Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T06:15:04.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel's A Priori and the Critique of Three Aprioristic Readings of the Science of Logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2021

Federico Orsini
Federico Orsini*
Affiliation:
Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Brazilplatoniet@yahoo.it
Get access

Abstract

The goal of my essay is to clarify the status of the a priori in Hegel's Science of Logic. My claim is that in order to make possible an appreciation of the originality of Hegel's position we need to map a context of discussion and to dissolve a set of preconceptions about Hegel's idea of philosophy. My argument will be articulated in two parts. In the first part, I will analyse four possible positions regarding the issue of the aprioricity of the Logic, I will defend a fifth position, and I will draw a distinction between apriorism and a priori. In the second part, I will examine three distinct charges of apriorism against Hegel's Logic: the charge of assuming God's point of view of the universe, the charge of vicious circularity between the beginning and the end of the Logic, the charge of self-sufficiency of the Logic. As a result, I hope to show that these charges are unfounded, and to clear the ground for an adequate evaluation of Hegel's own sublation (Aufhebung) of the a priori/a posteriori divide.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , April 2022 , pp. 47 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Hegel Society of Great Britain

Access options

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

References

Allison, H. (1996), Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139172875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, E. (1951), Subjekt-Objekt. Erläuterungen zu Hegel. Berlin: Aufbau.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (2005), ‘Sketch of a Program for a Critical Reading of Hegel. Comparing Empirical and Logical Concepts’, Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus 3: 131–61.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, K. (2010), Idealism Without Limits. Hegel and The Problem of Objectivity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, A. (2001), Hegel and Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarin, A. (2015), The Powers of Reason. Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226243290.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarin, A. (2016), Il pensare e l'io. Hegel e la critica di Kant. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, A. (2017), ‘The Powers of Pure Reason: Risposta a Luciano, Califano, Orsini e Manchisi’, Book Symposium, Verifiche (XLVI) 10: 239–53.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (2003), Between Kant and Hegel. Lectures on German Idealism, ed. Pacini, D.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hösle, V. (1987), ‘Begründungsfrage des objektiven Idealismus’, in Forum für Philosophie von Bad Homburg (eds.), Philosophie und Begründung. Frankfurt: 212–67.Google Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2002), ‘Logic and Nature in Hegel's Philosophy: A Response to John W. Burbidge’, The Owl of Minerva 34:1: 107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2006), The Opening of Hegel's Logic. From Being to Infinity. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeschke, W. (2013), ‘Die Prinzipien des Denkens und des Seins. Hegels System der reinen Vernunft’, Teoria 1: 13–28.Google Scholar
Kervégan, J. F. (2005), Hegel et l'hégélianisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (2007), Hegel's Critique of Metaphysics, trans. Simek, N. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. G. (2012), Ontologie der Selbstbestimmung. Eine operationale Rekonstruktion von Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Peperzak, A. (2001), Modern Freedom. Hegel's Legal, Moral, and Political Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkard, T. (1988), Hegel's Dialectics: The Explanation of Possibility. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1989), Hegel's Idealism. The Satisfactions of Self-consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, R. (2019), Hegel's Realm of Shadows. Logic as Metaphysics in the Science of Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rand, S. (2007), ‘The Importance and Relevance of Hegel's Philosophy of Nature’, Review of Metaphysics 61:2: 379–400.Google Scholar
Redding, P. (1996), Hegel's Hermeneutics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redding, P. (2012), ‘The Relation of Logic to Ontology in Hegel’, in Haaparanta, L. and Koskinen, J. (eds.), Categories and Being. Essays on Metaphysics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (1995), ‘British Hegelianism: A Non-Metaphysical View?’, Hegel Bulletin 16:1 (31): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfield, R. D. (2012), Hegel's Science of Logic: A Critical Rethinking in Thirty Lectures. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar