The Reconciliation Between Individuality and Universality in Spirit： On the Task of Hegel＇s Aesthetics

Under the background of binary opposition of modern philosophy and aesthetics, Hegel takes ＂spirit＂ as the startingpoint and aims to achieve the reconciliation between binaries through the dialectical development of spirit. At thesame time, this process also makes spirit reach its own self-consciousness and self-realization. Among manyoppositions and contradictions, one of the key issues that Hegel attempts to deal with is the relationship betweenindividuality and universality in spirit. In Hegel＇s view, spirit is universal self-consciousness, a unity ofindividuality and universality. Consistent with his philosophy, the task of his aesthetics is also to reconcileuniversality and individuality in spirit. In Aesthetics, this settlement is mainly reflected in three aspects, namely theunity of content and form, the unity of the general world situation, and the character and finally the unity ofsubjective artistic creation and objective performance. In this way, Hegel＇s Aesthetics bridges the distance betweenindividuality and universality, achieving the goal of self-consciousness and self-realization in spirit, thus giving hisresponse to the problem of binary opposition caused by modern philosophy and aesthetics.

The Hegelian Tragedy, Negative Dialectic and Ethical Substance in Sophocles＇ Antigone

Breaking with Aristotle＇s theory of tragedy in which the grand magnitude of the spirit of the tragic hero somehow trapped and misguided by a certain tragic flaw arouses the audiences＇ emotional intensity of pity and fear for the functioning of catharsis, Hegel analyzes the structure of tragedy in terms of the social conflict, in the case of Sophocles＇ Antigone, between the ruler Creon and the rebel Antigone, the patriarchal state and the individual woman, the civil codes and the divine law. Rejecting Creon＇s dictatorship and performing civil disobedience, Antigone intentionally buries the dead body of her brother Polyneices at the cost of being sentenced to death. Through this sacrifice, Antigone exposes the structural fissure of the civil society embedded in decaying morality for realizing the higher ideal of divine law and ethics. Through Antigone＇s sacrifice, the paradox of self-denial and self-elevation manifests the inner principle of dialectic through which the very opposite forces of contradiction engender the dynamic facets of the formation of modern civil society. As Hegelian dialectic is driven by its inner principle of negativity or negation of negation, through self-denial, Antigone transcends the moral codes of the mundane world for reaching the higher divine will. Yet, this dialectical ascending does not indicate a transcendent hero beyond the human world; instead, through the means of self-denying sacrifice, Antigone accomplishes the purpose of the divine will and conveys the divine spirit incarnated in the human flesh. For Hegelian tragic hero, the external and internal conflicts lead to the realization of self-consciousness and the ultimate consummation of heroic identity. Instead of being conditioned by Aristotelian tragic flaw and unconquerable fate, for Hegel, Antigone explicates the modern rebellious spirit of free will, and this martyrdom, not in the sense of scapegoat as the passive substitute for the sin of collective human community, presents a modern sense of tragic hero, an incarnated flesh invested with politically radical spirit. The flesh figure of heroine Antigone exemplifies the immanent power of ethical substance and dialectically transforms the divine will into the earthly spirit. Thus, this paper aims to investigate into the shift from Aristotle＇s concept of tragic hero to Hegelian dialectic tragedy and further examines how Hegelian tragic hero engenders the historical move into Western modernity through negative dialectic and accomplishes the self-other positioning of ethical substance presented in Sophocles＇ Antigone.

The Logic of Incarnation： Hegel＇s Use of Plato＇s Philebus in the Shorter Logic and in the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion

Hegel uses Plato＇s classical text, Philebus, in two of his most important texts, the so called Shorter Logics, the first part of the famous Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences and in The Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. The aim of this article is to analyze how can this two references be read together as to form a relationship between logic and religion in the very heart of Hegelian philosophy. In the first case, Hegel analyzes Plato＇s text within the context of his Doctrine of Being, specially from §§ 89 to 95, which deal with the question of determinate being. In The Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, on the other hand, the reference appears in the 1824 Lectures in a particularly complex chapter called ＂The Transition to the Speculative Standpoint of Religion,＂ in which Hegel affirms not only that such a speculative standpoint is the only one in which religion can be truly grasped, but also that the Christian concept of ＂incarnation of God＂ is the ＂speculative midpoint＂ of religion. It will be argued, therefore, that the ontological question of determination and actuality, as exposed in the Shorter Logics, is fundamental to the metaphysics of Christian Religion as Hegel understands it not only in his Philosophy of Religion, but arguably in his whole philosophy.

