntthat
makcs tmmancntIy othcr thantscIt. Jhc modcIotths struc-
turcotthoughts HcgcI's trcatmcntotthcIawotdcnttyA A,
whch s outIncd nthcDiferenzchrift and thcncarrcd out cn-
crgctcaIIynthcLogc. nhcrcntnthcmcanngota purc dcn-
tcaI]udgmcnts thc nondcntty otts mcmbcrs. n an ndvduaI
]udgmcntsamcncsscanbcprcdcatcdonIyotthngs thatarcnot
thc samc, othcrwsc thc cIam nhcrcntnthc torm otthc]udg-
mcnt-thatsomcthngs ths orthat-snotmct. lumcrous rc-
bcctons ot HcgcI's arc organzcd na smIar manncr, and onc
musthavcacIcargraspotthswayotprocccdngtoavodbcng
rcpcatcdIycontuscdbyt. nts mcrostructurcHcgcI'sthought
andtsItcrarytormsarcwhatWaItcrcn]amnIatcrcaIIcd"d-
aIcctcsatastandstII," comparabIctothccxpcrcnccthccychas
whcnIookng through a mcroscopc atadrop otwatcr thatbc-
gnsto tccmwthItc, cxccptthatwhatthatstubborn, spcIIbnd-
ng gazc taIIsons notbrmIydcIncatcdasanob]cctbuttraycd,
as twcrc, atthc cdgcs. Onc otthcmost tamous passagcs trom
I34
Skoteinos, orHowtoReadHege|
thcprctacctothcPhenomenolo
g
rcvcaIs somcthngotthatntcr-
naIstructurc.
Appearance is the arisingand passingawaythat does not itse|farise
and passaway,butis'in itse|f' . . . andconstitutestheactua|ityandthe
movementofthe|ifeoftruth.TheTrueisthustheBacchana|ianreve|
in whichnomemberis notdrunk, yetbecauseeachmemberco||apses
assoonashedropsout,thereve|isjustasmuchtransparentandsimp|e
repose.)udgedinthecourtofthismovement,thesing|eshapesofSpirit
donotpersistanymorethanthedeterminate thoughtsdo,buttheyare
asmuch positiveandnecessarymoments,astheyarenegativeandeva-
nescent. Inthewho|eofthemovement,seenasastateofrepose, what
distinguishes itse|ftherein, andgives itse|fparticu|ar existence, ispre-
servedassomethingthatreco||ectsitse|f,whoseexistenceisse|f-know|-
edge,andwhosese|f-know|edgeisjustasimmediate|yexistence.
Hcrc, to bc surc, and n anaIogous pIaccs n thc Logc,46 thc
standstII s rcscrvcdtorthc totaIty, asnGocthc'smaxmabout
aIIstrvngbcngctcrnaIrcst. utIkccvcryaspcctotthcwhoIc
n HcgcI, ths onc too ssmuItancousIy an aspcct otcvcrynd-
vduaI part, and ts ubguty may havc prcvcntcd HcgcI trom
acknowIcdgngt. HcwastoocIosc to t,tconccaIcdtscIttrom
hm,apcccotunrcbcctcdmmcdacy.
ut thcntcrnaIstructurc aIsohas tar-rcachngconscgucnccs
torthcwaythcwhoIc hts togcthcr. thasrctroactvctorcc.Jhc
usuaI conccpton otthc dynamc ot HcgcI's thought-that thc
movcmcnt otthc conccpt s nothng but thc advancc trom onc
to thc othcr byvrtucotthcnncrmcdatcdncssotthctormcr-
s onc-sdcd tnothng cIsc. In that thc rcbccton otcach con-
ccpt, whchsInkcdwththcrcbcctonotrcbccton,brcaksthc
conccptopcnbydcmonstratngtsnconsstcncy, thcmovcmcnt
otthcconccptaIwaysaIsoattcctsthcstagctrom whchtbrcaks
away. Jhc advancc s a pcrmancnt crtguc ot what has comc
bctorc, and ths knd ot movcmcnt suppIcmcnts thc movcmcnt
I35
ot advancc by synthcss. In thc daIcctc otdcntty, thcn, not
onIys thcdcntty otthc nondcntcaI, as ts hghcr torm, thc
A=,thcsynthctc]udgmcnt,attancd, naddton,thccontcnt
otthc synthctc]udgmcnt s rccognzcd as aIrcady a ncccssary
momcntotthcanaIytc]udgmcntA=A. LonvcrscIy, thcsmpIc
tormaI dcntty otA=A s rctancd n thc cguvaIcncc ot thc
nondcntcaI.Ottcn,accordngIy,thcprcscntatonmakcsaback-
ward Icap. VhatwouIdbc ncwaccordng to thc smpIc schcma
ottrpIcttyrcvcaIs:tscIttobcthcconccptthattormcdthcstart-
ng pont tor thc partcuIar daIcctcaI movcmcnt undcr dscus-
son, modbcd and undcr dttcrcnt IIumnaton. Jhc "scIt-
dctcrmnaton ot csscncc as ground" trom thc sccond book ot
thcLogc provdcscvdcnccthatHcgcIhmscItntcndcdths.
Insofaras the determination ofa hrst, an immediate, is the starting
pointoftheadvancetoground(throughthenatureofthedetermina-
tionitselfwhichsublatesitselforfallstotheground),ground is,inthe
hrstinstance,determinedbythathrst. Butthisdeterminingis,onthe
onehand,asasublatingofthedetermining,onlytherestored,purihed
ormanifestedidentityofessencewhichthereecteddetermination is
initself,ontheotherhanditisthisnegatingmovementasadetermin-
ingthathrstposits thatreecteddeterminateness which appeared as
immediate,butwhichispositedonlybytheself-excludingreectionof
groundandthereinispositedasonlyapositedorsublateddetermina-
tion.Thusessence,indeterminingitselfasground,proceedsonlyfrom
itself
InthcSubjective Logc HcgcIdchncs,ngcncraItcrmsandaIttIc
tormaIstcaIIy, thc "thrd mcmbcr" otthc thrcc-part schcma as
thc hrst mcmbcr, n modhcdtorm,otthcndvduaIdaIcctcaI
movcmcntundcr dscusson.
I nthisturningpointof themethod,thecourseofcognitionatthesame
timereturnsintoitself.Asself-sublatingcontradictionthisnegativityis
the restoration ofthe hrstimmediacy, ofsimple universality, for the
I36
otheroftheother,thenegativeofthenegative,isimmediatelythepos-
itive,theidentical,theuniversal.Ifoneinsistsoncounting,thissecond
immediateis,inthecourseofthemethodasawhole,thethirdtermto
thehrstimmediateand themediated.Itisalso,however,thethirdterm
to the hrst formal negative and to absolute negativity or the second
negative,nowasthehrstnegativeisalreadythesecondterm,theterm
reckonedasthirdcanalsobereckonedasfourth,andinsteadofatripl-
icity,theabstractformmaybetakenasaquadruplicity,inthisway,the
negative or
the difference is countedasaduality. . . . Now more pre-

ciselythethirdistheimmediate,buttheimmediateresultingfromsub-
lationofmediation, the simple resultingfromsublationofdiBerence,
the positiveresultingfromsublationofthe negative, the concept that
hasrealizeditselfbymeansofitsothernessandbythesublationofthis
realityhasrestored. . . itssimplerelationtoitself.This resultisthere-
forethe truth. Itisequallyimmediacy andmediation, butsuchforms
ofjudgmentas.thethirdisimmediacyandmediation,or.itistheunity
ofthem, are notcapableofgraspingit, foritis nota quiescent third,
butpreciselyas theunity,isself-mediatingmovementandactivity. . . .
Now this result, as thewhole thathaswithdrawnintoand is identical
withitself,hasgivenitselftheformofimmediacy.Henceitisnowitself
thesamethingasthestarting-pointhaddetermineditselftobe.
Musc otccthovcn's typc, nwhch dcaIIy thc rcprsc, thc rc-

