Because he originally planned to write three books, "Phenomenology of Spirit," "Logic," and "Natural Philosophy." Originally, he intended to write these three books, but later he wrote too much about the logic section, so he published the logic separately as a book. Then he wrote a book called "The Complete Philosophy", which included three parts: his philosophy of spirit, logic, and natural philosophy.
He had two works on logic, the first being the separately published book on logic and the one published in the Complete Book of Philosophy. So, in order to distinguish between these two logics, we usually refer to the separately published book of logic as' Big Logic ', while the book of logic science published in' The Complete Book of Philosophy 'is called' Small Logic '.
So, for most of us today, when we are studying Hegelian philosophy, we mainly read these two books, one is "Phenomenology of Spirit" and the other is his "Small Logic". Because these two books actually fully represent the main ideas of Hegelian philosophy.
He began writing "Phenomenology of Spirit" in 1805, which was officially published in 1807 and had not been reprinted before his death. It took him a year to complete the writing of this book, and he began publishing the first volume of his logic in 1812, the "Encyclopedia" in 1817, and edited the Science Review Yearbook in 1818.
At this time, from 1818 until now, he had actually become a leader in the entire German philosophy. He served as such a professor in the philosophy department of the University of Berlin, and before his death, he was also appointed as the president of the University of Berlin. Although the time was short, he passed away after being appointed in 29 years and 31 years.
The first president of the University of Berlin was Fichte, who was also the founding president It should be said that the era in which Hegel lived was a time of drastic social changes, but at the same time, this society owes much to Hegel, because it was Hegel who gave this era the greatest and richest knowledge in spirit.
The problems faced by Hegelian philosophy are the legacy of Kantian philosophy. So, the starting point of Hegel's philosophy is Kantian philosophy, and it can also be said that its main rival is Kantian philosophy. Therefore, we repeatedly emphasize that the biggest problem of Kantian philosophy is the dilemma of dualism, which includes several aspects.
Firstly, the so-called opposition between sensibility and intellect, of course, this intellect includes reason; On the other hand, the opposition between essence and phenomenon, also known as the opposition between the thing in itself and the appearance; On the other hand, there is also freedom, the opposition between nature and freedom, the opposition between nature and freedom. The content contained in the philosophical system it constitutes is basically presented in a binary opposition manner.
So, it's easy to talk about Kant's philosophy. When it comes to Kant's philosophy, it's a philosophy of binary opposition. Then you can list several pairs of binary opposition, and according to the pairs, you can expand his philosophical ideas. Following the analogy I gave you last time, Kant's philosophy is like a traditional Chinese medicine shop, where he puts all concepts and categories in different cabinets. It's a traditional Chinese medicine shop, which makes it easy to understand Kant's philosophy.
Hegel aimed to overcome Kant's philosophy by addressing the existence of Kant's concept of the thing in itself and eliminating it. Fichte and Schelling both did the same work, aiming to dissolve the thing in itself. Originally, the thing in itself was the fundamental or internal cause that led to the presentation of appearances. Although we cannot recognize the object itself, we can still think about it.
So, in Kant's view, he also found himself a basis for all phenomena to be presented. However, in the view of later philosophers, such a basis is first and foremost contradictory to their own philosophical system. If you say that all your senses can only sense one manifestation of things, why do you still need an object in itself to support it? This is contradictory to your own system.
The second principle is that all appearances about things are constructed through subjective cognitive activities. Why do you still need an objective object itself as the support behind it? Obviously, you are not thorough.
So, Fichte abolished the concept of the thing in itself and directly used the concept of the self, which can replace the basis of the thing in itself and incorporate all statements about the thing in itself into the process of reasoning about the self; And when we arrived at Schelling's place, he believed that this self was a priori self or self-awareness. Although it was also a self, this self went beyond Fichte's self-concept and entered a state of pure self.
And this pure self, that is, he doesn't need to set a non self as the opposite of himself. We can read that Fichte and Schelling both aimed to eliminate the thing in itself in solving Kant's problem, and to make the thing in itself, or in other words, transform it into an understanding and comprehension of oneself. The result of this seems to have avoided Kant's problem of the thing in itself on the surface. However, he did not solve another fundamental problem, which is the movement and development of all our things, or the appearance that things present to us, behind which there must be a reason and basis.
This is a truth that Hume has been questioning since, that is, when we want to question the cause, we are actually questioning the ground. What is this ground?
Firstly, we cannot seek from the phenomena we see, that is to say, the appearance presented to us is nothing but the form of things. However, we cannot solely rely on this form to find the basis, which must be elsewhere and cannot be itself.
So, to become a basis, as we often say, is to find a set of reasons that can provide a basis. Therefore, the reason obtained from being is the reason, and the process of giving reasons is actually the process of reasoning. And this reasoning can only be established at the level of concepts that we are familiar with, because all the reasoning activities we do are related to concepts.
So Hegel said that the starting point of all our philosophical work is logic.
Because logic is precisely the process of reasoning about these concepts, you can imagine why Hegel spent so much space, time, and energy writing logic, not only writing a separate book of logic, but also giving logic a primary position in his "Complete Philosophy".
Because his "Complete Philosophy" is arranged in such a way that the first step is logic, the second is spiritual philosophy, and the third is natural philosophy. So, logic comes first, the starting point of logic. Without logic, we cannot talk about the spirit, let alone nature. So, logic comes first, because it first depends on his understanding of philosophy, because philosophy is the process of reasoning, argumentation, and evolution of concepts themselves.
So, Hegel's attempt is to establish the image of philosophy through a process of deduction of concepts. It does not need an external thing like the thing in itself to provide philosophy with support and reason, nor does it need the thing in itself to explain what we are talking about or what Kant called the existence of a representation. It does not need the thing in itself to explain, it only needs the evolution process of the concept itself to reveal the basis for changes in things.
This can be said that Hegel reconstructed metaphysics on the basis of logic, which is the task of Hegelian philosophy.
In fact, the common task of almost all philosophers is that no philosopher does not do the same thing. A great philosopher, if his premises, or rather if the problem he initially discussed, were relatively specific and focused on his current concerns, would eventually return to metaphysical issues in his philosophical discussions. This is especially true for contemporary philosophers.
So, the focus on metaphysics began with Kant, who wanted to shatter the original metaphysics because metaphysics was discarded in Hume's view. However, metaphysics was re discussed in Kant's view because his way of discussing it was to re-establish a new form of metaphysics, that is, to understand metaphysics as a way and condition for people to limit their rational activities, and to understand it as such metaphysics.
So, all discussions about metaphysics are discussions about the scope of human rational activity, which is Kantian metaphysics.
When it comes to Fichte and Schelling, the metaphysics they discussed can be said to be more like what Hegel criticized here, which is detached from science and Kant's way of thinking of metaphysics as a science. We are no longer discussing metaphysics according to scientific methods. So, when we read Fichte's philosophy, especially Schelling's, we will find that Schelling provided metaphysical arguments, and basically his so-called metaphysics is his transcendental philosophy.
His transcendental philosophy does not primarily discuss metaphysics in the epistemological way, or rather in the usual way of discussing the composition of knowledge, but rather in a mysterious, intuitive, and irrational way, discussing metaphysics in this aspect. So, his transcendental philosophy is an irrational discussion of intuition, especially artistic intuition, which is Schelling's philosophy.
Hegel believed that metaphysics cannot do this, so what should metaphysics do?
He pointed out that true metaphysics should regard our human spirit as the ultimate driving force for the development of all conscious activities. This spirit is what he calls absolute spirit.
What is absolute spirit?
Actually, it's what we mean by objectivity. When we consider a spirit as absolute, it means that it goes beyond everyone's subjective understanding of the thing, and therefore becomes objective.
网友评论