The Dialectic of the Absolute-Hegel's Critique of Transcendent Metaphysics

Markus Gabriel
{"title":"The Dialectic of the Absolute-Hegel's Critique of Transcendent Metaphysics","authors":"Markus Gabriel","doi":"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL2009485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Heidegger famously criticized Hegel's philosophy for being an ontotheological system. The snag Heidegger finds in ontotheology is that it hypostatizes a first principle on which, to quote from Aristotle, \"the universe and nature depend\" (Meta. 1072b13-14). According to Heidegger, Hegel presupposes an absolute in the form of an absolute subjectivity from the very outset of his system; an absolute principle, which accounts for the teleology in the various histories Hegel subsequently reconstructs. Heidegger attacks Hegel because he believes that Hegel draws on a determinate version of the ontological difference which, eventually, defines being as an absolute, self-transparent Geist, and beings as its spiritual manifestations. (1) If Heidegger were right in his interpretation of Hegel, Hegel would actually be defining being as Spirit and would, therefore, be determining it as a peculiar kind of thing instead of understanding it as the process of alterations within the ontological difference that Heidegger envisages with his concept of Being. In order to reassess this criticism one needs to first look at Hegel's concept of the absolute. In what follows, I shall argue that Hegel's conception of the absolute is based on a detailed exposition of the dialectical failure of transcendent metaphysics. Hegel denies that there is an absolute beyond or behind the world of appearance. The world we inhabit is not the appearance of a hidden reality utterly inaccessible to our conceptual capacities. But this claim does not entail any kind of omniscience on the part of the philosopher, as many have suspected. It rather yields the standpoint of immanent metaphysics without any first principle on which totality depends. Moreover, Hegel does not claim to finish the business of philosophy once and for all; on the contrary, his conception of the absolute entails that philosophy is awarded the infinite task of comprehending one's own time in thought. Hegel himself conceives of the absolute as of a process which makes various forms of conceptualizing totality possible. Unlike Heidegger, I do not believe that the concept of the absolute in Post-Kantian Idealism entails a denial of the finitude that looms large in Kant's own system, as Heidegger acknowledges in his Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. (2) One possible way of interpreting the overall internal development of Post-Kantian Idealism is to regard it as an extended commentary on Kant's concept of the \"unconditioned\" in the First Critique. In fact one could easily argue that the whole Post-Kantian movement ought to be understood as a development of the Kantian exposition of the \"transcendental ideal of pure reason\". (3) The epistemological and metaphysical enterprise that is awakened by Kant's analysis of the dialectical consequences of the transcendental ideal primarily depends on a theory of determinacy. However, given that determination cannot be restricted to being a property of concepts qua mental contents or qua tools of sapient creatures like us, such a theory of determinacy must be both logical and ontological. Determination must be in some way out there, in the things themselves, because even if we denied the determinacy of the world, this would still presuppose its intelligibility qua undetermined or unmarked something. Indeed being an unmarked something is as much a determinate predicate as being a particular something. (4) There is no way to oppose mind (concepts, consciousness and what have you) and the world without, at the same time, relating them to one another. Both, mind and world, i.e. the logical and the ontological order have to be determined, at least over against their respective other. In this sense, they depend on each other, a principle Putnam explicitly concedes to Hegel in claiming that \"the mind and the world jointly make up the mind and the world.\" (5) The logical in which mind and world are both distinguished and interdependent can be called the \"unconditioned\", the \"absolute\", or the \"infinite\". …","PeriodicalId":288505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL2009485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Heidegger famously criticized Hegel's philosophy for being an ontotheological system. The snag Heidegger finds in ontotheology is that it hypostatizes a first principle on which, to quote from Aristotle, "the universe and nature depend" (Meta. 1072b13-14). According to Heidegger, Hegel presupposes an absolute in the form of an absolute subjectivity from the very outset of his system; an absolute principle, which accounts for the teleology in the various histories Hegel subsequently reconstructs. Heidegger attacks Hegel because he believes that Hegel draws on a determinate version of the ontological difference which, eventually, defines being as an absolute, self-transparent Geist, and beings as its spiritual manifestations. (1) If Heidegger were right in his interpretation of Hegel, Hegel would actually be defining being as Spirit and would, therefore, be determining it as a peculiar kind of thing instead of understanding it as the process of alterations within the ontological difference that Heidegger envisages with his concept of Being. In order to reassess this criticism one needs to first look at Hegel's concept of the absolute. In what follows, I shall argue that Hegel's conception of the absolute is based on a detailed exposition of the dialectical failure of transcendent metaphysics. Hegel denies that there is an absolute beyond or behind the world of appearance. The world we inhabit is not the appearance of a hidden reality utterly inaccessible to our conceptual capacities. But this claim does not entail any kind of omniscience on the part of the philosopher, as many have suspected. It rather yields the standpoint of immanent metaphysics without any first principle on which totality depends. Moreover, Hegel does not claim to finish the business of philosophy once and for all; on the contrary, his conception of the absolute entails that philosophy is awarded the infinite task of comprehending one's own time in thought. Hegel himself conceives of the absolute as of a process which makes various forms of conceptualizing totality possible. Unlike Heidegger, I do not believe that the concept of the absolute in Post-Kantian Idealism entails a denial of the finitude that looms large in Kant's own system, as Heidegger acknowledges in his Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. (2) One possible way of interpreting the overall internal development of Post-Kantian Idealism is to regard it as an extended commentary on Kant's concept of the "unconditioned" in the First Critique. In fact one could easily argue that the whole Post-Kantian movement ought to be understood as a development of the Kantian exposition of the "transcendental ideal of pure reason". (3) The epistemological and metaphysical enterprise that is awakened by Kant's analysis of the dialectical consequences of the transcendental ideal primarily depends on a theory of determinacy. However, given that determination cannot be restricted to being a property of concepts qua mental contents or qua tools of sapient creatures like us, such a theory of determinacy must be both logical and ontological. Determination must be in some way out there, in the things themselves, because even if we denied the determinacy of the world, this would still presuppose its intelligibility qua undetermined or unmarked something. Indeed being an unmarked something is as much a determinate predicate as being a particular something. (4) There is no way to oppose mind (concepts, consciousness and what have you) and the world without, at the same time, relating them to one another. Both, mind and world, i.e. the logical and the ontological order have to be determined, at least over against their respective other. In this sense, they depend on each other, a principle Putnam explicitly concedes to Hegel in claiming that "the mind and the world jointly make up the mind and the world." (5) The logical in which mind and world are both distinguished and interdependent can be called the "unconditioned", the "absolute", or the "infinite". …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绝对的辩证法——黑格尔对先验形而上学的批判
海德格尔曾批评黑格尔哲学是一种本体神学体系。海德格尔在本体论中发现的障碍是,它将“宇宙和自然所依赖”的第一原则实体化(引用亚里士多德的话)。按照海德格尔的说法,黑格尔从一开始就以绝对主体性的形式预设了一个绝对;这是一个绝对原则,它解释了黑格尔随后重建的各种历史中的目的论。海德格尔攻击黑格尔,因为他相信黑格尔借鉴了本体论差异的决定性版本,最终将存在定义为绝对的,自我透明的精神,并将存在定义为其精神表现。(1)如果海德格尔对黑格尔的解释是正确的,那么,黑格尔实际上是把存在定义为精神,因此,他将把存在确定为一种特殊的东西,而不是把它理解为海德格尔用他的存在概念所设想的本体论差异中的变化过程。为了重新评价这种批判,我们需要先看看黑格尔的绝对概念。在接下来的内容中,我将论证黑格尔的绝对概念是基于对先验形而上学辩证失败的详细阐述。黑格尔否认在表象世界之外或背后有绝对存在。我们所居住的世界并不是我们的概念能力完全无法触及的隐藏现实的表象。但是,这种说法并不像许多人所怀疑的那样,意味着哲学家是无所不知的。相反,它产生了内在形而上学的观点,而没有任何总体性所依赖的第一原则。此外,黑格尔并没有声称要一劳永逸地完成哲学的任务;相反地,他的绝对概念认为哲学的无限任务是在思维中认识自己的时间。黑格尔自己认为,绝对是一个过程,这个过程使各种形式的整体概念化成为可能。与海德格尔不同,我不相信后康德唯心主义中的绝对概念意味着对康德自身体系中隐现的有限性的否定,正如海德格尔在他的《康德与形而上学的问题》中所承认的那样。(2)一种可能的解释后康德唯心主义整体内部发展的方法,是把它看作是对康德在《第一批判》中“无条件”概念的扩展注释。事实上,人们可以很容易地认为,整个后康德运动应该被理解为康德对“纯粹理性的先验理想”的阐述的发展。(3)康德对先验理想的辩证结果的分析所唤醒的认识论和形而上学的事业,主要依赖于决定论理论。然而,既然决定论不能被限制为概念的一种属性、精神意旨或像我们这样的智慧生物的一种工具,那么这种决定论就必须既是逻辑性的又是本体论的。决定论一定以某种方式存在于事物本身之中,因为即使我们否认世界的决定论,这仍将预设世界的可解性是某种未被确定或未被标记的东西。诚然,作为一个没有标记的东西,既是一个特殊的东西,也是一个规定谓词。(4)要把精神(概念、意识等等)和世界对立起来,而不同时把它们彼此联系起来,那是不可能的。精神和世界,即逻辑秩序和本体论秩序,都必须被规定,至少要相对于它们各自的对方来规定。从这个意义上说,它们相互依赖,这是帕特南在声称“心灵和世界共同构成心灵和世界”时明确承认黑格尔的原则。(5)在逻辑中,精神与世界是分别的,又是相互依存的,可以称为“无条件的”、“绝对的”或“无限的”。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emily Dickinson: What Is Called Thinking at the Edge of Chaos? Relational Selves: Gender and Cultural Differences in Moral Reasoning Late Pound: The Case of Canto CVII The Reproduction of Subjectivity and the Turnover-time of Ideology: Speculating with German Idealism, Marx, and Adorno Toward an Ethics of Speculative Design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1