turnnrcmnsccnccotcompIcxcscxpoundcdcarIcr, shouIdbc
thc rcsuIt ot dcvcIopmcnt, that s, ot daIcctc, ottcrs an ana-
Ioguc to ths that transccnds mcrc anaIogy. HghIy organzcd
musctoomustbchcardmuItdmcnsonaIIy,torward andback-
ward at thc samc tmc. Its tcmporaI organzng prncpIc rc-
gurcs ths. tmc can bc artcuIatcd onIy through dstnctons
bctwccn what s tamIar and what s not yct tamIar, bctwccn
what aIrcady cxsts and what s ncw, thc condton ot movng
torward s arctrogrcssvcconscousncss. Onchas to knowawhoIc
movcmcnt andbc awarc rctrospcctvcIyatcvcry momcnt otwhat
has comcbctorc. Jhc ndvduaIpassagcs havc to bc graspcd as
conscgucnccs otwhat has comc bctorc, thc mcanngota dvcr-
I37
gcntrcpcttonhasto bc cvaIuatcd, andrcappcarancchas to bc
pcrccvcd not mcrcIy as archtcctonc corrcspondcncc but as
somcthngthathas cvoIvcd wthncccssty. VhatmayhcIpboth
nundcrstandngthsanaIogyandnundcrstandngthccorc ot
HcgcI'sthoughtsrccognzngthatthcconccptonottotaIty as
andcnttymmancntIymcdatcdbynondcnttysaIawotarts-
tc torm transposcd nto thc phIosophcaI doman. Jhc trans-
poston s tscItphIosophcaIIy motvatcd. AbsoIutc dcaIsm had
no morc dcsrc to toIcratc somcthng aIcn and cxtcrnaI to ts
own Iaw than dd thc dynamc tcIcoIogy otthc art otts tmc,
cIasscstc musc n partcuIar. VhIc thc maturc HcgcIdspar-
agcd 5chcIIng's ntcIIcctuaI ntuton" as an cxtravagant rap-
turcthatwassmuItancousIyaconccptuaIand mcchancaI, mtorm
HcgcI's phIosophy s ncomparabIy cIoscr to works ot art than
5chcIIng's, whchwantcdtoconstructthc worIdusngthcwork
otartas ts prototypc. AssomcthngsctotttromcmprcaIrcaI-
ty, art rcgurcs tortsconsttuton somcthngndssoIubIc, non-
dcntcaI, artbccomcsartonIythroughtsrcIatontosomcthng
thatstscItnotart.JhsspcrpctuatcdnthcduaIsmot5chcII-
ng's phIosophy, whch dcrvcs ts conccpt ottruth trom art, a
duaIsmhcncvcrddawaywth. uttartsnotandcascparatc
trom phIosophyand gudng tas a prototypc, tphIosophyas
suchwants tD accompIsh whats notaccompIshcdnart, as I-
Iuson, thcnthcphIosophcaItotaItythcrcbybccomcsacsthctc,
anarcnatorthcscmbIanccotabsoIutcdcntty. JhsscmbIancc
sIcssharmtuInartnsotarasartpoststscItasscmbIanccand
notas actuaIzcdrcason.
]ustasthcrcsatcnsonbctwccncxprcssonandconstructon
n works otart, so n HcgcI thcrc s a tcnson bctwccn thc cx-
prcssvc and thc argumcntatvc cIcmcnts. AII phIosophy that
docs notmakc dowthanunrcbcctvcmtatonotthc sccntbc
dcaIsotcoursc tamIarwththstcnson maIcsscxtrcmc torm.
I38
InHcgcIthccxprcssvccIcmcntrcprcscntscxpcrcncc,thatwhch
actuaIIy wants to comcout nto thc opcnbutcannot, ttwants
to attan ncccssty, appcar cxccpt n thc mcdum otconccpts,
whchs tundamcntaIIy ts oppostc. Jhsnccdtorcxprcssons
by no mcans, and Icast otaII n HcgcI, a mattcr otsub]cctvc
wcItanschauung.Kathcr,tstscItob]cctvcIydctcrmncd. Ithas
to do, naII phIosophythatsphIosophy, wth hstorcaIIy man-
tcstcdtruth. In thcattcrItcotphIosophcaI works,thcuntoId-
ng ot thcr substancc, what thc works cxprcss s graduaIIy
cxtrcatcd trom whatnthcm was mcrcIy thought. utthc vcry
ob]cctvtyotthc cxpcrcntaI contcnt whch, asunconscoushs-
torography ot thc sprt, ovcrgrows what s sub]cctvcIy n-
tcndcd, brst strs wthn phIosophy, as though t wcrc thc
sub]cctvc momcnt n t. Hcncc t gans strcngth trom prccscIy
thc actvtyotthoughtthatsuItmatcIycxtngushcd nthc cx-
pcrcntaI contcnt thatbccomcs cvdcnt. 5o-caIIcd toundatonaI
orur-cxpcrcnccs thatwouId attcmpt to cxprcss thcmscIvcs d-
rcctIy as much, wthoutsub]cctng thcmscIvcs to rcbccton, wouId
rcman mpotcnt mpuIscs. 5ub]cctvc cxpcrcncc sonIy thc outcr
shcII otphIosophcaIcxpcrcncc,whch dcvcIopsbcncathtand
thcnthrowstotIJhcwhoIc otHcgcI's phIosophysancttort
totransIatcntcIIcctuaIcxpcrcnccntoconccpts. Jhccxpanson
otthcapparatusotthought,ottcnccnsurcdasbcngmcchancaI
andcocrcvc,sproportonaItothctorccotthccxpcrcncctobc
mastcrcd. InthcPhenomenolo
g
HcgcIstIIwantcdtobcIcvcthat
thc cxpcrcncc couId smpIy bc dcscrbcd. ut ntcIIcctuaI cx-
pcrcncc can bc cxprcsscd onIy by bcng rcbcctcd n ts mcda-
ton-that s, actvcIy thought. Jhcrc s no way to makc thc
ntcIIcctuaI cxpcrcncc cxprcsscd and thc mcdum ot thought
rrcIcvant to onc anothcr. What s taIsc n HcgcI's phIosophy
mantcststscItprccscIynthcnotonthatwthcnoughconccp-
tuaI cttort t couId rcaIzc ths knd ot rrcIcvancc. Hcncc thc
I39
nnumcrabIcgapsbctwccnthcconccptandwhatscxpcrcnccd.
HcgcI has tobc rcad aganst thc gran, andn such a way that
cvcry IogcaI opcraton, howcvcr tormaI t sccms to bc, s rc-
duccdtotscxpcrcntaIcorc.JhccguvaIcntotsuchcxpcrcncc
nthcrcadcrsthcmagnaton. Itthcrcadcrwantcd mcrcIyto
dctcrmnc what a passagc mcant or to pursuc thc chmcra ot
hgurng out what thc author wantcd to say, thc substancc ot
whchhcwantstoattanphIosophcaIccrtantywouIdcvaporatc
tor hm. loonc can rcad any morc outotHcgcI than hc puts
n.JhcproccssotundcrstandngsaprogrcssvcscIt-corrcctng
otsuch pro]cctonsthroughcomparsonwth thctcxt. Jhccon-
tcnttscItcontans, as a Iaw otts torm, thccxpcctatonotpro-
ductvc magnaton on thc part otthc onc rcadng. Whatcvcr
cxpcrcnccthcrcadcrmayrcgstcrhastobcthoughtoutonthc
bassotthcrcadcr'sowncxpcrcncc. \ndcrstandnghastohnd
a toothoId n thc gap bctwccn cxpcrcncc and conccpt. Whcrc
conccptsbccomc anautonomousapparatus-andon!yatooIsh
cnthusasm couId cIam that HcgcI aIways rcspccts hs own
canon-thcy nccd tobcbroughtbackntothcntcIIcctuaIcxpc-
rcnccthatmotvatcsthcmandbcmadcvtaI,asthcywouIdIkc
to bcbutarccompuIsvcIyncapabIc otbcng.Onthcothcrhand,
thc prmacy otntcIIcctuaI cxpcrcncc n HcgcI aIso attccts thc
conccptuaI torm. HcgcI, who s accuscd ot panIogsm, antc-
patcs a tcndcncy that dd not bccomc cxpIctmcthodoIogcaIIy
untI thc phcnomcnoIogy otHusscrI and hs schooI a hundrcd
ycars Iatcr. Hs ntcIIcctuaI modc otprocccdng s paradoxcaI.
WhIc t rcmans, to an cxtrcmc dcgrcc, wthn thc mcdum ot
thc conccpt-at thc hghcst IcvcI otabstracton n tcrms otthc
hcrarchyotcomprchcnsvcIogc-t docs notactuaIIyarguc as
though t wantcd thcrcby to cconomzc onthc ob]cctvc contr-
buton ot thought as opposcd to that otcxpcrcncc, whch on
thcothcrhandsntcIIcctuaIcxpcrcnccandcvcntscItthought.
I40
Jhcprogramotpurcon!ookngout!ncdnthcntroducton to
thcPhnomnolo
g
carrcs morc wcghtm Hcgc!'s chctworks than
navc ph!osophca! conscousncss bc!cvcs t to. ccausc as Hc-
gc!conccvcs t a!! phcnomcna-andtorHcgc!'sLogc thccatc-
gorcsot!ogcarc a!so phcnomcna, thngsthat arc mantcstcd,
gvcn, and n that scnsc mcdatcd, somcthng that had a!rcady
bccn !!umnatcd n a passagc n Kant's dcducton-arc nhcr-
cnt!ysprtua!!ymcdatcd, whatsnccdcdnordcrtograspthcm
snotthoughtbutrathcrthcrc!atonshptorwhchthcphcnom-
cno!ogy ot a hundrcd ycars !atcr nvcntcd thc tcrm "sponta-
ncous rcccptvty." Jhc thnkng sub]cct s to bc rc!cascd trom
thought, sncc thought w!! rcdscovcr tsc!tm thc ob]cctthought,
thason!y tobcdcvc!opcd outotthcob]cctandtodcnttytsc!t
m t. Howcvcr sub]cct to crtcsm thsvcwmaybc,Hcgc!'smodc
otprocccdngs organzcd n accordancc wth t. Hcncc hc can
bcundcrstoodon!ywhcnthcndvdua!ana!yscsarcrcadnotas
argumcnts butas dcscrptons ot"mp!cd mcanngs."Ixccpt that
thc !attcr arc conccvcd not as hxcd mcanngs, dca! untcs, n-
varants, as n thc schoo! otHusscrI, but rathcr as nhcrcnt!yn
moton.Hcgc!dstrustsargumcntdccp!y,andwthgoodrcason.
rmar!ybccauscthcda!cctcanknowssomcthngthat5mmc!
!atcr rcdscovcrcd. that anythng that rcmans argumcntaton
cxposcstsc!ttorctutaton.orthsrcasonHcgc!ncccssar!yds-
*"They are merely rules for an understanding whose whole power consists in
thought, consists, that is, in the act whereby it brings the synthesis of a manifold,
given to it from elsewhere in intuition, to the unity of apperception-a faculty,
therefore, which by itself knows nothing whatsoever, but merely combines and
arranges the material of knowledge, that is, the intuition, which must be given
to it by the object. This peculiarity of our understanding, that it can produce a
priori unity of apperception solely by means of the categories, and only by such
and so many, is as little capable of further explanation as why we have just these
and no other functions of judgment, or why space and time are the only forms
of our possible intuition" (Kant, Critique of Pure Reaon, trans. Norman Kemp
Smith, London: MacMillan, 1963, p. 161 [BI45fJ).
I4I
appontsanyoncwhoIookstorhsargumcnts.Ivcnthcgucston
why, whch thc unarmcd rcadcr ottcn tccIs hmscItobIgcd to
askotHcgcI'stranstonsanddcductons,whcrcothcrpossbI-
tcs than thc onc HcgcI puts torth sccm opcn, snappropratc.
Jhc gcncraIorcntatonssctbythcovcraIIntcnton, butwhat
s sad about thc phcnomcna s dcrvcd trom thc phcnomcna
thcmscIvcs, orsatIcast supposcd to bc. Latcgorcs Ikc toun-
datonaIrcIatons" thcmscIvcs taII nto thc HcgcIan daIcctc ot
csscnccandshouIdnotbcprcsupposcd.JhctaskHcgcImposcs
snotthatotanntcIIcctuaItorccdmarch,tsaImostthcoppo-
stc. Jhc dcaI s nonargumcntatvc thought. Hs phIosophy,
whch, as a phIosophy otdcntty strctchcdtothcbrcakng pont,
dcmands thc mostcxtrcmccttortsonthcpartotthought, saIso
daIcctcaInthattmovcswthnthcmcdumotathoughttrccd
tromtcnson.WhcthcrhsphIosophystoIIowcdthroughtothc
cnd dcpcnds on whcthcr ths rcIaxaton s attancd or not. In
ths HcgcI dttcrs protoundIy trom Kantand chtc, aIso,tobc
surc, trom thc ntutonsm hc attackcd n 5chcIIng. Hcbrokc
up thc dchotomy bctwccn thcss and argumcnt as hc dd aII
rgd dchotomcs. or hm argumcnts not somcthng subsd-
ary, as sottcn thc casc n phIosophy, somcthng thatbccomcs
dspcnsabIc as soonas thc thcsshasbccnbrmIycstabIshcd. In
hs works thcrc arc ncthcr thcscs nor argumcnts, HcgcI madc
tunotthcscs, caIIng thcm dcta."Jhconc s,vrtuaIIy, aIways
thc othcraswcII. thcargumcntsthcprcdcatonotwhatsomc-
thng s, hcncc thcss, thc thcss s synthcss through]udgmcnt,
hcnccargumcnt.
KcIaxaton otconscousncssas anapproachmcans notward-
ngottassocatonsbutopcnngthcundcrstandngto thcm. Hc-
gcIcanbcrcadonIyassocatvcIy. Atcvcrypontoncmust try to
admt as many possbItcs tor what s mcant, as many conncc-
tons to somcthngcIsc, as may arsc. A ma]orpart otthcwork
I42
otthc productvc magnaton consstsnths. AtIcasta porton
otthccncrgywthoutwhchonccannomorcrcad thanonccan
wthout rcIaxaton s uscd to shakc othc automatc dscpInc
that s rcgurcd tor purc conccntaton on thc ob]cct and that
thcrcby casIy msscs thc ob]cct. or HcgcI, assocatvcthought
s groundcd n thc thng tscIt. Dcsptc hs dccIaratons to thc
contrary n thc Philosophy of Right, both HcgcI's conccpton ot
thc truth as somcthng n thc proccss otbccomng and hs ab-
sorpton ot cmprcaI rcaIty nto thc Itc ot thc conccpt tran-
sccndcd thc dvson ot phIosophy nto systcmatc phIosophy
andhstorcaIphIosophy. Aswcknow, sprt, thcsubstratumot
hsphIosophy, s notntcndcdto bcascparatc, sub]cctvc dca,
t s ntcndcd to bc rcaI, and ts movcmcnt to bc rcaI hstory.
lcvcrthcIcss, wthncomparabIc tact, cvcn thcIatcrchaptcrsot
thcPhenomenolo
g
rctran trom brutaIIy compactng thc sccncc
otthc cxpcrcncc otconscousncss and that othuman hstory
nto onc anothcr. Jhc two sphcrcs hovcr, touchng, aIongsdc
onc anothcr. In thcLogic, naccordancc wth ts thcmatcs and
nodoubtaIsoundcrthc prcssurcotthcIatcrHcgcI'sncrcasng
rgdty,cxtcrnaIhstorysswaIIowcdupnthc nncrhstorcty
otthc cxposton otthc catcgorcs. ut at Icast thc cxposton
aImost ncvcr torgcts ntcIIcctuaIhstory n thcnarrowcrscnsc.
WhcnthcLogc dcImtstscIttromothcrvcwsotthcsamcsub-
]cct mattcr, t aIways makcs rctcrcncc to thc thcscs that havc
bccn handcd down as part otthc hstory otphIosophy. In ob-
scurc scctons ts gcncraIIy advsabIc to cxtrapoIatc such Ink-
agcs. IarIcr HcgcIan tcxts, such as thc Diferenzchrift or thc
]cnaLogic, shouId bc adduccd. Ottcn thcy ottcr programmatc
tormuIatons otthngs thc Logic wII try to carry out, and thcy
aIIow thcmscIvcs thcrctcrcnccsto thchstoryotphIosophythat
arc Iatcr supprcsscd n thc ntcrcsts otthc dcaI ot thc movc-
mcntotthcconccpt. Jobcsurc, ashadowotambgutyIcsacross
I43
thsIaycrotHcgcI'sworkaswcII.ut]ustasthcgrcatsystcmatc
rcdcctonstccdonmpuIscstromthchstorcaI,sothcIattcrar
nducnccd n thcr coursc by thc systcmatc. Jhcy arc scIdom
tuIIy cxhaustcd by thc phIosophcaIdca to whch thcy aIIudc.
Jhcyarcorcntcdmorcbyob]cctvcntcrcstthanby anntcrcst
nso-caIIcd cncountcrs"wthbooks. IvcnnthcDiferenzchrift
onc docs not aIways know tor ccrtan what s drcctcd aganst
KcnhoId, whataganstchtc, and whataIrcadyaganst 5chcII-
ng,whoscstandpont,whIcstIIoHcaIIydctcndcd,hasaIrcady
bccn transccndcd ntcIIcctuaIIy. 5uch gucstons couId bc rc-
soIvcdby HcgcI phIoIogy tthcrc wcrc such a thng. \ntI that
timc ntcrprctaton n tcrms otthc hstory otphIosophy ought
to strvc tor thc samc cathoIcty otntcrprctaton as systcmatc
ntcrprctaton.
HstorcaI assocatons, morcovcr, arc byno mcans thc onIy
oncsthatarscnconnccton wthHcgcI. Lctmc suggcstatIcast
onc othcr dmcnson otassocatons. HcgcI's dynamc s tscIta
dynamc othxcd and dynamc cIcmcnts. Jhs scparatcs hmr-
rcconcIabIy trom thc knd otvtaIst bow" to whch DIthcy's
mcthod dIutcs hm. Jhc conscgucnccs otthstor hs structurc
shouIdbccxpIorcd. Muchmorcnvarancchndstswayntothc
conccptnmotonthan anyoncwhohas tooundaIcctcaIacon-
ccpton otthc noton otthcdaIcctctscItwouId cxpcct. How-
cvcrmuch thc doctrnc otthccatcgorcssncgatcdntsdctaIs,
HcgcI's conccpton otan dcntty wthn thc whoIc, otthc sub-
]cct-ob]cct, rcgurcs that doctrnc. or aII thc rchncss otwhat
Marx,namuscaI mctaphor, caIIcdHcgcI'sgrotcsguccragmcI-
ody,'thc numbcr othsmottsshntc. Howcvcr paradoxcaIt
maybc, thc task otcstabIshngacataIogucotthcnvariantcIc-
mcnts n HcgcIandworkngout thcrrcIatonshp to thosc that
arcnmotonsan'urgcntonc. ItwouIdscrvc undcrstandngas
wcII as provdc a pcdagogcaI ad, aIthough otcoursc t wouId
I44
do so onIy n undmnshcd conscousncss otthc onc-sdcdncss
thataccordng to HcgcI stscItuntruth. Jhc rcadngotHcgcI
must makc a vrtuc otappropraton out otthc ncccssty otthc
dsturbngcIattcr about whosc prcscncc n cIasscaI musc Kch-
ard Wagncr madc an anaIogouscompIant. In thc mostdthcuIt
passagcs ts hcIptuI to assocatc trom onc's knowIcdgc otHc-
gcI's nvarants, whch hc ccrtanIy dd not pont outand whch
may bc cmbcddcd n hs work aganst hs wII, to thc possbIc
bass otthc ndvduaI rcmarkat hand. Ottcna comparson bc-
twccn thc gcncraI mott and thc spccbc wordng suppIcs thc
mcanng. JhcunorthodoxovcrvcwotthcwhoIc wthoutwhch
onc cannot do ths rcgutcs HcgcI tor bcng unabIc to opcratc
orthodoxIy hmscIt. Whcrcas HcgcI, Ikc trcc thought n gcn-
craI, s nconccvabIcwthouta pIaytuI cIcmcntto whchoncowcs
thc assocatons, thcIattcrarc onIy a partaI momcnt. Jhcr op-
postc poIcsthccxactwordng. JhcsccondIcvcIotappropra-
ton nvoIvcs tryng thc assocatons out on thc wordng,
cImnatngthoscthatcontradctt,andIcavngthoscthatarcn
accordanccwthtandthatIIumnatcthc dctaIs. In addtonto
thskndottruttuIncss,thccrtcron torcvaIuatngassocatons
s that thcy arc compatbIc not onIy wthwhats thcrc butwth
thc contcxt as wcII. In thcsc tcrms, rcadng HcgcI s an cxpcr-
mcntaI proccdurc. onc aIIows possbIc ntcrprctatons to comc
to mnd, proposcs thcm, and comparcs thcm wth thc tcxt and
wthwhathasaIrcadybccnrcIabIyntcrprctcd. Jhought, whch
ncccssarIy movcs away trom thc tcxt, tromwhats sad, has to
rcturntotandbccomccondcnscd wthnt.]ohnDcwcy, acon-
tcmporary thnkcr who tor aII hs postvsm s cIoscr to HcgcI
thanthcrtwoaIIcgcdstandpontsarctooncanothcr,caIIcdhs
phIosophy "cxpcrmcntaIsm. " 5omcthng otths stancc s ap-
propratc tor thc rcadcr otHcgcI. Atthc currcnt stagc otHc-
gcI's hstorcaIuntoIdng, such sccond-ordcr cmprcsm wouId
I45
brng out thc Iatcnt postvstc momcnt contancd, tor aII Hc-
gcI'snvcctvcsaganstnarrow-mndcd rcbcctvcthought,nhs
phIosophy's stubborn nsstcncc on what s. Hc who prcsumcs
toscck sprtn thcguntcsscnccotwhats thcrcbybows to thc
Iattcr morc dccpIy than hc admts. HcgcI'sdcaI otrcconstruc-
tonsnotabsoIutcIydstncttromthcsccntbcdcaI. amongthc
unrcsoIvcd contradctons n thc HcgcIan daIcctc, ths s pcr-
haps thc oncrchcstnmpIcatons. HcgcIprovokcs thc cxpcr-
mcntaImcthod,whchsothcrwscrccommcndcdonIybypurc
nomnaIsts. Jo rcad hmcxpcrmcntaIIys to]udgc hm by hs
owncrtcron.
ut what ths says s that no rcadng ot HcgcI can do hm
]ustcc wthout crtczng hm. Jhc noton thatcrtguc s a scc-
ondIcvcIcrcctcdonatoundatonotundcrstandng,andcadc-
rvcd trom pcdagogcaI pIattudcs and authortaran prc]udcc,
s n gcncraI taIsc. hIosophy tscIttakcs pIacc wthn thc pcr-
mancntds]unctonbctwccnthctrucandthctaIsc.\ndcrstand-
ngtakcs pIaccaIongwth tand accordngIy aIways aIso bccomcs,
ncttcct,acrtguc otwhatstobcundcrstoodwhcnthcproccss
ot undcrstandng compcIs a dttcrcnt]udgmcnt than thc onc
thatstobcundcrstood. IIsnotthcworstrcadcrwhoprovdcs
thcbookwthdsrcspccttuI notcs n thc margn. Jhcrc snonccd
to dcny thc gcdagogcaI dangcr that n dong so studcnts may
gct nvoIvcd n cmpty words and dIc spccuIaton and cIcvatc
thcmscIvcs abovc thcmattcrathandnnarcssstccomtort, but
thathasnothngto dowthwhatsthccasccpstcmoIogcaIIy. It
s up to thc tcachcr to protcctthc ntcrpIay otundcrstandng
andcrtcsmtromdcgcncratngntoprctcntouscmptncss.Whcn
tcomcs to HcgcI, a partcuIarIy hgh dcgrcc otsuch ntcrpIay
mustbcdcmandcd. Indcatons abouthowtorcadhmarcncc-
cssarIymmancnt.JhcyarcamcdathcIpngto cxtractthcob-
]cctvc substancc trom hs tcxts nstcad otphIosophzng about
I46
hs ph!osophy trom thc outsdc. Jhcrc s no othcr way to gct
nto contact wth thc mattcr at hand. Jhc mmancnt approach
nccd nottcarthc ob]ccton thattswthouta pcrspcctvc, mo!-
!usk!kcandrc!atvstc. Idcas thathavcconbdcncc n thcrown
ob]cctvty havc to surrcndcrva banque, wthoutmcnta!rcscrva-
tons, to thc ob]cct n whch thcy mmcrsc thcmsc!vcs, cvcn t
that ob]cct s anothcr dca, ths s thc nsurancc prcmum thcy
pay tor not bcng a systcm. Jransccndcnt crtguc avods trom
thcoutsctthccxpcrcnccotwhatsothcrthantsownconscous-
ncss. Itwas transccndcnt and not mmancntcrtguc that took
upthc standpontaganstboththcrgdtyand thcarbtrarncss
otwhchph!osophyturncdncgua!mcasurc. Jransccndcntcr-
tguc sympathzcs wth authorty n ts vcry torm, cvcn bctorc
cxprcssnganycontcnt, thcrc s amomcntotcontcnt to thc torm
tsc!t. Jhc cxprcsson as a . . . , I . . . ," n whch onc can nscrt
anyorcntaton, tromda!cctca!matcra!smto rotcstantsm,s
symptomatcotthat. Anyoncwho]udgcssomcthngthathasbccn
artcu!atcd and c!aboratcd-art or ph!osophy-by prcsuppos-
tonsthatdonotho!dwthntsbchavngnarcactonaryman-
ncr, cvcn whcn hc swcars by progrcssvc s!ogans. In contrast,
thc c!am Hcgc! makcs tor hs mmancnt movcmcnt-that t s
thctruth-s notaposton.Jothscxtcntthatmovcmcntsn-
tcndcdto!cadoutbcyondts purcmmancncc, a!thoughtor ts
partthc!attcrtoohas to bcgnwthnthc!mtatonsotastand-
pont.Hcwhocntrustshmsc!ttoHcgc!w!!bc!cdtothcthrcsh-
o!d at whch a dccson must bc madc about Hcgc!'s c!am to
truth. Hcbccomcs Hcgc!'scrtcbyto!!ownghm. rom thc pont
otvcw otundcrstandng, thcncomprchcnsb!c n Hcgc! s thc
scar!cttbydcntty-thnkng. Hcgc!'s da!cctca!ph!osophy gcts
nto a da!cctc t cannot account tor and whosc so!uton s bc-
yond ts omnpotcncc. Wthn thc systcm, and n tcrms otthc
!aws otthc systcm, thc truth otthc nondcntca! mantcststsc!t
I47
as crror, as unrcso!vcd, nthcothcrscnscotbcngunmastcrcd,
as thc untruth otthc systcm, and nothngthatsuntruc can bc
undcrstood. Jhus thc ncomprchcnsb!ccxp!odcsthcsystcm. or
a!! hs cmphass on ncgatvty, dvson, and nondcntty, Hcgc!
actua!!y takcs cognzancc otthatdmcnson on!ytorthc sakc ot
dcntty, on!yasannstrumcntotdcntty.Jhcnondcnttcsarc
hcav!y strcsscd, but not acknow!cdgcd, prccsc!y bccausc thcy
arcsochargcdwthspccu!aton.Ast naggantccrcdtsystcm,
cvcry ndvdua! pccc s to bcndcbtcd to thc othcr-nondcn-
tca!-and yct thc who!c s to bc trcc otdcbt, dcntca!. Jhs s
whcrc thc dca!st da!cctc commts ts ta!!acy. It says, wth pa-
thos, nondcntty. londcnttys to bc dcbncd torts own sakc,
assomcthnghctcrogcncous. utbydchnngtnoncthc!css, thc
da!cctcmagncs tsc!tto havcgoncbcyondnondcnttyandto
bc assurcd otabso!utc dcntty. Lcrtan!y what s nondcntca!
and unknownbccomcs dcntca! as wc!!n bcng known, and n
bcng comprchcndcd, thc nonconccptua! bccomcs thc conccpt
otthcnondcntca!. ut thc nondcntca!tsc!tdocs notmcrc!y
bccomc a conccpt by vrtuc ot such rcbccton, t rcmans thc
contcnt otthc conccpt, dstnct trom thc conccpt. Onc cannot
movc trom thc!ogca! movcmcnt otconccpts to cxstcncc. Ac-
cordngtoHcgc!thrcsaconsttutvcnccdtorthcnondcntca!
n ordcrtorcouccpts, dcntty, to comc nto bcng,]ustas con-
vcrsc!ythcrcsanccdtorthcconccptnordcrtobccomcawarc
otthc nonconccptua!, thc nondcntca!. ut Hcgc! vo!atcs hs
ownconccptotthc da!cctc, whch shou!d bc dctcndcd aganst
hm, by notvo!atng t, by Oosng tottand makng t thc su-
prcmc unty, trcc otcontradcton. Summum ius summa iniuria.
Jhrough thc sub!aton ot thc da!cctc, rccprocty s rcstruc-
turcd to bccomc onc-sdcdncss. lor can onc smp!y !cap trom
rccprocty to thc nondcntca!, that wou!d mcan that da!cctc
hadtorgottcntsundcrstandngotunvcrsa!mcdaton.uton!y
I48
by a M\nchhauscn trck, by puIIng tscIt up by ts own boot-
straps, couId t cImnatc thc momcnt that cannot bc tuIIy ab-
sorbcd, a momcnt thats postcd aIongwtht. Whatcauscsthc
daIcctcprobIcms s thc truth contcnt that nccds to bcdcrvcd
tromt.JhcdaIcctccouIdbcconsstcntonIynsacrbcngcon-
sstcncyby toIIowngts ownIogcto thc cnd. Jhcsc, and noth-
ngIcss, arcthcstakcsn undcrstandngHcgcI.
Notes
References to Hegel's works are noted as follows: the reference to the German
edition cited by Adorno is given first, followed by the reference to the published
English translation, if one has been used in the text. Where no reference to an
English-language publication is given, the translation in the text is my own. Adoro
cites the JubiHiumsausgabe of Hegel's works reissued under the editorship of
Hermann Glockner and published by the Friedrich Frommann Verlag between
1927 and 1965. In these notes the following abbreviations have been used:
.
WW 1: Aufsatze aus dem kritischenJournal der Philosophie (und andere Schrif
ten aus der Jenenser Zeit)
WW 2: Phanomenologie des Geistes
WW 3: Philosophische Propadeutik
WW 4: Wissenschaft der Logik, 1 . Teil
WW 5: Wissenschaft der Logik, 2. Teil
WW 7: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts
WW 8: System der Philosophie, I. Teil
WW 9: System der Philosophie, II. Teil
WWl O: System der Philosophie, III. Teil
WWl l : Vorlesungen fiber die Philosophie der Geschichte
I50
Notes
W12: Vorlesungen liber die Aesthetik, 1. Bd.
W15: Vorlesungen liber die Philosophie der Religion, 1. Bd.
W16: Vorlesungen liber die Philosophie der Religion, 2. Bd.
W17: Vorlesungen liber die Geschichte der Philosophie, 1. Bd.
For references to published English translations of Hegel's works, the following
abbreviations have been used:
Difference: The Diference between Fichte's and Schelling's System ofPhilosophy, trans.
and ed. W. Cerf and H. S. Harris (Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1977).
Phenomenology: The Phenomenology ofSpirit, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977).
Propaedeutic: The Philosophical Propaedeutic, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Black
well, 1986).
Logic: The Science ofLogic, trans. A. V. Miller (London: George Allen & Unwin;
New York: Humanities Press, 1969).
Right: The Philosophy ofRight, trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1942).
LogidEncyclopedia I: Logic: Part One ofthe Encclopaedia ofthe Philosophical Sci
ences, trans. William Wallace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).
Nature/Encyclopedia II: Philosophy ofNature: Part Two ofthe Encylopaedia ofthe
Philosohical Sciences, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).
Mind/Encyclopedia III: Philosophy ofMind: Part Three ofthe Encclopaedia ofthe
Philosophical Sciences, trans. William Wallace and A. V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1971).
Philosophy of History: Lectures on the Philosophy ofHistory, trans. J. Sibree (Lon
don: George Bell & Sons, 1894).
Aesthetics: Hegel's Aesthetics, trans. T. M. Knox, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford Univer
sity Press, 1975).
I 5I
NotestoPagesxi~I6
Philosophy of Religion: Lectures on the Philosophy ofReligion, trans. E. B. Speirs
andJ. B. Sanderson, in three volumes (New York: The Humanities Press, 1962).
History of Philosophy: Lectures on the History ofPhilosophy, trans. E. S. Haldane
and Frances H. Simson (New York: The Humanities Press, 1955).
The translation of the German word Begrffhas been consistently changed from
"notion" to "concept" in quoted passages.
Introduction
1. These studies include Marcuse's Hegel's Ontology and the Foundations ofa Theory
ofHistorcity, his Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rie ofSocial Theor, his anal
yses of Marx's early writings, and his Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry
. into Freud; Habermas's Knowledge and Human Interests, which deals with Kant,
Hegel, Marx, Peirce, Dilthey, and Nietzsche, and his Theory ofCommunicative Ac
tion, which deals with Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Mead, Parsons, Adorno, Hork
heimer, and Lukacs; and Adorno's Kierkegaard, Metacritique of Epistemology
(Husserl),jargon ofAuthenticity (Heidegger), Negative Dialectics (Kant, Hegel, Hei
degger), and Hegel: Three Studies.
2. This is the basis on which Fredric Jameson in his Late Marism: Adoro, or, the
Persistence ofthe Dialectic, has recently proposed Adorno as a model dialectical
thinker for the 1990s and predicted a revival of an "unfamiliar materialist-math
ematical" Hegel as well.
Aspects of Hegel's Philosophy
1. Hegel, WW 19, p. 61 1 ; History of Philosophy III, p. 479.
2. Ibid., p. 613; History ofPhilosophy III, p. 481 [translation altered].
3. Ibid., p. 615; Histor of Philosophy III, p. 483.
4. Richard Kroner, Von Kant bi Hegel, vol. 2 (Tibingen: Mohr, 1924),
p. 279.
5. Cf. J. G. Fichte, Science of Knowledge (Wissenschaftslehre), trans. Peter Heath
and John Lachs, frst and second introductions (New York: Appleton-Century
Crofts, 1970).
6. Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Bais ofMorality, trans. E. F. J. Payne (Indian
apolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), p. 63.
I52
NotestoPages I7~37
7. Hegel, W 10, p. 305; Mind/Encyclopedia III, p. 187.
8. Karl Marx, Early Writings, trans. and ed. T. B. Bottomore (New York: Mc
Graw-Hill, 1964), p. 202.
9. Cf. Hegel, W 4, p. 588f. ; Logic, p. 472f.
10. Cf. the conclusion of the essay "Skoteinos," in this volume.
1 1 . Hegel, W 2, p. 30; Phenomenology, p. 15.
12. Ibid., p. 1 71 ; Phenomenology, p. 130.
13. Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," in The Mar-Engel Reader, ed.
Robert Tucker (New York: Norton, 1972), pp. 382-383.
14. Cf. Kroner, p. 404f.
15. Hegel, W 2, p. 531 ; Phenomenology, p. 421 .
16. Cf. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adprno, Dialectic ofEnlightenment
(New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), pp. 25-26.
17. Hegel, W 7, p. 319f. ; Right, pars. 245 and 246, p. 151.
18. Ibid., p. 322f.; Right, par. 249. p. 152.
19. Ibid., p. 396; Right, par. 288, p. 1 89.
20. Hegel, W 2, p. 23; Phenomenology, p. 10.
21 . Hegel, W 4, p. 87; Logic, p. 81.
22. Ibid., p. 87f.; Logic, p. 82.
23. Hegel, W 8, p. 204; LogiclEncclopedia I, p. 158.
24. Hegel, W 4, p. 1 10; Logic, p. 99.
25. Ibid., p. 107; Logic, p. 97.
26. Hegel, W 8, p. 91 ; LogiclEncclopedia I, p. 53.
27. Ibid., p. 35.
28. Hegel, W 2, p. 25; Phenomenolog, pp. 1 1-12.
I53
NotestoPages
29. Ibid., p. 46; Phenomenolog, p. 28.
30. Ibid., p. 22; Phenomenology, pp. 9-10.
31. Hegel, W 10, p. 17; Mind/Encclopedia III, p. 6.
32. Hegel, W 8, p. 372; Logic/Encclopedia I, p. 305.
33. Hegel, W 4, p. 46; Logic, p. 50.
34. Hegel, W 2, p. 38f.; Phenomenolog, pp. 22-23.
35. Hegel, WW 7, p. 387f. ; Right, par. 280, p. 184-185.
36. Cf
.
Kroner, p. 386.
37. Hegel, WW 2, p. 479; Phenomenolog, pp. 379-380.
38. Kuno Fischer, Hegets Leben, Werke und LeIwe, Part 1 (Heidelberg: C. Winter,
1901), p. 87; English in Walter Kaufmann, Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Com
mentary (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965), p. 329.
The Experiential Content of Hegel's Philosophy
1. Martin Heidegger, Hegel's Concept ofExperience (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1970), p. 1 13.
2. Ibid., p. 120.
3. Hegel, WW 2, p. 613; Phenomenology, p. 487.
4. Ibid., p. 78; Phenomenology, p. 55.
5. Cf. this volume, pp. 9-10.
6. Hegel, W 9, p. 58; Nature/Encclopedia II, p. 19.
7. Hegel, W 15, p. 1 74; Philosophy ofReligion I, p. 162.
8. Hegel, W 19, p. 283; History ofPhilosophy III, p. 176.
9. Hegel, W 8, p. 5c; Logic/Encclopedia I, p. 12.
1 0. Ibid., p. 172; Logic/Encclopedia I, p. 130.
I 54
NotestoPages59~82
1 1 . Ibid., p. 1 81 ; Logic/Encyclopedia I, p. 138.
12. Cf. Hegel, W 8, par. 213, p. 423f; d. Logc/Encclopedia I, par 213,
p. 352f
.
13. Hegel, W 1 , p. 54f; Diference, pp. 97-98.
14. Hegel, WW 1 2, p. 207; Aesthetics, p. 149.
15. Hegel, W 17, p. 69; History ofPhilosophy I, p. 40.
16. Hegel, W 8, p. 57; Logc/Encyclopedia I, p. 20.
17. Cf
.
Hegel, W 19, p. 606; d. Histor ofPhilosophy III, p. 473.
18. Hegel, W 3, p. 125; Propaedeutic, p. 84.
19. Hegel, W 18, p. 341 .
21. Immanuel Kant, T Crtique ofPure Reason, preface to the 2nd edition, trans.
Norman Kemp-Smith (London: Macmillan, 1963), p. 29.
22. Hegel, W 8, p. 36.
23. Cf. Hegel, W 2, p. 46ff; cf. Phenomenology, p. 30.
24. Friedrich Nietzsche, Aus der Zeit der Morgenrithe und der frihlichen Wissenschaft
1880-1882, Gesammelte Werke, Musarionsausgabe, vol. 1 1 (Munich: Musarion
Verlag, 1924), p. 22.
25. Hegel, W 8, p. 220; Logic/Encyclopedia I, p. 173.
26. Ibid., p. 173; Logic/Encclopedia I, p. 130.
27. Hegel, W 16, p. 309; Philosophy ofReligion III, p. 1 01 .
29. Hegel, W 1, p. 527.
30. Cf. Hegel, W 1 1 , p. 49; Philosophy ofHistor, p. 22.
31. Cf Georg Lukacs, Realism in Our Time, trans. John and N ecke Mander (New
York: Harper and Row, 1964); and Theodor W. Adorno, "Extorted Reconcilia-
I55
NotestoPages84~I03
tion: On Georg Lukacs' Realism in Our Time," i n Notes t o Literture I, trans. Shierry
Weber Nicholsen (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), p. 216ff.
32. Theodor W. Adorno, "From a Letter to Thomas Mann on His Die Betro
gene, " in Notes to Literture, vol. 2, trans. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1992), pp. 320-321.
Skoteios
1. Hegel, WW 4, p. 493; Logic, p. 400.
2. Hegel, WW 1 , p. 60; Diference, pp. 102-103.
3. Cf. this volume, pp. 50-51 .
4. Hegel, WW 8, par. 2 12, addition p. 422; Logc/Encclopedia I , pp. 351-352.
5. Cf. J. M. E. McTaggart, A Commentar on Hegel's Logc (Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press, 1931).
6. Hegel, WW 7, par. 157, p. 236f.; Right, p. 1 l 0.
7. Cf. Hegel, WW 1, p. 56f; cf. Difference, pp. 99-100.
8. Hegel, WW 4, p. 488; Logic, p. 396.
9. Rene Descartes, Prnciples of Philosophy, trans. Valentine Rodger Miller and
Reese P. Miller, (Dordrecht: Dr. Reidel, 1984), p. 20.
.
10. Descartes, Oeuvres, Principia Philosophiae, vol. 3 (Paris, 1905, frst part), p.
2lf.
1 1 . Immanuel Kant, The Crtie ofPure Reason, preface to the 2nd edition, trans.
Norman Kemp-Smith (London: Macmillan, 1963), p. 373 (B415).
12. Descartes, "Discourse on Method," trans. by John Veitch, in The Rationalists
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), p. 63.
13. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1922), p. 1 89.
14. Hegel, WW 1 7, p. 348; Hitory of Philosophy I, pp. 281-282.
15. Cf. Edmund Husser!, Idea: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans.
W. R. Boyce Gibson (New York: Collier, 1962), p. 1 88.
I56
NotestoPages I03~I25
16. Ibid., p. 185.
17. Ibid. , p. 189.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., p. 1 90.
20. H. G. Hotho, Vorstudien fur Leben und Kunst (Stuttgart and Tiibingen, 1835),
p. 386; English in Walter Kaufmann, Hegel (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965),
p. 351 .
21 . Cf. Friedrich Uberweg, Grndriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 4, revised
by T. K. Oesterreich (Berlin: Mittler, 1 923), p. 87.
22. Hegel, WW 5, p. 5; Logic, p. 577.
23. Ibid., p. 13f; Logic, p. 583.
24. Hegel, WW 4, p. 536; Logic, p. 432.
25. Ibid., p. 658f; Logic, p. 526.
26. Hegel, WW 2, p. 619; Phenomenolog, p. 492.
27. Hegel, WW 10, par. 41 1 , p. 246f; Mind/Encyclopedia Ill, p. 147.
28. Hegel, WW 3, p. 2 1 1 ; Propaedeutic, p. 157.
29. Hegel, WW 5, p. 203; Logic, p. 729.
30. Hegel, WW 2, p. 390; Phenomenology, p. 308.
31 . Ibid., p. 405; Phenomenology, p. 321 .
32. Hotho, p. 384f; English i n Kaufmann, Hegel, p. 351 .
33. Hegel, WW 4, p. 87; Logc, p. 82.
34. Ibid. , p. 665; Logc, p. 531 .
35. Cf. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic ofEnlightenment,
(New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), p. 25ff.
36. Hegel, WW 7, par 3, p. 43f; Right, pp. 16-17.
I57
NotestoPages I 26~I43
)7. Gustav Riimelin, Reden und AuJitze (Tiibingen, 1875), p. 48f, quoted in
Uberweg, p. 77.
38. Hegel, W 5, p. 328; Logic, p. 824.
39. Ibid., p. 240; Logic, p. 758.
40. Ibid., p. 240f; Logic, p. 758.
41 . Ibid., p. 329; Logic, p. 825.
42. Ibid., p. 352f; Logic, p. 843.
43. Hegel, W 7, par. 280, p. 387ff; Right, pp. 184, 288-289.
44. Hotho, p. 386f; English in Kaufmann, Hegel, pp. 351-352 (translation
amended).
45. Hegel, W 2, p. 44f; Phenomenolog, pp. 27-28.
46. Cf. Hegel, WW 4, p. 665f and W 5, p. 212; cf. Logic, pp. 53lf and 736.
47. Hegel, W 4, p. 552; Logic, pp. 444-445.
48. Hegel, W 5, p. 343ff; Logic, pp. 836-838.
49. Cf. Karl Marx, Die Fchrifen, ed. Siegfried Landshut (Stuttgart: A. Kroner,
1953), p. 7.
Name Index
Adorno, Theodor W., ix-xxxiii
Anaximander, 86
Aristotle, 18, 54, 82
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 136
Benjamin, Walter, xvi, xxxii, 133
Bergson, Henri, 55, 72-73, 75
Borchardt, Rudolf, xxix
Carnap, Rudolf, x, xiii
Croce, Benedetto, x, 1
Descartes, Rene, xiii, xxv-xxvii, 96-
100, 102n
Dewey, John, x, 28, 144
Diderot, Denis, 1 18
Dilthey, Wilhelm, 60, 82, 143
Duns Scotus,.John, 35
Durkheim, Emile, 63
Eckermann, Johann Peter, 43
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 3, 8, 1 1-16,
19, 45-46, 60, 62, 64-65, 66, 71,
127, 141, 143
Freud, Sigmund, x
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 43,
50, 62, 66, 134
Habermas, Jirgen, ix, xii
Heidegger, Martin, x, 32, 35, 53, 56,
1 15
Heine, Christian Johann Heinrich,
46
Heraclites, xxv, 102
Hitler, Adolf, 10
Holderlin, Johann Christian Fried
rich, 68, 90, 122
Horkheimer, Max, ix, xii, xviii, xxxv,
.43, 1 18
Hotho, H. G., xxx-xxxi, 120-121
Humboldt, Karl Wilhelm von, 1 18
Hume, David, 57
Husserl, Edmund, x, xiii, 7, 14, 34,
35, 55, 97n, 103-104, 139-140
Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich, 34
Kant, Immanuel, ix, x, xiii, xviii-xix,
xx, 1 , 6, 8, 9, 1 1 , 14-19, 32, 36,
41, 44, 54, 59, 62, 64-65, 66-67,
68, 71-72, 76-77, 86, 94, 96, 97-
9 122, 1 26-127, 133, 140-141
Kierkegaard, Soren, ix, x, xxviii, 8,
49, 51
Kohler, Wolfgang, 4
Kroner, Fchard, 3, 14, 36, 41, 47
Lask, Emil, 36
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 9, 68, 81,
97
Lukacs, Georg, xiv, 82
McTaggart, J. M. E., 93
Maimon, Salomon, 75
I60
Index
Mann, Thomas, 83
Marcuse, Herbert, ix, xi-xiv, xvii, xx
Marx, Karl, ix, x, xi, xiii, xiv, xxi,
xxiv, 18, 23, 80, 123, 143
Nietzsche, Friedrich, ix, x, 35, 47,
76-78
Parmenides, 41
Plato, 6, 9, 54, 1 1 3
Proust, Marcel, 84
Reinhold, Karl Leonhard, 143
Rimeiin, Gustav, 126
Santayana, George, 28
Sartre, Jean-Paul, x
Scheier, Max, 5, 129
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph
von, ix-x, 3, 5, 8, 60, 62, 70, 122,
137, 141, 143
Schiller, Johann Christoph Friedrich
von, ix, x
Schopenhauer, Arthur, ix, x, 16, 45,
49, 63, 64, 82, 89, 91
Tucher, Maria von, 51
Uberweg, Friedrich, 1 10
Veblen, Thorstein, 28
Voltaire, Fran<ois-Marie Arouet de,
1 18
Wagner, Richard, 62, 74, 144
Weber, Max, x
Whitehead, Alfred North, 102n
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, x, xii, xix,
101-102
Studies in Contemporary Um Social Thought
Jhomas McLarthy, Gcncra! Idtor
TheodorW.Adorno,Against Epistemology: A Metacrtique
TheodorW.Adorno,Hegel: Three Studies
TheodorW.Adorno,Prisms
Kar|-OttoApel,Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental
Pragmatic Perspective
Sey|aBenhabibandFredDa||mayr,editors,The Communicative Ethics
Controversy
Richard). Bernstein,editor,Habermas and Moderity
ErnstB|och,Natural Law and Human Dignity
ErnstB|och,The Principle ofHope
ErnstB|och,The Utopian Function ofArt and Literature: Selected Essays
HansB|umenberg,The Genesi ofthe Coperican World
Hans B|umenberg,The Legitimacy ofthe Moder Age
Hans B|umenberg,Work on Myth
SusanBuck-Morss,The Dialectics ofSeeing: Walter Benjamin and the Ar-
cadesProject
CraigCa|houn,editor,Haberma; and the Public Sphere
)ean CohenandAndrewArato,Civil Society and Political Theory _
He|mutDubiel,Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development ofCrtical
Theory
)ohnForester,editor,Crtical Theory and Public Lie
DavidFrisby,Fragment of Moderity: Theories of Moderity in the Work of
Simmel, Kracauer and Benjamin
Hans-GeorgGadamer ,Philosophical Apprenticeships
Hans-GeorgGadamer,Reaon in the Age ofScience
)tirgen Habermas, jutqcation and Application: Remarks on Discourse
Ethics
)tirgenHabermas,On the Logic ofthe Social Sciences
)tirgenHabermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action
)|rgen Habermas, The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the His
torians' Debate
)tirgenHabermas,The Philosophical Discourse ofModerity: Twelve Lec
tures
)tirgenHabermas,Philosophical-Political Profles
)tirgen Habermas,Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays
)tirgenHabermas,The Structural Transformation ofthe Public Sphere: An
Inquir into a Category ofBourgeois Society
)tirgen Habermas,editor,Observations on "The Spiritual Situation ofthe
Age"
AxelHonneth,The Critique ofPower: Refective Stages in a Critical Social
Theory
AxelHonnethand Hans)oas,editors,Communicative Action: Essays on
Jurgen Habermas's TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction
Axel Honneth,ThomasMcCarthy, ClausOffe,andAlbrechtWellmer,
editors,Cultural-Political Interventions in the Unfnished Project ofEnlight
enment
AxelHonneth,ThomasMcCarthy,ClausOffe,and AlbrechtWellmer,
editors,Philosophical Interventions in the Unfnished Project ofEnlighten
ment
MaxHorkheimer,Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early
Writings
Hans)oas,G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of His Thought
ReinhartKoselleck,Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogene
sis ofModer Society
ReinhartKoselleck,Futures Past: On the Semantics ofHistorical Time
HarryLiebersohn,Fate and Utopia in Geran Sociology, 1887-1923
HerbertMarcuse,Hegel's Ontolog and the Theory ofHistoricity
GilG. NoamandThomasWren,editors,The Moral Self Building a
Better Paradigm
GuyOakes,Weber and Rickert: Concept Foration in the Cultural Sciences
ClausOffe,Contradictions ofthe Welare State
ClausOffe,Disorganized Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of
Work and Politics
HelmutPeukert,Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology: Toward a
Theolog of Communicative Action
)oachimRitter,Hegel and the French Revolution: Essays on the Philosophy
ofRight
AlfredSchmidt,History and Structure: An Essay on Hegelian-Marist and
Structuralit Theories ofHistor
DennisSchmidt,The Ubiquity ofthe Finite: Hegel, Heidegger, and the Enti
tlements of Philosophy
CarlSchmitt,The Crisis of Parliamentary Democrcy
CarlSchmitt,Political Romanticism
CarlSchmitt,Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept ofSover
eignty
Gary Smith,editor,On Walter Benjamin: Critical Essays and Recollections
MichaelTheunissen,The Other: Studies in the Social Ontology ofHusserl,
Heidegger, Sartre, and Buber
ErnstTugendhat,Sel-Consciouness and Sel-Determination
GeorgiaWarnke,Jutice and Interpretation
MarkWarren,Nietzsche and Political Thought
AlbrechtWellmer,The Persitence ofModerity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics
and P ostmoderism
Thomas E. Wren, editor,The Morl Domain: Essays in the Ongoing Dis
cussion between Philosophy and the Social Sciences
ambertZuidervaart,Adoro's Aesthetic Theory: The Redemption ofIllu
szon

Adorno - Hegel, Three Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adorno - Hegel, Three Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

He

hc MI rcss, Cambrdgc, Massachusctts,and

thc ncgatvc and thc

Adorno,and MarcuscaswcII, rcgardcd HcgcI, dcsptc hsob-

naIyss, combncdwth thc coursc otpoItcaI cvcnts, couId not

Jo thc contrary, crtcaI thcoryrcturncd to HcgcI

avy !a Adonoasscs!a !cscdayss!adIy oss5Ic

T!c hs oI !c !cc sudIcs was u5IIs!cd scaacIy 5y

cII,!asany ncanng Io the

ticd o sc!c 5udcn o

aIaI noncns, whIch aIways oInt i-,ooc

, .:s objtiity 1c!c obcctive

IvcandacIcaI !Isconcc ofdcvcIoncnIs,!cIs

agaIn, buIIsccIscIy!Is kIndoIsu5odInaIono!cdIsci

f !c su5jcc ac cxInguIs!cd In !c ob-

nonac aII cncacd !oug! an_oug]_]nq

evIddl cnbccn ccncs, as, sIncc

IIonaI ncahysIcs, !c qucsIonoI an uIInac

g nus 5c dcIva5Ic, 5ccanc

c sIgnIhcancc. HcgcI cc-

was hiddcn in thc twilight oftransccndcntal phcnomcnology,

strcalthingofall,ustwhat Hcgclsaysof tbc

n+bcJatcr1cg, rccognizcd thc

t1ird, as consciousncss tha is awarc of its ow bi

r)iiion thatspiritis prccisclynot an1solatcd

t somc sclf-sufhcicnt substancc, but rathcr a mo-

as thc absolutc. Only a littlc morc woul bc nccdcd~rcmcni-

fcingIdcgiclm t position, taIcn to thc cx-

_inhcrcntincvcry onc ofthcm. This conccpt ofsystcm implics

Civi1 ocictyisanantagonistictotality. Itsurvivcsonlyinand

It is intcndcd to allay somcthing that could not othcrwisc bc

cannot bc dcvclopcd or dcduccd fvom mcrc

Thc absolutcncss of spirit, as opposcd to any-

Hcgcl kncw carlyonthat

contcnt. Initially, thc conccpt ofcxpcricnccwillbc lcftundc-

gly, thc Bcing into which cxistcntial ontology displaccs thc

Dialcctical contradiction is cxpcricnccd in thc cxpcricncc of

anddcsptchs much-ctcd optmsm

In thc dthcuIty Dcscartcs notcs, that o!corrcctIy dctcrmnng

othcr mcanngconsttutcd. Onthc

the difference is countedasaduality. . . . Now more pre-

Musc otccthovcn's typc, nwhch dcaIIy thc rcprsc, thc rc-

You might also like