Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-19T15:47:07.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel’s modal argument against Spinozism. An interpretation of the chapter ‘Actuality’ in the Science of Logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Franz Knappik
Franz Knappik*
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

I propose a new reading of Hegel’s discussion of modality in the ‘Actuality’ chapter of the Science of Logic. On this reading, the main purpose of the chapter is a critical engagement with Spinoza’s modal metaphysics. Hegel first reconstructs a rationalist line of thought — corresponding to the cosmological argument for the existence of God — that ultimately leads to Spinozist necessitarianism. He then presents a reductio argument against necessitarianism, contending that as a consequence of necessitarianism, no adequate explanatory accounts of facts about finite reality can be given.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 53 - 79
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2015 

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

Bowman, B. (2012), ‘Spinozist Pantheism and the Truth of “Sense Certainty”. What the Eleusinian Mysteries Have to Tell us About Hegel’s Phenomenology’, Journal for the History of Philosophy 52: 85-110.Google Scholar
Burbidge, J. (1980), ‘The Necessity of Contingency: An Analysis of Hegel’s Chapter on “Actuality” in the Science of Logic’ in W. Steinkraus and K. Schmitz (eds.), Art and Logic in Hegel’s Philosophy. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press; Sussex: Harvester Press: 200-217.Google Scholar
Burbidge, J. (2007), Hegel’s Systematic Contingency. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Curley, E. and Walski, G. (1999), ‘Spinoza’s Necessitarianism Reconsidered’ in R. Gennaro and C. Huenemann (eds.), New Essays on the Rationalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 241-262.Google Scholar
di Giovanni, G. (1980), ‘The Category of Contingency in the Hegelian Logic’ in W. Steinkraus and K. Schmitz (eds.), Art and Logic in Hegel’s Philosophy. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press; Sussex: Harvester Press: 179-199.Google Scholar
Düsing, K. (1991), ‘Von der Substanz zum Subjekt: Hegels spekulative Spinoza-Deutung’ in M. Walther (ed.), Spinoza und der deutsche Idealismus. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann: 163-180.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. N. (1958), Hegel. A Re-examination. London: George Allen and Unwin; New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, E. (1964), ‘Die Wirklichkeit in Hegels Logik’, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 18: 3-29.Google Scholar
Förster, E. (2012), Die 25 Jahre der Philosophie. Eine systematische Rekonstruktion. Second Edition, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. (1991), ‘Spinoza’s Necessitarianism’ in Y. Yovel (ed.), God and Nature in Spinoza's Metaphysics. Leiden: Brill: 191-218.Google Scholar
Hahn, S. S. (2007), Contradiction in Motion. Hegel's Organic Concept of Life and Value. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1968ff), Gesammelte Werke, ed. Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1985), Vorlesungen. Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte. Vol. 4a: Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Teil 2: Die bestimmte Religion. Textband, ed. W. Jaeschke. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1992), Vorlesungen. Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte. Vol. 11: Vorlesungen über Logik und Metaphysik, Heidelberg 1817. Mitgeschrieben von F.A. Good, ed. K. Gloy. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2010), Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline. Part I: Science of Logic, trans. and ed. K. Brinkmann and D. Dahlstrom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2010), The Science of Logic, trans. and ed. G. di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2007), Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God, trans. P. Hodgson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1987), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Vol. 2: Determinate Religion, trans. R. Brown et al., ed. P. Hodgson. Berkeley et al.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (2010), ‘Hegels Theorie über den Zufall’ in D. Henrich, Hegel im Kontext. New Edition, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 158-187.Google Scholar
Hindrichs, G. (2012), ‘Two Models of Metaphysical Inferentialism: Spinoza and Hegel’ in E. Förster and Y. Melamed (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 214-231.Google Scholar
Houlgate, S. (1995), ‘Necessity and Contingency in Hegel’s Science of Logic.’ The Owl of Minerva 27: 37-49.Google Scholar
Jacobi, F. H. (1785), Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelssohn. Breslau: Löwe.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1900ff), Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Königlich-Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften 29 vols. Berlin: Reimer [later de Gruyter].Google Scholar
Knappik, F. (forthcoming), ‘Hegel’s Essentialism: Natural Kinds and the Metaphysics of Explanation in Hegel’s Theory of “the Concept”’, European Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2008), ‘Metaphysics without Pre-Critical Monism: Hegel on Lower-Level Natural Kinds and the Structure of Reality’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 57/58: 48-70.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. and Manninen, J. (1988), ‘Hegel on Modalities and Monadology’ in S. Knuuttila (ed.), Modern Modalities. Dordrecht et al.: Kluwer: 109-177.Google Scholar
Lærke, M. (2011), ‘Spinoza’s Cosmological Argument in the Ethics’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 49: 439-462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1996), Philosophische Schriften, 4 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (2007), Hegel’s Critique of Metaphysics N. Simek (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macherey, P. (1991), ‘Le Spinoza idéaliste de Hegel’ in M. Walther (ed.), Spinoza und der deutsche Idealismus. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann: 145-162.Google Scholar
McTaggart, John M. E. (1910), A Commentary on Hegel’s Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Melamed, Y. (2010), ‘Acosmism or Weak Individuals?: Hegel, Spinoza, and the Reality of the Finite’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 48: 77-92.Google Scholar
Melamed, Y. (2012), ‘Omnis determinatio est negatio. Determination, Negation, and Self-Negation in Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel’ in E. Förster and Y. Melamed (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 175-196.Google Scholar
Moyar, D. (2012), ‘Thought and Metaphysics: Hegel’s Critical Reception of Spinoza’ in E. Förster and Y. Melamed (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 197-213.Google Scholar
Mure, G. R. G. (1950), A Study of Hegel’s Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newlands, S. (2011), ‘Hegel’s Idealist Reading of Spinoza’, Philosophy Compass 6: 100-108.Google Scholar
Ng, K. (2009), ‘Hegel’s Logic of Actuality’, Review of Metaphysics 63: 139-172.Google Scholar
Parkinson, G. H. R. (1977), ‘Hegel, Pantheism, and Spinoza’, Journal of the History of Ideas 38: 449-459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (2004), Logic and Theism. Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. (2002), Complete Works, trans. S. Shirley, ed. M. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Utz, K. (2001), Die Notwendigkeit des Zufalls. Hegels spekulative Dialektik in der ‘Wissenschaft der Logik’. Paderborn et al.: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Wolff, C. (1730), Philosophia prima, sive ontologia …. Frankfurt/Leipzig: Renger.Google Scholar