This will be our reading for July 22. You can find the details at our Meetup page.
1. The previous chapter argued that freedom is fundamentally the capacity to “give oneself the law,” to legislate norms and bind ourselves to them. This self-legislation is not the ratification of passing desires or opinions, some sort of pure subjectivism, but a strange combination of self-creation and self-limitation. These self-created norms create and sustain social roles and reasons which we can use to justify or criticize behaviour. We looked at two different models of self-legislation: Kant’s deductive model, which begins with the generic, ahistorical individual, and Hegel’s historical/developmental model, which begins with actually-existing groups.
2. For both Kant and Hegel, a key motivating factor in ethical behaviour is respect for the life-leading capacity of humans, which eventually cashes out in the claim that all value depends on recognizing the value of humanity as an ultimate moral identity. As Korsgaard says, “A good soldier obeys orders, but a good human being does not massacre the innocent.” Pippin thinks the Kantian framework cannot establish this value of humanity, but the Hegelian one can.
3. This self-legislation is not only about practical norms, but cognitive norms as well; all of this is attached to a much larger account of rationality in general. Chapter 4 is about Hegel’s account of concept-formation, and is relevant here because it helps respond to a common criticism of Hegel: that he is an anti-individualist authoritarian.
This is the reading for June 24th’s meeting. You can get the location and other details at our meetup.com page.
1. In chapters 1 and 2, Pippin argued that Hegel’s practical philosophy—which Hegel would have called a philosophy of spirit—is primarily a theory of freedom. His idea of freedom is quite far from our usual notions of freedom, which tend to revolve around abstract questions of free will and political questions of what we ought to be free from or to do. To some degree, Hegel combines these two sides of freedom when he says that a free act is not necessarily one freely caused by me, but rather an act which I can, on reflection, fully endorse. Further, this sort of reflective endorsement is only possible when one understands one self and others in particular ways and stands in rule-governed institutional relations.
2. Pippin also introduced the claim that “spirit is a product of itself.” Spirit is the industry-standard translation of the German word Geist, and for our purposes, we can basically define it as both the development and actual existence of a given historical period’s package set of fundamental concepts and practices.
3. This claim that spirit is a product of itself is important for two reasons. First, it both connects Hegel to, and differentiates him from, earlier German idealists like Kant and Fichte. Second, it is one of the main points in his social, collective idea of freedom. These two points are connected: for Kant and Fichte, cognitive and practical normativity (how we ought to think, what we ought to do) find their origins in the (either logically or practically necessary) cognitive acts of individuals, while for Hegel, both kinds of normativity are the result of collective, historical development.
This is will be our reading for June 10th. You can find all the details on our Meetup.com page.
Chapter 1: Introduction
There are several questions any account of freedom needs to be able to answer, with three being the most obvious. First, what is freedom, or what would it mean to act freely? Second, is it possible to act freely? Third, how important is leading a free life?
These days, these sorts of questions are folded into an area of research called “practical philosophy,” which has two questions of its own. First, are there events that we can demand justifications for, or are all events caused in the same uniform way? Is there a real distinction between a human act and a rock rolling downhill? Second, if the answer to the first question is yes, then we need to ask what counts as a good justification.
Hegel’s theory of freedom, as a theory of both action and value, is his answer to all of these questions. The standard description of Hegel’s theory says it has two elements. First, to be free is to have a reflective and deliberate relation to one’s actions, and second, that this is only possible when one is in a certain (institutional and rule-governed) relation to others.
This will be the reading for Saturday, November 14th. A printable copy is here, though a few further edits may be made. We will meet at the usual location in the sidebar.
Roughly speaking, there are two broad ways to characterize consciousness: either all thought is is entirely immanent to matter, or there is some sort of transcendence. Fichte would call this the idealism v.s. dogmatism conflict. Adrian Johnston calls his position transcendental materialism. We can roughly nutshell this as a position which attempts to combine the scientific attitude of paying close attention to the life sciences with the transcendental position that consciousness is not reducible to matter. He is not arguing for a “weak” concept of consciousness, either: the axiom of all his work is “no illusions”. In this chapter of his book Adventures in Transcendental Materialism, Johnston mines the work of Jacques Lacan to find an account of a category of thinking which, while wholly embodied, is autonomous from the body and actually affects conscious thought in ways irreducible to brain patterns. This category of thinking is the unconscious, and it is made of semblances, or autonomous signifiers.