Society and State in Marcuse and Hegel

In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism. Contrarily to European writers, who searched its philosophical origins in irrational philosophical traditions, in the US, they relied upon the perception that Hegel＇s Philosophy of State was the most relevant ideological basis of National Socialism. Hegel＇s idea for the need of a strong state, seemed to clearly support the hypothesis. Herbert Marcuse, exiled in the United States, bad to confront himself with this conviction that academic colleague shared. This theoretical hypothesis was in tune to the Zeitgeist and the political context, in which anticommunism was growing stronger by the day and where the cold war was developing. Associating Hegel and National Socialism implied, for most of the hypothesis defenders yet another vantage point： it could discredit also Marx, for the tights links between his philosophical thinking and Hegel＇s one. For Marcuse this hypothesis was even more problematic knowing that in Germany, national socialist philosophers had rejected Hegel from the very first day their party came to power. In this article we try to analyze Marcuse＇s respective philosophical argument. The point of departure of this reconstruction is the philosophical interpretation of Hegel＇s theory of the State. Further than the historical context, the debate on Hegel and his theory of the State, is very relevant for today＇s debates, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, which often are starting from similar theoretical errors than the mentioned. In both cases exists a lack of understanding of the classic bourgeois content within the concept of the State, based on the French Revolution.

A Comparative Study of Kant’s and Hegel’s Aesthetics of Landscape Architecture

Both Kant and Hegel showed their attention to landscape architecture art in their aesthetic works,their aesthetic ideas were different but also related.This paper sorted out and interpreted the landscape architecture aesthetics of Kant and Hegel based on relevant aesthetic literature,analyzed the differences between them according to the historical background of landscape architecture development and their philosophic concepts,then summarized the historical causes for the development of their landscape architecture aesthetics.

Can Thought Become Sensible? Reflections on the Aesthetic Theories of Plato and Hegel

Hegel was highly influenced by Plato’s philosophy,as appears in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy.The German philosopher rightly attributed to Plato an“aesthetic”theory meant as a search for the meaning of Beauty(the idea of the Beautiful).For Kant the Sublime played the same role that Beauty did for the Greek philosopher,leading the human soul to grasp the super-sensible,as we read in his Critique of the Judgment of Taste.Contrary to what happened in Plato,in Hegel’s own aesthetic theory,the investigation was not focused on Beauty in general,but on artistic Beauty,the characters of the beautiful work of art.If Plato and Hegel highlight the dialectical-metaphysical function of Beauty,the judgment that they express on art is very different.However,they share an important conception:Beauty is as an intermediate and connecting reality,that functions as a link between thought and sensitivity.

Hegel's Philosophical Discourse of Political Ethics and Spirit of Enchantment

Philosophy of Right as the text of Hegel's thought of practical philosophy has been the most important academic dominance on Hegel.The differences of ethical spirit between Phenomenology of Spirit and Philosophy of Right were lack of attention.The former focuses on historical consciousness in formation of modern spirit.The latter which is construction practice is based on the former.This concern will enable us to maintain a clear understanding of the particularity behind universal ethical values in globalization era and multi-cultural dialogue.

On Hegel＇ s Aufhebung of Plato＇ s Dialectic

According to relevant lectures in the Vorlesungenüber die Geschichte der Philosophie,this paper is trying to illustrate how Hegel understands and explains Plato’s dialectic.Hegel,to a large extent,views his dialectic as a continuation of the starting point of Plato’s dialectic,but Hegel develops Plato’s"negative dialectic"into his"speculative dialectic"by absorbing Neo-Platonists’explanation,especially Proklos’.The essential difference between the two is that Plato’s dialectic,in essence,is satisfied with an external comparison of abstract determinations,and thus can’t bring forth logic connections of categories and obtain an internal development of categories in an organic structure of system.

马克思对黑格尔现实观的批判与超越

黑格尔从绝对精神出发建立起纯粹合理性的现实,并从本体论层面对现实概念加以形而上学式演证,突出了现实的总体性内涵,同时采用对现实的事后反思与之相映射。马克思在指出黑格尔现实观的逻辑泛神论本质后,批判继承了其现实观,并对之加以实践的对象性改造,使现实概念具有了客观实在的品格。在此基础上,马克思将辩证法的总体性原则社会历史化,把理论置于社会历史的总体过程中去理解。他认为理论不仅源自社会现实,更是现实运动的关键环节,并将其嵌入到改变世界的无产阶级运动之中,以此完成了对黑格尔现实观的批判与超越。

《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》的批判思想及启示

《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》见证了马克思哲学立场和革命态度的转变,这种转变蕴含在马克思对德国宗教问题、制度弊病和哲学局限的反思和揭露中。马克思遵循现实性、针对性、重点性和使命性的原则,从宗教批判入手,对德国的制度现实和哲学现状进行了深刻批判,并探索实现人的解放之可能。新时代,防范化解意识形态领域风险,要从马克思的批判思想中汲取与错误社会思潮开展斗争的理论经验和方法启示。要敢于同错误思潮进行“搏斗式批判”,以公开其渗透行径;要及时对错误思潮开展“重点式批判”,以揭露其内容实质和政治企图;要善于采取多样化方式开展系统性批判,以解构错误思潮内核;要围绕事业发展开展使命性批判,筑牢主流意识形态防线,为实现中国式现代化提供坚强思想保障和强大精神动力。

“四大文明”学说的形成与传播:跨越世纪的对话

“四大文明”是中日两国世界史的“常识”。近年,两国分别有学者指出,“四大文明”学说只在本国通用,在世界其他国家并不存在。通过查找史料得知,“四大文明”学说源于卡尔·李特尔、卡普、西莱和黑格尔等西方思想家、历史学家,之后东亚的知识分子将其进行了概念化。这一传播过程跨越了历史学、地理学、人类学、文明学等学术领域的界限,是东西方知识分子对话的结果,同时也是一场跨越世纪的对话。

辩证法与希望的“世纪之争”--简评布洛赫的黑格尔阐释

在西方学界,布洛赫借助黑格尔辩证法激发马克思主义的活力,对于重振黑格尔哲学与马克思主义均极有建树。他在黑格尔辩证法的基点、性质、架构、唯物论“潜力”等方面的阐释推陈出新,有助于澄清误解,展示这种辩证法的当代意义。但由于历史条件与思想眼界的限制,布洛赫对《精神现象学》各“动机”的零散把握与对《逻辑学》的人本主义式还原表明他对黑格尔的理解仍有较大局限,这决定了他的“希望哲学”的思想高度有限。将布洛赫式“希望”依次置于左翼思想传统与20世纪西方哲学的背景之下,我们会发现黑格尔辩证法仍有若干可与之“争辩”之处,值得深入发掘。

论自身关系--关于德国古典哲学遗产的思考

以往从马克思主义哲学角度看,德国古典哲学遗产主要是指黑格尔的辩证法,但也有一条贯穿于德国古典哲学的思想线索,即自身关系思想。这一思想既是反映事物本质内涵的思想内容,又是一种认识事物本质的思维方法。它是理解黑格尔辩证法理论及其应用的内在机理,应作为遗产加以挖掘。自身关系作为问题是在康德哲学中提出来的,其实质是如何解决物自体的不可知问题。费希特通过自我设定行动,在自我与非我之间建立了意识的自身关系,才实现了自我本质认识。谢林则以绝对自我的能动性建立了纯粹意识的自身关系,进而达到对绝对本质的直观。黑格尔在前人的基础上,通过把意识的自身关系改造为概念或实体的自身关系;于是概念或实体便在自身关系的框架中以自身分化和自身扬弃、自身规定和自身否定、自身联系和自身转化等方式建立了庞大的逻辑学体系,以达到绝对理念的认识。

从知识论到存在论——论海德格尔对黑格尔真理观的批判与“变革”

传统西方哲学站在知识论立场,将哲学理解为一种求知活动。代表性人物黑格尔以“理念”为核心,“思辨”为方式,“知识”为样态,建构起了其思辨哲学视域下的知识论真理观。海德格尔对传统西方形而上学的根基进行了批判,试图为真理奠定存在论层面根基。如果说黑格尔面对的问题是真理与对象能否“符合”,海德格尔则认为真理在于作为存在者本身如何去除对“存在”的遮蔽。在海德格尔哲学中,真理(alētheia)并非传统意义上的命题真理,不是符合论的真理,而是存在之真理。达成真理即是要完成对存在本身的领悟,达成存在意义的“显现”——作为澄明的无蔽状态。

黑格尔论考察自然的三种方式——以《自然哲学》“自然的诸种研究方法”部分为中心

在《自然哲学》“自然的诸种研究方法”部分,黑格尔提到了考察自然的三种方式,即实践方式、理论方式以及作为二者之统一的概念化认知方式。黑格尔指出,考察自然的实践方式立足于有限目的论的立场,只是把自然当做实现自身目的的手段,包含个体性而没有普遍性;考察自然的理论方式则正好相反,主张对自然采取直观的态度,任自然如其所是地呈现自身,包含普遍性而没有个体性。在综合了这两种方式优长的基础上,黑格尔提出了统一二者的概念化认知方式并主张以其考察自然。他认为,作为实践方式和理论方式之统一的概念化认知方式否定了实践方式和理论方式各自的片面性,把个体性和普遍性同时寓于自身之中,因此是考察自然的最高方式。

从“德国式的现代问题”到中国式现代化——马克思早期的现代化思想探索及当代启示

马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中提出了“德国式的现代问题”,从一定意义上说是马克思早期探索现代化思想的开端。“德国式的现代问题”可以概括为“后发国家如何追赶时代”和“如何基于国家的特殊性追求现代化的普遍性”两大问题。中国共产党在百余年奋斗基础上成功开拓和推进了中国式现代化,实现了对马克思“现代问题”思考的承接、丰富、创新和发展。以“德国式的现代问题”为起点,将理论眼光贯穿马克思的整个思想体系,我们可以深化对“中国式现代化”重大理论问题的理解,更能理解现代化道路的一般规律及民族与国家特色。

伦理理解:黑格尔道德哲学的当代价值与可能愿景

黑格尔道德哲学或伦理学研究进入当代中国,需要回应时代精神的当代性与话语体系的中国性。黑格尔伦理思想在西方经历了“完全否定-现实关注-内在证成”的路径,当代中国的黑格尔伦理思想研究缺乏理论与学术的自觉,中国黑格尔研究需要一种道德哲学意义上的启蒙与再出发。从黑格尔现代性自由价值理念以及对其确证的哲学体系解读中,可以发现黑格尔体系的“普遍性”特质以及“开端性”的文化本位主义,从而理解黑格尔体系的理论价值与知识局限,进而发现在黑格尔现代性意识中理解中国式现代化的伦理理解的可能路径。

《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》的基本内容及其当代启示

《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》蕴含极为丰富的思想内涵,也蕴藏着丰富的马克思主义思政教育理念。因此,深刻把握马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中的核心思想,对建设中国特色社会主义具有重要作用。立足新时代,在我们对待宗教、培育马克思主义信仰、加强党的先进性和纯洁性建设方面,《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》都能为我们提供深刻的启示和借鉴。透过对《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》的深入理解,我们能够不断推进马克思主义宗教观与时俱进,始终秉持我国宗教中国化方向,以人民为中心,认识到人民群众是党持续发展的力量源泉,坚守马克思主义在意识形态中的指导地位,深化思政教育,更好理解马克思的批判理念,推动中华民族伟大复兴。

青年马克思对黑格尔批判方法的再现实化

马克思在“对黑格尔的辩证法和整个哲学的批判”中,首次明确肯定“黑格尔辩证法的积极的环节”。这个隐藏于批判主题下常被忽视的变化,成为马克思从费尔巴哈总问题必然地走向黑格尔总问题的开端,即从解构式批判到建构式批判的过渡。马克思正是借助对黑格尔异化概念的“批判的形式”和作为“推动原则和创造原则的否定性”的肯定和再现实化,才创立起真正的批判方法,意识到黑格尔思辨哲学与国民经济学异化现实的同构关系,辩证地揭示出私有财产的普遍本质和历史意义。正是马克思的批判引入了更具现实性的“历史性”维度,才为超越费尔巴哈的伦理逻辑、迈向唯物史观提供了理论契机。

黑格尔哲学在马克思哲学共产主义建构中的地位——基于《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的考察

黑格尔哲学在马克思对哲学共产主义的理论建构中具有重要地位。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中构筑起作为异化劳动的扬弃和人的本质的复归的哲学共产主义。哲学共产主义虽然使用了“本质与异化”的费尔巴哈式的话语,但不应看作是受费尔巴哈哲学影响的产物。马克思辩证吸收黑格尔哲学关于“对象性关系”的强调及其合理内核,并将其作为哲学共产主义建构的内驱动力,以人与自然之间的“辩证统一”超越了费尔巴哈人本主义中人与自然的“直接统一”。在哲学共产主义的具体建构中,马克思展现出“对象性关系”中自我生成的运动过程和不断发展的“中介”思维,搭建起哲学共产主义的历史性地基。“对象性关系”是《1844年经济学哲学手稿》时期马克思与黑格尔哲学之间联系的理论枢纽,也是马克思哲学共产主义理论走向科学的重要理论地基。