Hegel introduced the Phenomenology of Mind as a work on the problem of knowledge. In the first chapter, entitled “Sense Certainty, or the This and Meaning,” he concluded that knowledge cannot consist of an immediate awareness of particulars ). The tradition discusses sense certainty in terms of this failure of immediate knowledge without, however, specifically addressing the problem of reference. Yet reference is distinct from knowledge in the sense that while there can be no knowledge of objects without reference, there (...) may be reference without knowledge. If that is the case, then the failure of immediate knowledge does not entitle us to conclude anything about the success or failure of reference. It is not surprising, then, that a few scholars have begun to examine sense certainty primarily as a thesis about reference. (shrink)

Hegel introduced the Phenomenology of Mind as a work on the problem of knowledge. In the first chapter, entitled “Sense Certainty, or the This and Meaning,” he concluded that knowledge cannot consist of an immediate awareness of particulars ). The tradition discusses sense certainty in terms of this failure of immediate knowledge without, however, specifically addressing the problem of reference. Yet reference is distinct from knowledge in the sense that while there can be no knowledge of objects without reference, there (...) may be reference without knowledge. If that is the case, then the failure of immediate knowledge does not entitle us to conclude anything about the success or failure of reference. It is not surprising, then, that a few scholars have begun to examine sense certainty primarily as a thesis about reference. (shrink)

As readers of The Owl are well aware, the name “Hegel” has provoked a wide range of responses. His followers have considered him one of the greatest thinkers in the history of philosophy; his adversaries have called him every name in the book. Beloved or despised, however, Hegel seems hard to ignore and continues to capture our imagination. But while Hegel scholarship is alive and well, fundamental disagreement persists not merely on the details of Hegel’s work but on the basic (...) question of what kind of philosopher we must take him to be. Perhaps the most familiar example is the dispute between the so-called Right and Left Hegelians. The former see Hegel as a speculative, system-building metaphysician, while the latter take him primarily as a social and political philosopher. Although each view has its merits, neither is without problems. (shrink)

As readers of The Owl are well aware, the name “Hegel” has provoked a wide range of responses. His followers have considered him one of the greatest thinkers in the history of philosophy; his adversaries have called him every name in the book. Beloved or despised, however, Hegel seems hard to ignore and continues to capture our imagination. But while Hegel scholarship is alive and well, fundamental disagreement persists not merely on the details of Hegel’s work but on the basic (...) question of what kind of philosopher we must take him to be. Perhaps the most familiar example is the dispute between the so-called Right and Left Hegelians. The former see Hegel as a speculative, system-building metaphysician, while the latter take him primarily as a social and political philosopher. Although each view has its merits, neither is without problems. (shrink)