Temporary Disruption
We have implemented additional assurance measures to protect our systems.
As a result, we have suspended some of our systems and services. We apologise for any temporary disruption some customers may experience.
Element contents
Hegel and Spinoza
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2026
Summary
This Element concerns Hegel's engagement with Spinoza's metaphysics, and divides into three main parts. The first enlists help from Hegel's interpretation to introduce and defend philosophical strengths in Spinoza's defense of metaphysical monism. The second defends Hegel's criticism of Spinoza, concluding that Spinoza's philosophy must eliminate all finitude and determinacy, leaving only a shapeless abyss. The third employs these defenses to open up an approach to the philosophical interpretation of Hegel's Logic, the core of his philosophical system, understanding the meaning of Hegel's ambitious claims in terms of reasons that make them more than the mere unpacking of assumptions.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009593205Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 23 April 2026
References
Bartuschat, W. (2007). Nur Hinein, Nicht Heraus: Hegel über Spinoza. In Heidemann, D. H. and Krijnen, C., eds., Hegel und die Geschichte der Philosophie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 101–15.Google Scholar
Boehm, O. (2014). Kant’s Critique of Spinoza. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1932). Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache. In Erkenntnis 2, 219–41.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. (2015). Interpreting Spinoza: The Real Is the Rational. Journal of the History of Philosophy 53(3), 523–35.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. (2020). The Parmenidean Ascent. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, W. (1973). The Ontological Argument in Spinoza: Twenty Years Later. In Grene, M., ed., Spinoza: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City: Anchor Press, pp. 220–26.Google Scholar
Emundts, D. (2018). Die Lehre vom Wesen. Dritter Abschnitt. Die Wirklichkeit. In Quante & Mooren 387–456.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, E. J. (1964). Die Wirklichkeit in Hegels Logik: Ideengechichtliche Beziehungen zu Spinoza. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 18(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. (1979). Spinoza’s “Ontological” Argument. The Philosophical Review 88(2), 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, D. (2012). A Reply on Spinoza’s Behalf. In Förster, E. and Melamed, Y., eds., Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 248–64.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. (2018). Nature and Necessity in Spinoza’s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrelson, K. (2009). The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2018). The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. Terry Pinkard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1967). Der ontologische Gottesbeweis: sein Problem und seine Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Horstmann, R. P. (1993). Metaphysikkritik bei Hegel und Nietzsche. Hegel-Studien 28, 285–301.Google Scholar
Host, A. (2021). The Ontological Argument’s Revival in German Idealism (doctoral dissertation), Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Hübner, K. (2015). Spinoza on Negation, Mind-Dependence and the Reality of the Finite. In Melamed, Y., ed., The Young Spinoza: A Metaphysician in the Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–37.Google Scholar
Knappik, F. (2016). Hegel’s Essentialism: Natural Kinds and the Metaphysics of Explanation in Hegel’s Theory of “the Concept.” European Journal of Philosophy 24, 760–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A. F. (2018). Das Sein. Erster Abschnitt. Die Qualität. In Quante&Mooren 43–144.Google Scholar
Koch, A. F. (2019). Sein und Existenz. In Luckner, A. and Ostritsch, S., eds., Philosophie der Existenz: Abhandlungen zur Philosophie. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, pp. 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A. F. (2022). Hegel’s Parmenidean Descent to the Science without Contrary. Hegel-Studien 56, 65–95.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2004). Hegel’s Critique of Pure Mechanism and the Philosophical Appeal of the Logic Project. European Journal of Philosophy 12(1), 38–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreines, J. (2006). Hegel’s Metaphysics: Changing the Debate. Philosophy Compass 1(5), 466–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreines, J. (2015). Reason in the World: Hegel’s Metaphysics and Its Philosophical Appeal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreines, J. (2020). Hegel: The Reality and Priority of Immanent Teleology. In McDonough, J. K., ed., Teleology: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2024). Schelling’s Critique of Hegel: Options and Responses, in the Spirit of Highlighting Shared Insights. Society for German Idealism and Romanticism 7, 26–40.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2025a). Reasons for the Importance of the Post-Kantian Idea of a System: Nothing Halfway, Jacobi and Schelling. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 32(5), 606–39. doi:10.1080/09672559.2025.2456814.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2025b). “The Poison Chalice of Metaphysical Grounding: Jacobi and Hegel as Reversing Contemporary Expectations.” The Hegel Bulletin. doi:10.1017/hgl.2025.10068 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M. (2019). Being and Reason: An Essay on Spinoza’s Metaphysics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macherey, P. (2011). Hegel or Spinoza, trans. Susan Ruddick. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNulty, J. (2022). Hegel’s Logic and Metaphysics. 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(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melamed, Y. (2012a). “Omnis determinatio est negatio” – Determination, Negation and Self-Negation in Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel. In Förster, E. and Melamed, Y., eds., Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–96.Google Scholar
Melamed, Y. (2012b). Spinoza on Inherence, Causation, and Conception. Journal of the History of Philosophy 50(3), 365–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melamed, Y. (2013). The Sirens of Elea: Rationalism, Idealism and Monism in Spinoza. In LoLordo, A. and Duncan, S., eds., The Key Debates of Modern Philosophy. New York: Routledge, pp. 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyar, D. (2012). Thought and Metaphysics: Hegel’s Critical Reception of Spinoza. In Förster, E. and Melamed, Y., eds., Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newlands, S. (2011). Hegel’s Idealist Reading of Spinoza. Philosophy Compass 6(2), 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, G. H. R. (1977). Hegel, Pantheism, and Spinoza. Journal of the History of Ideas 38(3), 449–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, K. (2023). Spinoza’s Monism II: A Proposal. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 105(3), 444–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quante, M. (2018). Die Lehre vom Wesen. Erster Abschnitt. Das Wesen als Reflexion in ihm selbst. In Quante & Mooren 275–324.Google Scholar
Quante, M. and Mooren, N., eds. (2018). Kommentar zu Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik (Hegel-Studien. Beiheft 67). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rödl, S. (2018). Self-Consciousness and Objectivity: An Introduction to Absolute Idealism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohs, P. (1972). Form und Grund: Interpretation eines Kapitels der hegelschen Wissenschaft der Logik. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Sandkaulen, B. (2000). Grund und Ursache: Die Vernunftkritik Jacobis. München: Fink Wilhelm.Google Scholar
Sandkaulen, B. (2008). Die Ontologie der Substanz, der Begriff der Subjektivität und die Faktizität des Einzelnen: Hegels reflexionslogische Widerlegung der Spinozanischen Metaphysik. In Ameriks, K. and Stolzenberg, J., eds., 5/2007 Metaphysik / Metaphysics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 235–75.Google Scholar
Sandkaulen, B. (2019). Jacobis Philosophie: Über den Widerspruch zwischen System und Freiheit. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2009), On what grounds what. In Chalmers, D. J., Manley, D., & Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siderits, Mark. (2021). Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction. Indianapolis: Routledge. 2nd ed., originally 2017.Google Scholar
Siep, L. (2018). Die Lehre Vom Begriff. Dritter Abschnitt. In Quante & Mooren (eds.), Die Idee. 651-796.Google Scholar
Stein, S. (2021). Absolute Geist or Self-Loving God? In Hegel’s Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences: A Critical Guide, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. A. (1934). The Philosophy of Spinoza: Unfolding the Latent Processes of His Reasoning. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yovel, Y. (1992). Spinoza and Other Heretics. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
- 4
- Cited by