-
Notes
- Indiana University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
notes Introduction 1. inTheFutureof Hegel,CatherineMalaboudescribesthisopennessconcisely:“Hegel’s idea of the arising, the event, belongs in this place of contrasts where form forms itself and at the same time deforms itself, where it acquires consistency and bursts out like a bomb” (187). 2. see russon, Reading Hegel’s “Phenomenology,” 164. 3. “In the advent of Christianity, which he saw as the ‘axis on which the history of the world turns,’ Hegel saw the emergence of the modern conception of subjectivity which dialectically sublates the earlier Greek conception [of subject as substance].” Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 16. Malabou’s reference is to PH 319. 4. see Jamme and schneider, Mythologie der Vernunft, 36–39. See also Krell, “The Oldest Program.” H. S. Harris argues that “The Oldest Program” was likely the last theoretical essay that Hegel produced in Bern. He dates its composition, tentatively, as early as June or July 1796; Harris, Hegel’s Development, 249, 520. 5. Although there is little in “The Oldest Program” that Hegel does not articulate in texts that are unambiguously his own, david Farrell Krell is surely right when he claims that “the oldest program toward a system in German Idealism develops out of an intense exchange of ideas and an interpenetration of styles”—an intense exchange, that is, between Hegel, Hölderlin, and schelling. david Farrell Krell, The Tragic Absolute, 41–42. 6. nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, 75. 7. see nohl, Hegels theologische Jugendschriften. 8. see Hamacher, Pleroma—Reading in Hegel, 18. 9. i discuss the composition of Hegel’s The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate in greater detail below. see chapter 3, note 1. 10. deleuze, Spinoza, 10. 11. The fragment titled “Religion ist eine . . . ,” written in 1793, is also central to my understanding of the role that Volksreligionen play in the development of Hegel’s early thinking . This fragment is often referred to in English as “The Tübingen Essay,” although H. S. Harris argues that this title is misleading since the essay was likely written after Hegel had left the Tübingen Stift. see Harris, Hegel’s Development, 1:119. It is the first of the “Fragmente über Volksreligion und Christentum,” in Frühe Schriften, W 1:9–44. My thanks to Merold Westphal’s comments regarding this point. 12. Terry Pinkard draws this connection between Hegel’s “positivity” and Kant’s “dogmatism ” in Hegel’s “Phenomenology,” 11. 208 notes to Pages 5–7 13. “Schelling conducted his own education in public.” Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 3:515; cited by Harris in his introduction to Hegel, The Difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy, 6. 14. “In due course his [Hegel’s] efforts to formulate the right interpretation of Kant brought him face to face with those aspects of Kant’s doctrine that were irreconcilable with his Hellenic ideal.” Harris, Hegel’s Development, 1:xx. 15. Henrich, “Hölderlin on Judgment and Being: A Study in the History of the Origins of Idealism,” in The Course of Remembrance and Other Essays on Hölderlin, 73; Krell, The Tragic Absolute, 41; Harris, Hegel’s Ladder, 1:20n19. 16. This engagement with tragedy is evident in, for example, schelling’s Philosophical Letters on Dogmatism and Criticism (1795) and the drafts of Hölderlin’s The Death of Empedocles (1797–1799), as well as the theoretical essays related to Hölderlin’s attempts to write a modern tragedy based on the philosopher-poet’s leap into etna. 17. as Heidegger states in his 1924–1925 lecture course on Plato’s Sophist, to interpret Plato properly, one must follow the hermeneutic principle of moving from the light into the dark. In this particular case, the “light” is Aristotle: We will presuppose that aristotle understood Plato. even those who have only a rough acquaintance with aristotle will see from the level of his work that it is no bold assertion to maintain that aristotle understood Plato. no more than it is to say in general on the question of understanding that the later ones always understand their predecessors better than the predecessors understood themselves. Heidegger, Plato’s “Sophist,” 8. Heidegger operates according to the principle that what is most essential in a body of thought is not always what the thinker necessarily presents as such: “Precisely here lies the element of creative research, that in what is most decisive this research does not understand itself” (ibid). yet are Hegel’s earlier writings, in fact, clearer than the...