Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:05:51.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On A Philosophical Model of Hegel's Phenomenological Method: A Reply to Kenneth Westphal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Brett A. Fulkerson-Smith
Brett A. Fulkerson-Smith*
Affiliation:
Fay Horton Sawyier Fellow, Illinois Institute of Technology, brett.fulkerson-smith@iit.edu
Get access

Abstract

Hegel's Phenomenology is among the most difficult, if it is not in fact the most difficult, philosophical treatise ever published. Owing to its opacity of form and content, the Phenomenology, which Hegel quite accurately describes as the highway of despair upon which natural consciousness travels to its absolute knowing, has had its share of hitchhikers (§78). In their efforts to comprehend the scenery along this highway, many readers of this text rely on any number of analytical commentaries and expositions. Westphal (2003) offers a welcomed contribution to this kind of secondary literature.

As its title suggests, Westphal's text seeks to introduce Hegel's Phenomenology in a novel way, namely with explicit reference to the epistemological issue at its core. This is the Dilemma of the Criterion from Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Pyrrhonism. (Benson 1996). In addition to introducing the central features and characteristics of the epistemological aim of the Phenomenology, Westphal devotes considerable effort to showing how, that is by what method, Hegel responds to at least Pyrrhonian skepticism.

Westphal's examination of Hegel's method is framed by two questions. The first question is: what is Hegel's method? The answer that Westphal offers, namely that Hegel employs a phenomenological method, agrees with a host of classic and contemporary commentators, including Ivan Iljin (1946:126), Alexandre Kojève (1980: Ch. 7), Kenley R. Dove (1969-70), William Maker (1982), Wendy Lynn Clark and J.M. Fritzman (2002). Nevertheless, Westphal does offer a detailed, sophisticated, and novel account of the characteristics of Hegel's phenomenological method that is unrivaled in the extant literature.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 29 , Issue 1-2: number 57/58 , 2008 , pp. 71 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2008

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

Al-Azm, Sadik (1968), ‘Absolute Space and Kant's First Antinomy of Pure Reason’, Kant-Studien 59:151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al- Azm, Sadik (1972), The Origins of Kant's Arguments in the Antinomies. Oxford: The Clarendon Press:Google Scholar
Allison, Henry (1983), Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense. New Haven: Yale University Press:Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan (1974), Kant's Dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benson, Mates, trans. (1996), The Skeptical Way: Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Wendy Lynn and Fritzman, J. M (2002), ‘Reducing Spirit to Substance: Dove on Hegel's Method’, Idealistic Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 32:2:73–100.10.5840/idstudies20023227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Ardis (2003), ‘The Task and Method of Hegel's Phenomenology’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 47/48:73–88.10.1017/S0263523200001828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, Kenley R. (1969–1970), ‘Hegel's Phenomenological Method’, The Review of Metaphysics 23:641–661.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Volker and Kaulbach, Friedrich (1979), ‘Kant’, in Erträge der Forscbung 105. Darmstadt: Wissenscafdiche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Gottfried, Martin (1961), Kant's Metaphysics and Theory of Science. Lucas, P.G. trans., Manchester: The University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. (1977a), The Phenomenology of Spirit. Miller, A.V. tr., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F (1977b), The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy. Harris, H.S. and Cerf, W. tr., Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F (1999), Hegel's Science of Logic. Miller, A.V. tr., New York: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter (1989), ‘Kant's Notion of a Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique,’ in Förster, E., ed., Kant's Transcendental Deductions: The Three Critiques and the Opus Postumum. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Iljin, Ivan (1946), Die Philosophie Hegels als kontemplative Gottslehre. Bern: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1928), ‘Gedanken von der wahren Schätzung der lebendigen Kräfte und Beurtheilung der Beweise derer sich Herr von Leibnitz und andere Mechaniker in dieser Streitsache bedienet haben, nebst einigen vorhergehenden Betrachtungen welche die Kraft der Körper überhaupt betreffen’, in Immanuel Kant's Sämtliche Werke in Seeks Bänden, Zweiter Band. Leipzig: Inselverlag.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1992), The Jäsche Logic, in Young, J. Michael, trans, and ed., Lectures on Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998), Critique of Pure Reason. Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allan trans., and eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (2002), Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics that Will be Able to Come Forward as Science, in Hatfield, Gary trans., in Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kojève, Alexandra (1980), Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit. Bloom, Allan ed., Nichols, James H. Jr. trans., Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kreimendahl, Lothar (1998), ‘Die Antinomie der reinen Vernunft, 1. und 2. Abschnitt’ in Mohr, G. and Willaschek, M. eds., Immanuel Kant — Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Klassiker Auslegen, Bd. 19. Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Maker, William (1982), ‘Does Hegel Have a Dialectical Method?’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 20:75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCumber, John (2004), ‘Review of Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit, by Kenneth R. Westphal’, Continental Philosophy Review 37:367–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhold, K.L. (2000), ‘The Foundation of Philosophical Knowledge’ in Giovanni, G. Di and Harris, H.S., trans., Between Kant and Hegel: Texts in the Development of Post-Kantian Idealism. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp (1999), Commentary to Kant's ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. New Jersey: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Sophocles, (2001), Antigone. Woodruff, P. ed. and trans., Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Walsh, W.H. (1975), Kant's Criticism of Metaphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (1989), Hegel's Epistemological Realism: A Study of the Aim and Method of Hegel's Phenomenology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (2003), Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (2004), ‘Hegel, Epistemology, and Hermeneutical Philosophizing: Reply to John McCumber’, Continental Philosophy Review 37:495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wike, Victoria S. (1982), Kant's Antinomies of Reason: Their Origin and Their Resolution. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar