Advertisement

The Transcendental Arguments: Part 1—Hegel

  • Matthew Whittingham
Chapter

Abstract

This offers the first transcendental argument against immediacy. In this chapter the notion of immediacy being argued against is the empiricist notion of a bare sensory particular. Before offering these arguments I discuss methodology, outlining a broadly Hegelian approach to epistemology which can criticise foundationalism from within without itself relying on any foundational standard. I follow Taylor in giving a transcendental interpretation of Hegel’s arguments against sense-certainty which at the same time preserves the dialectical nature of his arguments. Against Taylor I argue that transcendental arguments cannot be entirely free of presuppositions and that we should not view this as a problem. I end the chapter by arguing that awareness of bare sensory particulars depends on their being mediated first of all through universals or concepts.

Bibliography

  1. Collingwood, R.G. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Hegel, G.W.F. 1892. The Logic of Hegel. Trans. William Wallace. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1952. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A.V. Miller, ed. J. Hoffmeister. 5th ed. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 1991. The Encyclopaedia Logic. Trans. T.F. Geraets, W.A. Suchting, and H.S. Harris. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Houlgate, Stephen. 2005. Hegel: Freedom, Truth and History. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Hume, David. 1985. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Joachim, Harold. 1906. The Nature of Truth. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kant, Immanuel. 2007. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Locke, John. 1997. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Roger Woolhouse. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Loewenberg, J. 1935. The Comedy of Immediacy in Hegel’s “Phenomenology”. Mind, New Series 44 (173): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Norman, Richard. 1991. Hegel’s Phenomenology. Hampshire: Gregg Revivals.Google Scholar
  12. Norman, Richard, and Sean Sayers. 1980. Hegel, Marx and Dialectic. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  13. Popper, Karl. 1979. Conjectural Knowledge: My Solution of the Problem of Induction. In Objective Knowledge, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1992. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Russell, Bertrand. 1998. The Problems of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sayers, Sean. 1985. Reality and Reason. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Stern, Robert. 2013. Taylor, Transcendental Arguments, and Hegel on Consciousness. Hegel Bulletin 34 (1): 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor, Charles. 1975. Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 1976. The Opening Arguments of the Phenomenology. In Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Alasdair MacIntyre. Garden City: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1997. The Validity of Transcendental Arguments. In Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Whittingham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations