Sympoietic Art Practice in Co-expressive Re-worlding with Hegel’s “Vegetal Subject”

“Sympoietic art practice”, construed as co-creative making-together-with plants, contributes to posthumanist discourse by forming cross-species partnerships which re-configure exploitative relations with plants. The posthumanist commitment of sympoietic practice to live equitably with the more-than-human world is inherently opposed to the tradition of anthropocentrism widely associated with Hegel’s idealization of reason and culture. But when Hegelian philosophy comingles with the radically different assumptions of sympoietic art practice in this exploratory paper, a co-expressive “worlding with plants” emerges. A transformative re-reading of Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature reveals that the English translators have smoothed away the vibrant concept of a “vegetal subject” explicitly used by Hegel in the original German. The resulting interpretive fissure makes space for a creative scrutiny of human exceptionalism, humanist and posthumanist conceptions of plant subjectivity and human-plant relations. Our transdisciplinary article concludes with a performative knitting together and composting of shreds of Hegelian text with vibrantly participative strands of living couch grass.

A. C. Mukerji on the Problem of Skepticism and Its Resolution in Neo-Vedānta

This paper examines the work of the unsung modern Indian Philosopher A. C. Mukerji, in his major works Self, Thought and Reality (1933) and The Nature of Self (1938). Mukerji constructs a skeptical challenge that emerges from the union of ideas drawn from early modern Europe, neo-Hegelian philosophy, and classical Buddhism and Vedānta. Mukerji’s worries about skepticism are important in part because they illustrate many of the creative tensions within the modern, synthetic period of Indian philosophy, and in part because they are truly profound, anticipating in interesting ways the worries that Feyerabend was to raise a few decades later. Arguing that Humean, Kantian, neo-Hegelian, and Buddhist philosophy each fail to provide an adequate account of self-knowledge, Mukerji leverages this finding to further argue that these systems fail to offer a proper account of knowledge more generally. His solution to skepticism centers on a distinctively modern interpretation of Śaṅkara’s Vedānta.

Christian Consciousness in the Philosophy of French Neo-Hegelianism

The French neo-Hegelianism of the 20th century is one of the essential moments of the diverse philosophical life of France. In contrast to earlier studies on the philosophy of French neo-Hegelianism, this article answers the question how French thought interprets the concept of Christian consciousness presented in the works of G. V. F. Hegel on the philosophy of religion. The purpose of this study is to analyze G. V. F. Hegel's approach to the study of Christian consciousness in its interpretation by the philosophy of French neo-Hegelianism. Achieving this goal involves the use of an interdisciplinary approach due to the fact that the evaluation of the method applied to the study of Christian consciousness is impossible without reference to Christian theology. The study allows us to conclude that the method of Hegelian philosophy used by French neo-Hegelian philosophers is important for research in the field of philosophy of religion, but is not universal for the analysis of changes in Christian consciousness. The problem presented in the article requires additional research, including, among other things, the judgments of modern thinkers in France.

French Neo-Hegelianism in Four Acts

The review presents the recently published monograph of Ivan Kurilovich “French neohegelianism: J. Wahl, A. Koyré, A. Kojève and J. Hyppolite in search of a unified phenomenology of Hegel – Husserl – Heidegger”. The book is dedicated to the history of the reception of the Hegel’s ideas in France in 1920–1960s. I. Kurilovich suggests his overview of the development of neo-hegelianism in its interconnection with the phenomenology, he analyses different versions and interpretative strategies on Hegel’s legacy: the theory of “malheur de la conscience” by J. Wahl, the epistemological framework suggested by A. Koyré, the phenomenologically-oriented interpretation of “Hegel – Heidegger” by A. Kojève, and the historical-philosophical reconstruction of Hegelian philosophy by J. Hyppolite. I. Kurilovich demonstrates the significant results of the interference between the ideas of Hegel and Husserl, Hegel and Heidegger. He problematizes the historical and philosophical concept of neo-hegelianism as such and demonstrates its ambiguity, as well as the lack of the direct intellectual lineage of its representatives. The book provides an opportunity to work with well-structured and informative historical content, which includes biographies and philosophical views, and gives a sophisticated view on the “conflict of interpretations” of Hegelian philosophy, suggested by J. Wahl, A. Koyré, A. Kojève and J. Hyppolite.

The Decartes’ paradox and the modern philosophy as the foundation farse

In this article the author identifies a paradox at the heart of Descartes? foundationalist project. The components of the paradox are as follows: on the one hand, ontological certainty of cogito, on the other hand, its epistemic uncertainty: it is impossible for the solus ipse to establish the elementary truth: at present it is impossible to determine whether it is now night or daylight. For Descartes the solution consists of introducing God and in believing in His existence. But this is no solution whatsoever, for a subject would require direct contact with God in order to receive clear and distinct ideas, which are at the same time marks of their truth. The author concludes the following: firstly, Descartes managed to establish a foundation for nothing; secondly, the Cartesian project that includes the necessity of contact with God as a way to attain the Truth, becomes completed only in Hegel?s philosophy of Absolut Knowledge (in Wiss. der Logik), along with his justification provided in the Phenoimenologie des Gesites. The post-Hegelian philosophy, however, has engendered its own paradox by abandoning Hegel?s own solution despite it being fully Cartesian in its character. This was the consequence of abandoning God and declaring Hegel?s philosophy as a deplorable conservative revival of theology; something that was beyond understanding by modern philosophers. The abandonment of God had as its consequence the return to the Cartesian paradox, which reopened the question of truth - connected to the Cogito, and the question of sense (Sinn) - connected to the sum of human subject. The neglect of God leads to the departure from ratio-centrism in two ways: the epistemic perspectivism and relativism, on the one hand, and Nihilism, voluntarism with decisionism, along with existentialism, on the other. Consequently, with the death of God, and the fall of Hegel?s system, the modern metaphysics of subjectivity reveals itself as founded merely on the Will to power - as a will for God, until Hegel, and a will against God, subsequently. Thus, Heidegger was right when he said that Nietzsche?s Will to Power was the end of the Western metaphysics. The author complements this finding by adding that this kind of metaphysic had already been concealed within the Descartes Meditations from the start, in the forms of the will for the Reason and the will for God. Finally, the author concludes that the modern philosophy completes its own Odyssey of looking for a foundation by abandoning the Hegelian solution, blind to the fact that Hegel?s solution was the only consequent Cartesian one. The ultimate result was the fall of ratio-centrism into nihilism, voluntarism, and existentialism, as promoted under a thin vail of Picodellamirandolian humanism.

FROM IDEALISM TO NEW MARXISM. PART 1. LEV PUMPYANSKY

Lev Pumpyansky's turn at the end of the 1920s from criticism of Marxism to the full acceptance of Marxist sociology as the main working tool of the literary historian can be viewed as a capitulation, but it could also be a disclosure of the potential of previous criticism. I prove that the criticism of Marxism by Pumpyansky fully fit into the dispute of neo-Kantianism against Hegelianism, while his sociology of literature was based on neo-Kantian foundations and the acceptance of Hegel's dialectics, but not Hegelian philosophy. I reconstruct a common source for Pumpyansky and Bakhtin’s view from the outside to both the neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian traditionsm, an episode from Plato's Phaedo. The difference in the understanding of the novel genre led Pumpyansky and Bakhtin to opposite conclusions. Pumpyansky's interpretation of the difference between the novel and the novella allowed him to accept Marxism as a metacritic of Neo-Hegelianism and Neo-Kantianism, preserving the position of the hero, which was unacceptable for Bakhtin. For Pumpyansky, Marxist sociology just realizes the intentions of neo-Kantianism as soon as it is applied not to the field of science, but to the field of literature and art. Disagreeing with the convergence of ethics and creativity, promoted by Bakhtin, Pumpyansky coined a consistent Marxist sociology of literature, claiming to be philosophical and relevant for today.

The concept of “historical judgment” as a category of Hegel’s philosophy of law

The authors of the article proceed from the fact that in the Hegelian philosophy of law, the discursive content of the notion “court of history” has not received a detailed explication, and it must be reconstructed on the basis of the entire context of Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel’s spiritual understanding of history is inextricably linked with his understanding of the role of Christianity in the history of mankind and in the formation of history itself as an integral process. According to the authors, in his Christology, Hegel connects together religious issues, the definition of the meaning of history and his interpretation of the essence of law and state. Thus, following Hegel, one can philosophically understand history (“Geschichte”) as the highest court and rationally interpret the concept of the highest court as a category of philosophy of law. History, which contains the mystery of the “Sacred History”, turns out to be the highest instance of law and state.

Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Spirit: Stylistic and Terminological Analysis

In 2020 the international philosophical community celebrates the 250th anniversary of the birth of G.W.F. Hegel. This anniversary provides an excellent opportunity to once again reconsider to the iconic works of the great German philosopher, among them, special attention should be paid to The Phenomenology of the Spirit, which is universally considered as one of the most famous works of world philosophical literature. Being the first of Hegel’s major works and, at the same time, the first and only part of the early version of his system of absolute idealism, this book, largely due to the efforts of the French Neo-Hegelians, acquired the status of one of the most famous philosophical works. Meanwhile, The Phenomenology of the Spirit is rightfully considered one of the most complex philosophical texts, which does not cease to attract attention, including due to the intricacies of its style. Being called by K. Marx “the true point of origin and the secret of the Hegelian philosophy,” this work, among other numerous “secrets” and “mysteries,” undoubtedly hides the mystery associated with the terminological and stylistic features of Hegel’s writing. Noting the serious difficulties encountered in reading The Phenomenology of the Spirit, the author of the article shows that Hegel wrote it, developing a new philosophical language, creating a range of linguistic innovations, also using Germanized Latin and Greek terms. Along with Spinoza’s Latin terminology, he borrowed some concepts from his compatriots (Wolf, Kant, Fichte and others), deliberately altering their meaning. The article also shows that, being an extremely complex (both in stylistic-linguistic and structural aspects) philosophical work, Hegel’s The Phenomenology of the Spirit had a huge impact on the development of intellectual culture of the 20th century, and not only due to its conceptions. Its language itself greatly contributed to the formation of special philosophical terminology and anticipated a number of significant changes in the structure and composition of philosophical texts.

L’albero della conoscenza: la dialettica del mito eterno dell’uomo secondo Hegel

This paper aims to investigate the dialectical nature of the myth of original sin as described by Hegel. For introductory purposes, I will briefly highlight the process by which Hegelian philosophy operates the translation from religious representation to concept, demonstrating how this reading is at the basis of the interpretation of the myth. Then I will analyze the functioning of the dialectical movements of the biblical episode of Genesis 3 within the Phenomenology of Spirit and the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, in order to discuss the issues of good and evil, innocence and guilt, will and arbitrariness. In this reconstruction the dialectic will emerge in its importance as a structure that permeates human consciousness as well as reality in general. In the specific case of the tree of knowledge, we will witness the concretization of this eternal conciliation of contradictions in two specific areas, which will be treated in the last section: the question of evil on the one hand, which will be demonstrated as a necessary negative element that triggers the dialectical movement itself, and the question of freedom on the other, which will appear as the result of the emancipation of the subject from the natural state in which he finds himself in the so-called "garden of animals".