Greetings, dear list members,

this is a series of little mails I write in response to Ralph Dumain.
Ralph, you mention in your mail several times "metaphysical" and from
ethe context it seems that you judge it as something bad, so bad
(and/or outdated), that it speaks against itself, that there is no
reason to give any reason *why* it is so bad, what the problem with it is.

The first problem I see here is the definition of "metaphysics". When
I look at the standard philocophical dictionary we use here in
Germany, the "Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (e.g.
http://www.schwabe.ch/docs/neu00-01/0692-5.htm ) I find nearly 100
pages describing "Metaphysik" and "Metaphysik-Kritik". And the article
begins with the concession that it has always been very much under
discussion what to understand under "metaphysics", and so they can't
realy help other than to explain what the various philosophers have
understood (in their total difference) under this concept.

So it seems difficult to speak just of "Metaphysics" in a naive way,
just implying that it already is understood in a certain way.

Of course, as we are here on a Hegel list, the background and context
of our use of words is Hegel's (at least unless not stated
expressively otherwise).

So the question is, how does Hegel uses the word "metaphysics"?

When we look at his use, we find two different use of the word:

Number one is that Hegel does criticise the "old" metaphysic,
especialy of the time before Kant (he thinks roughly from Descartes to
Wolff and may be also of the Sholastic Theology). See for example the
"First Attitude of Thought to Objectivity" in Hegel's Encyclopedia,
paragraphs 26ff). Here Hegel criticises the old "metaphyscis":

I highly sugest that you read his critique yourself, e.g. onlien at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_iii.htm

However, while Hegel does criticise the uncritical use of such
metaphysics and its errors, that doesn't mean that Hegel is against
all Metaphysics per se.

In the contrary, he does mention in several places how important
metaphysics as such is, and that it can't be avoided and so that those
who think they don't have a metaphysics and are against metaphysics
therefor only have no consciousness of the metaphysics they use and
therefor usualy have an especialy bad metaphysics

(see for example the "Zusatz" of paragraph 246 in the encyclopedia. I
have it only in German at the moment, as it is not online, may be it
will still be of help to some:

"Das, wodurch sich die Naturphilosophie von der Physik unterscheidet,
ist näher die Weise der Metaphysik, deren sich beide bedienen; denn
Metaphysik heißt nichts anderes als der Umfang der allgemeinen
Denkbestimmungen, gleichsam das diamantene Netz, in das wir allen
Stoff bringen und dadurch erst verständlich machen. Jedes gebildete
Bewußtsein hat seine Metaphysik, das instinktartige Denken, die
absolute Macht in uns, über die wir nur Meister werden, wenn wir sie
selbst zum Gegenstande unserer Erkenntnis machen. Die Philosophie
überhaupt hat als Philosophie andere Kategorien als das gewöhnliche
Bewußtsein; alle Bildung reduziert sich auf den Unterschied der
Kategorien. Alle Revolutionen, in den Wissenschaften nicht weniger als
in der Weltgeschichte, kommen nur daher, daß der Geist jetzt zum
Verstehen und Vernehmen seiner, um sich zu besitzen, seine Kategorien
geändert hat, sich wahrhafter, tiefer, sich inniger und einiger mit
sich erfassend.")

So for Hegel the solution is his "Science of Logic" which includes teh
tasks of the former Metaphysics but in a highly critical way (much
more self critical than i.e. Marxism or other philosophical concepts
who claim to replace the "errors" of Hegelianism).

All the best,
Kai