Hegelianism. The Path towards Dialectical Humanism, 1805-1841 (review)

9'52 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY judgments of color are false because they involve projections? Fifth, Mackie's emendations on the artificial virtues are unnecessary because they already are in Hume. Mackie missed them because he never really grasped the theory of sympathy in Hume. Sixth, if Mackie had fully understood the sympathy process he would have seen the confluence of sentiment, judgment, social context, and the influence upon action. Rather than Hume having slurred the distinction between judgment and sentiment, he offered the first serious distinction and analysis of the distiction. Seventh , Mackie missed all of this because he seems to have read only the commentaries of Harrison and Mercer. A better knowledge of the secondary literature would not only have avoided the pitfalls but have made him realize that the objectification theory is well known among American readers of Hume. Finally, I note that Hume never forgot that morality cannot be understood just as a system of beliefs but has a fi)undation firmly rooted in action and practice. NICHOLAS CAPALDI Queens College John E. Toews. Hegelianism. The Path towardsDialecticalHumanism, x8o5-z84~. New York: Cambridge University Press, 198o. Pp. 45~. $39.5 ~ Few works by historians are also of great value to philosophers. John E. Toews's presentation of the development of the Hegelian movement and of its emancipatory, dialectical driving-fi)rces is one such exception and, in fact, a most valuable one. Aw)iding the limited scope of the "From Hegel to Marx" theme which has been widely focused on, Toews understands the "Hegelian Project" as a special method which aids contemporary man in his striving for self-understanding and self-emancipation and which enables the construction of cultural and political bodies within which modern man can feel "at home." In confronting the post-revolutionary crisis of orientation and also intellectual and political discontent with the so-called "juste milieu," we should not regard Hegel's options, nor those of Marx and of other Hegelians, merely as steps within a unilinear process of growing radicalism. Rather, these various options are to be seen as related to differences in .judging and evaluating the variables and invariables contained in the given intellectual and political environment. They are alternatives, not sequentially emerging options. In his first section (pp. 1-67), Toews outlines the main structure of Hegel's mature position as expressed in PhilosophyofRight, which proposes a programmatical, i.e. dialectical, mediation between theory and practice, and rejects the extreme positions of the French Revolution and of German Romanticism. The book's second part narrates the story of the formulation of theories through the closed process of group communication within the Hegelian School. Toews also described the Hegelians' political, religious and epistemological battles, and, finally, the emergence of the new positions held by Right, Center, and Left Hegelianism. Divisions within the movement and the ultimate forms of options propounded by Strauss (pp. 255-287), BOOK REVIEWS 253 Bauer (pp. 288-326 ), and Feuerbach (pp. 327-355) are discussed in the third section (pp. 203-369). In Hegelianism, Toews achieves the most extensive account so far of the group process through which Hegelian theory was produced between 1821 and 1841. He also shows how the different options offered by the intellectuals participating in this process, including both Hegel and Marx, evolved in reaction to the same or similar problems. Toews stresses the decisive influence of Brunt) Bauer in shaping the concept of" dialectics towards requiring radicalism in self-emancipation and in political affairs throughout the entire process of theory-formulation. But in resolving the final dilemma of Hegelians--whether to mediate, or to choose, between self-liberation and the liberation of the world, i.e. the subordination of the self in serving certain values--the ego and ideas of Max Stirner also play an important, if unhappy role. More attention could have been given by Toews to the Stirnerian option, which for a time appeared tempting to Bruno Bauer and even more so to Marx, and to its consequences. Such an emphasis would have more convincingly demonstrated that the intimate group process of formulating theory practised by the Berlin group, which included Bruno Bauer, Edgar Bauer, Friedrich Engels, Karl Koeppen, Karl...