Re: [hegel] Re: New file uploaded to hegel
- Dear Bruce,
>But why "Harris' commitment to evolution does not involve any loss of
> Dear Beat,
> > It is hard to understand what you mean here. Why should Harris' approach
> to Nature-philosophy involve the removal of spirit?
> If is often the case that the endorsement of evolution (as Harris
> does) involves the subtraction of spirit. E.g. Darwin's theory natural
> selection removes the telos of nature, that telos designed by a benign
> Christian God. But Harris' commitment to evolution does not involve
> any loss of spirit, or religion.
spirit, or religion"? Because of the telos of nature he presupposes? But
at least for Hegel there is no such telos of nature. It is only the
concept which gives itself being in the total contingency and
necessity. So, from what you say it follows that Hegel's theory of
evolution involves the substraction or mere physical appendage of
spirit, or does it not? However, Hegel can show how spirit emerges from
nature. This I guess Darwin and his followers cannot since from their
empirical theory of continual evolution they cannot derive the transfers
of natural entities by leap. 'Emergence' means that something totally
new with its own qualities and connections arises from a basis which
then fully is sublated. Some contemporary philosophers stick to the same
illusion of a causal explanation of spiritual activities based on
(cognitive, social) neuroscience. With this they cut the bough on which
> > Also, I do not understand "this very ambitious instance ofI only know Harris' 'The Spirit of Hegel'. It seems from what you write
> neo-Hegelianism". What is this instance and what is neo-Hegelianism?
> I take Harris' Nature, Mind and Modern Science (1954) and especially
> The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science (1965) to be very ambitious
> instances of neo-Hegelianism. I am amazed that there is so little
> awareness of these works in Hegelian circles. Harris' intent is to
> restate and redeem the most neglected 1/3 of the Encyclopedia.
> If you look at the second & more imporant volume, it may strike you as
> so Neo- as to no longer qualify as Hegelian. E.g. It begins with
> relativity-- which is not where Hegel begins, of course! So, if you're
> curious about the Hegelian standing of Harris' work, it would be
> better to read those 4 chapters in _The Spirit of Hegel_ first.
> Also, the chapter on Hegel (& modern science) in the first book offers
> a useful introduction to Harris' approach.
that the other two books are more important for our topic.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the hegel
File : /LPR2_India_1824_sect_4.docx
Uploaded by : petrejo@... <petrejo@...>
Description : Peter Hodgson's translation of Hegel's 1824 Lecture Notes for his LPR2 (tr. Hodgson, 1990). This is the fourth of four: FINAL
You can access this file at the URL:
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: