Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T01:15:29.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘A Perfect Contradiction is Mysterious for the Clever and for Fools Alike’: Did Hegel Contradict Aristotle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2019

Michael Inwood*
Affiliation:
Trinity College, University of Oxford, UKmichael.inwood@trinity.ox.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Aristotle argued that there are no true statements of the form <Fx and not-Fx>. In his lectures on history of philosophy Hegel does not challenge this view and in his Science of Logic expresses admiration for Aristotle's rebuttal of Zeno of Elea's attempt to find such contradictions in his paradoxes of motion. Yet more than once in his logics Hegel insists that everything is contradictory. I approach this problem from two directions. First, Widerspruch often means, and is understood by Hegel to mean, ‘opposition’ rather than ‘contradiction’ in the strict logical sense. Thus Catullus's simultaneous love and hatred of Clodia is a contradiction, but not an Aristotelian, or formal logical, contradiction. I defuse Hegel's occasional suggestions of Aristotelian contradictions in motion and time. Second, I exploit Hegel's tacit rejection of Aristotle's official bivalence account of truth and falsity, in favour of the view that truth is approached by successive improvements in our inevitably imperfect attempts to attain it. In this respect Hegel's procedure is similar to that of Aristotle himself, who characteristically constructs his own view of metaphysics, physics, ethics, etc., from the imperfect, but not flatly false, opinions of his predecessors. ‘The truth is the whole’, that is, the whole sequence of our attempts to reach it.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain, 2019

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

Abbott, E. (1999), Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Aristotle (1984), The Complete Works: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Barnes, J.. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Burger, D. (1983), Sphereland: A Fantasy about Curved Spaces and an Expanding Universe. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M., et al. (1979), Notes on Book Zeta of Aristotle's Metaphysics. Oxford: Sub-faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. (2001), A Map of Metaphysics Z. Pittsburgh: Mathesis.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (ed.) (1970), Hegel and the Philosophy of Religion: The Wofford Symposium. The Hague: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Laurentiis, A. and Edwards, J. (eds.) (2013), The Bloomsbury Companion to Hegel. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
di Giovanni, G. (1973), ‘Reflection and Contradiction: A Commentary on Some Passages of Hegel's Science of Logic’, Hegel-Studien 8: 131–62.Google Scholar
di Giovanni, G. (2013), ‘Identity and Contradiction’, in de Laurentiis, and Edwards, (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Hegel. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ferrarin, A. (2001), Hegel and Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, D. (2012), ‘The Endoxon Mystique: What Endoxa are and What they are not’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 43: 185215.Google Scholar
Hanna, R. (1986), ‘From an Ontological Point of View: Hegel's Critique of the Common Logic’, Review of Metaphysics 40: 305–38.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (2000), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Inwood, M. (1991), ‘Aristotle on the Reality of Time’, in Judson, R. L. (ed.), Aristotle's Physics: A Collection of Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1961), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Yolton, John W.. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Lucretius (1883), Ancient Classics for English Readers, Vol. VII, trans. Hurrell Mallock, W.. Lippincott: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908), ‘The Unreality of Time’, Mind 17: 457–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. (1961), ‘TITHENAI TA PHAINOMENA’ in Aristote et les problèmes de la méthode. Symposium Aristotelicum: Louvain.Google Scholar
Pinkard, T. (2000), Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1978), ‘Hegel's Metaphysics and the Problem of Contradiction’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 16: 301–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachey, L. (1918), Eminent Victorians. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1985), Skepticism and Naturalism: Some Varieties. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. (2011), Philosophical Writings, eds. Strawson, G. and Montague, M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfield, R. D. (2018), ‘On Contradiction: Hegel versus Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, and Kant’, in Magee, G. A. (ed.), Hegel and Ancient Philosophy: A Re-examination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Woods, M. (1968), ‘Problems in Metaphysics Z, Chapter 13’, in Moravcsik, J. M. E. (ed.), Aristotle: A Collection of Critical Essays. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar