Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Michelet and Louis Soldan Source: The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Vol. 5, No. 4 (October, 1871), pp. 319-337 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665766 . Accessed: 11/06/2011 10:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=psup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Speculative Philosophy.
http://www.jstor.org
When
Hegel
condescended some
on one occasion
to defend
him
given toHegel to have an opponent of equal rank to contend with, such as Plato found inAristotle or Fichte in Schelling.
The feet of those unhurt who were
state, Frederic II., who to one of his generals after the battle of Kunnersdorf: said " It was not Just see, with such a rabble I have to scuffle!"
to carry him
out, failed
to come.
of his labors, by patronizing hero, and even the effectiveness his adversaries. " Herr v. Hartmann never come into personal has contact
fame,
an end to make again a lance, and as a brave champion was over Kant's the giddy sham that to rise tomb" If others, as Mr. Bergmann for instance, (p. 23). repeating call the philosophical merely Trendelenburg's assertion, sys tems after Kant an "intoxication," itmay be said that the ex break with " pression
* A cal Inquiries.
"far from the strife of philosophical ventures, schools," a very detailed and is upon Dialectic, critique of the Hegelian not afraid merely to repeat what has been said before, though other opponents?Trendelenburg to begin with?spring forth scores like mushrooms. Because have not yet suffi by they the common enemy?as to it certainly appears ciently killed the author?he feels himself the man to enter the lists again, to
ugiddy"
By E.
is no very original
"On Berlin,
one,
inasmuch
Method.
as giddi
critique
Published
320
ness
Review ofHartmann
is commonly the first natural
on the Dialectic.
consequence of intoxica
tion. But although our author does not feel giddy at the apprehension "that the present undertaking might appear "
to yet he wishes toward the heroes more call to mind that of science" than to there is no " examine their productions carefully than anybody else's" (p. v).
Whereupon we have only to remark that if but one fourth of what Hegel is reproached with be true?if indeed Mr.
Hartmann could with "crack-brained Hegel would good statements" reason point out in the Dialectic
(pp. 52-54),
"sophisms"
(pp. 71,
even his assailant at all, whom embittered animosities wishes (his most notwithstanding) to acknowledge him to be. By this, of course, and is obliged
the
"
mere
Still itmust be acknowledged phrase. does not ignore altogether that Mr. Hartmann the dialectic as others have done in their attacks, but magnanim method
piety
"
conversational
the Hegelian and logic are lost for the philosophy against even his critic of the dialectic and consequently method," own book would have to find its way into the waste-basket. " is still at this mo For itmight well be that this instrument for the artist who will make the proper use of ment waiting it."
ously stoops to an ample refutation of it. ? an op the confession of Weisse himself In this attempt, ? that "Hegel's achievement" is "the of Hegel ponent only to our of the true method," invention proves very offensive so if this were the case, the calamity, author (p. iii). For, " to our author, will all attacks that happen deplorable
Yet
to the results of Hegel's philosophy (aside from themethod by which they have been gained) a necessary place in the development of philosophy. Principiis obsta is his motto.
at p. 119 Mr. Hartmann his mind, and will changes not only to the principal results that necessary place " fundamental but also to its of Hegelian princi philosophy, a contradiction! as the fundamental principles ples." What no! allow
on the contrary,
Weisse follow (who rejected only the results of Hegel's Dia in taking hold of the nag by the tail. He undertakes, lectic)
to seize the bull by its horns in " assigning
To keep
v. Hartmann
declines
to
Review ofHartmann
the results.
on the Dialectic.
321
can be nothing else than the method, the way of gaining The whole of the present book is divided into two parts, one historical (pp. 1-34) and the other polemical (pp. 35-124),
we will now pass under review. I.
which
the author's
attempts
are designed
to tear
that by ; for if "Hegel's assertion, the form of exact science and perfection
before with more or less consciousness," attempted happened our author's whole enterprise would again fall to the to be true, seems not to be equal to the Hercu For he himself ground. lean task of impeaching tolerable swindling the entire gallery of heroes or underhand tricks. And of science so he en
with
to show in this most concise outline of the merely an uncommonly of philosophy, which manifests de history of it, and particularly ficient knowledge of great ignorance were driving with their its original, that Hegel's predecessors deavors
Even wThen he is not able to efface the quite obvious relation between Hegel and three or four other philoso : i. e. Heraklitus, and Nicolas Cusanus Plato, Proklus, phers, he nevertheless tries now this shift, and then some other, to Let us briefly go over the also from these. separate Hegel
four.
" our author, as the considers the process Mr. Hart true! Of this principle, principal thing." Very " mann will admit only that is a transition of every change or state into its opposite"; one condition but agrees with Heraklitus, says Aristotle's violated the principle that "Heraklitus objection, when he asserted of contradiction that everything has always same
and hinting time"; and thinks most wisely, squinting " at Hegel, that the outgrowths of this abortion do not offer to the products of our century which require the any support Now here only the length of time highest mental maturity." as the con is represented to separate Heraklitus and Hegel,
Vol. 5?21
322
Review ofHartmann
on tlie Dialectic.
tents will by no means allow of such a separation. But with this Mr. Hartmann has laid bare the very centre of his bat antitheses
of contradiction.
other, but
without being developed from each other. As ifnot also the identity of antitheses expressed in this could preserve their difference,and thus not at all conflictwith the principle of
contradiction. bolder
manifests Even
losophy the prodigious task of denying that the understand ing is governed by logical laws; or what with Mr. Bergmann
as a suspicion, has become a certainty is com the author must with Plato, Plato admit that Heraklitus therefore
is a great to German
deal phi
however,
passage
to identify his dialectic turn: Hegel, with Plato's, rests on a single obscure and disputed of the Sophist, which, passage in whatever construe it grammatically, will at way you may
one
any rate exclude theHegelian interpretation" (Soph. p. 259). It is incredible that aftermy correspondence with the author on this passage, it should still appear to him obscure and
doubtful, sessing
one passage in Plato, but upon his whole dialectic in connec " to furnish the sun-clear that Plato tion, pronounces proof to be the true dialectic" the same which Hegel has in mind.
cline to show him also in its proper light the formerpassage of the Sophist, about which he seems to ask also my opinion inhis last letter; and merely say that itdoes not depend upon
Review ofHartmann
According to Plato, Dialectic
on the Dialectic.
323
?or
this case it would be Many and not One; and as infinitely small, it is Nothing. Thus theOne is in the same respect One and Many, Nothing and the Infinite. At the same time the
two are not in the same way For Being (bpoUos) identical. One and Many, form also an absolute antithe and Nothing, In this way Plato not sin against the principle sis. does of both
But inasmuch again has two others, and so on ad infinitum. as One is One, it has conversely not many in parts, because
And as the ideas are themselves the divine, they and pass through each other the idea (Ao?-oc)?intermingle auvcov ecz the One (dc avzd), they are also in the same respect are the other (ozav rrc <pjj zauzbv 8v izepov ixebjj in which they xcd xaz Ixecvo o ip^oc zouzcov Tzszovdiisa: zbzspov). for in Thus, is One is the infinite Many because each ; stance, the One and for this reason has two parts, Being and One ; each part themselves.
however
Six great against Four one of Seven, but Many term prating and Hegel
of
of opposites takes place, while in their state of disjunction into each other. Yet wher pure being-in-itself they change ever in the sphere of the Finite the Infinite as a resemblance to the ideas is bursting through, there will also exist an inter so nature is Becoming, of ideas: be Life, Activity, mingling are united in her cause Being and Non-being so inseparably; are harmony and beauty, because in them the music, virtue, Definite are Plato's and the Indefinite These (dneipov and xepa$) blend. own words, taken faithfully from the Parmenides,
Sophist, Philebus, and other dialogues. And the thorough knowledge of thePlatonic dialectic depends neither upon the interpreting ingenuity of a model professor of philology nor
the impotency of an amateur-bungler. Thus even Mr. Hart
324
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
mann does not wish to deny the possibility "that already Plato had before his mind as a distant ideal the identification of opposites in theHegelian sense " (p. 7). This is perfectly
sufficient To
reject most
emphatically
in Plato's
undeniable development of theworld out of the conception of from theHegelian school, deserted it in later times." This incident, instead of serving his purpose, should have been the
arisen
to counterpoise
the
on his very thing to put Mr. Hartmann guard against Zeller. Zeller accuses Proklus of scholasticism, and "sterile and mo notonous formalism" it is only (p. 12). Whereby astonishing, as the same reproach has been made that Mr. against Hegel, Hartmann has not seen even in this a sort of a resemblance between takes
at variance. and Hegel On Nicolas Cusanus' views, whom Hegel strangely enough not to have known, he says on p. 17: "If this doctrine appears reason and intellect, and the between has in its discrimination principle
and Hegel. Proklus So greatly Mr. Hartmann mis the advantage offered to him by Mr. Zeller's weapons and those of other predecessors; but he does not want to see he is bent upon similarity at any rate, because setting Proklus
infinite process of ascent": which two deviations of the dialectic the similarity of the two. finds a still greater resemblance to Then Mr. Hartmann as the latter set Bruno inasmuch in Giordano (p. 18), Hegel the impotent do not lessen at all
larity to Hegel, it is still essentially distinguished from it both by the highest stage placed above the intellect and by
of the coincidentia
contrariorum,
the greatest
simi
of
only in this, that each and every thing can each and everything in the course of time become " as the peculiar and deep Bruno has also pronounced else. " from the point of union also its est secret of art" to develop It is very droll, of course, how there should still antithesis." " the two," that, with enormous difference between the exist fection and must
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
325
tithesis,but with Hegel the idea itself." To which we have only to reply, that the philosopher would act very wrongly ifhe performed this development when the idea refused to do mann that in this the philosopher and the idea go hand in hand; that the idea is but the personified philosopher. And " thus in his shortdescription of the dialectic method" he
himself it itself. By the way of consolation, we may assure Mr. Hart
ment of the idea is just as much the objective course of the thing itself as it is the thinkingprocess in thephilosopher's head" (p. 37). The exposition, finally, of the philosophical systems of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, as being perfectly separated
from the Hegelian greatest ignorance phy, as everybody dialectic, bears moreover testimony of the of this part also of the history of philoso who has lived through it, or has restored
paints
it quite
correctly
in this way:
The
self-move
fore his very eyes the gradual dialec growth of the Hegelian tic from those stand-points. By which, of course, we do not mean to deny that Hegel added to it the keystone of perfec tion by his own efforts?the essential which our author point either would not or could not appreciate. We will ask him, " if he is unable to find of Hegel's dia however, something gories ?are
in Kant's lectic principles" that the first two cate assertion, of each class?thus, for instance, Reality and Negation in the third category, Limitation? the opposites united While the result of this dialectic as an asser Kant presents tion merely without to deduce it, Fichte under attempting takes this, as the author states it himself by quoting Fichte's " We must ask ourselves, how can words, as follows (p. 25): A and ?A, and Non-being, and Negation, be Being Reality and cancelling each thought together without annihilating Limitation, same way, has almost
his cue, who says, in the given Hegel in the Becoming, are and Non-being that, Being e. not annihilated) both preserved and cancelled. Neither (i. of these philosophers, thinks that he has cancelled however, by
of contradiction.
Mr. Hartmann
alone
326
Review ofHartmann
********** pretends to see and no
on the Dialectic.
But in Fichte only sober while and
Mr. Hartmann
superabundance in lavishing considerate seems him at Hegel's as the author to agree with expense, Herbart's in the same who throws Fichte much very opinion, ? this should also have made with his successors; category over more considerate Mr. Bergmann before giving himself to the extravagancies of the intellectual intuition. Herbart's " words are these : Fichte retained the unthinkable (undenk an intellectual intuition: that ever existed became ment which and
of reason, on praise
to
community
of
too. And the author Hegel means this in part: however uses, "Hegel sometimes in Schelling's, Identity sion."
or Sameness,
or
modern
tem Schelling's
Ideal and theReal, conveyed too undeniably the fusion of the Hegel by thepolemic ofNew-Schellingism against the dialec
tic method; which, of course, is not a too difficult undertaking Mr. Hartmann contents opposites, to demonstrate the contradistinction between Schelling attempting and
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
327
" So far," after all, and affords an extremely easy triumph. " was the only contemporary who he exclaims pathetically, (p. 31). But it is a mistake places of Mr. Hartmann's in the year
to
intheMunchen period (Schelling'sWorks 1.10, p. vi); where as Schelling himself, in the essay from which this polemic is the differencebetween positive and negative philosophy is mentioned (p. 126). Nevertheless it is highly characteristic
the very latest of having to the old prejudice of absolute science, that itwas pos and of having arrived at the better knowledge an inductive procedure, to learn any sible, only by following that words of Schelling become unfaithful that the latter was ashamed peer," whom from him. Mr. Hartmann will read from even taken, already calls Hegel's Philosophy an episode, and even
who was Hegel's this "only contemporary Hegel Mr. Hartmann is bent so eagerly on separating
ii.
most
al greater part of the treatise is devoted " to the of the Dialectic Method." critique exclusively " " to the dialectic method To define his Mr. Hart position mann begins his critique by a critique of my critique on Tren " in the Mr. Trendelenburg Gedanke." said had delenburg to the second Aristotelian that Hegel infers, according figure, second and
The
is the Indeterminate; is the Indeterminate, Nought "Being as if a man and a goose were the is Nought": therefore Being same because I had replied to this, that both have two legs. in common besides, other predicates both have conceptions as simplicity, In the same abstraction. pure immediateness, respect therefore in which But as it is also
is, for instance, the purest Being ? of its that is, on account nought to the principle of con as, according in the Becoming. Such a even Mr. Hartmann other,
finds unobjectionable (p. 7). Why, then, does he blame the Hegelian Dialectic for the same thing ?When he puts to the latter the alternative that the Identity ofBeing and Nought
changing
of opposites
each
328
must
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
or a total one (pp. 39-40), be either a partial I answer: rest outside it is partial when these categories of each then as opposites, outside of each other, because they then fall, other.
become
Moments them.
I do not know
The monstrous
in
in maintaining thinking that Hegel, in declaring all things diction?nay, negated he this very doctrine himself who admits who asserts however, contradictions. selves?has the principle
everywhere this circumstance it would make Though our to Mr. Hartmann's according opinion (p. 31), impossible the book from ex nevertheless shall not preclude judgment with contra Just in the same way history abounds istence. ? it progresses. dictions ; still it exists nay, for this reason an impossibility, is not Nought, but rather For contradiction the former negates the source of motion, by which itself, even is created. So it is indeed a mis this a new difficulty " when Mr. Hartmann that the nega charges understanding of contradiction is the conditio sine qua tion of the principle if by
for them contradictory of contradiction, while by it. Not he contradicts acknowledged the existence of contradictions, but he We shall see presently, swarms with
is to negate the princi contradictories (horse and non-horse) never does; he only iden this Hegel ple of contradiction: or Light and White, and tifies contraries, as in Grey, Black An atom of salt is to us base and acid in Color. Darkness sure the Understanding in inseparable union, against which side in the salt. But as we
(p. 41).
To identify
enough says that atoms of base and of acid are only side by " theDialectic
and call
see the opposites in One and still terms this Mr. Hartmann it a contradiction,
Review ofHartmann
Since
on the Dialectic.
329
as from an arse from this one misunderstanding, of arms of attack is whole Mr. Hartmann's apparatus nal, I might be content with this and save myself reitera taken, confirms me himself when he is In this Mr. Hartmann tion. naive enough to admit that one can never detect the genuine
Therefore I shall have tomention of such a critique only what besides thiswill perhaps be found prominent in theway of
unusual solecisms. For sidered refutation indeed! inconsequent of such attacks have All it is, properly in a dialectician from his opptment communicated already "to be con speaking, in the M he engages (p. 44). Yes, to the author,
ad marginem.
and to-criminal to mathematics diction, become dangerous of this and the follow law (p. 92), and the other absurdities the reader curious to ing page, which I skip in order to make correct explanation,that them. Even Kuno Fischer's read quite " wras not about the question the identity of contradictories, the Oneness
the remained without however, warnings, even that the dia slightest effect; he prints the entire trash, the principle of contra lectic must necessarily, by negating
Besides,I
whom
It applies, than thosG at. therefore, to other people " Mr. Hartmann has aimed can that contradiction it, one has fallen into it before" be found where only (pp. 94 Now he has, before the eyes of the public at to 95). large, stand the reproof which I first sent him in a confidential letter. The next point to which that Mr. Hartmann says: I wish to call special " the essential task attention of the is, critic
of the opposites
in the dialectic
devel
to the right
tres in very truth, which he is hunting also in the remaining of his publication, up to the very end, faithfully and in part
defatigably. termediate Mr. Bergmann between position was at least looking for an in common logic and speculative
of the principle of contradiction" negation (p. 45). But as wre do not at all negate the principle of contradiction, nothing ma terial remains, but something quite immaterial; hence spec
of the
330
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
resolutely comes only for Hegel aground on the of the
remains dialectic. Mr. Hartmann secure sands of the former. Where the author afterwards
to a refutation
Hegelian
an
receive
tative infinityat all in the true sense of theword" (p. 48). But two pages before, it is: The infinitely great is an impos sible idea, because it represents the Infinite as really exist given as finished. That there is no quantitative infinity,for
which he does ing, and therefore has in'itself the contradiction of an infinity is reproved call two pages after, the author here avers
quantitative
Hegel
is the True?and
this
of the principle
of contradiction. it would
infinities;
be all Does?
perchance, the expression "infinitely silly" suit him better? with Hegel comes in but with As far as we know, the infinity
author the
(pp. 48-49).
the negation
of limit,
i. e. of the
one-sided
qualitative,
there
the
Infinity,
another minate
the same breath the opposite fromwhat he has said about the " that the idea indeterminateness inHegel: precipitates into
not into the negative indeter in each determinateness the qualitative infinitude its indeter of Hegel."
which
ex before Hegel, asserts Mr. Hartmann that nobody in antagonism has placed understand Nicolas Cusanus, cept in his later writings, ing and reason, I refer to Kant, to Jacobi or dedvota and kTzioTrjp.rj i>o5c, to Aristotle's to Plato's incar^fxrj in to voix; or vorjacz. This is the way in >i7:odecxT?xij oppositon When Mr. Hartmann .knows the history of philosophy! In
(p. 50.)
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
331
this way he forgets the lamentations which he has uttered himself thatKant distinguishes between understanding and
reason. If Mr. Hartmann wonders number
that
"
reason
is known
the unreasoning
and
multitude.
The Have
few who
pervaded by it, still deny its existence; he ought to have re membered theword of the other of these Dioscuri of poetry, thatTruth walks ghostlike through the unknowing multi
The very thing does not even suspect her presence. " as the author mentions, to Hegel, consti which, according in tutes man's is but scantily nature, Reason, represented to use an expression of mine, men the great majority"; and, tude, which as again Schiller the gods," because says, among mankind, and only a few, "prizes." the greater part are "blanks," The Indeterminateness of the Infinite?so often and falsely "
wonders that the majority of' men, though are in it, and should necessarily be wholly
to ex absolute wants Hartmann fluidity of the idea"?Mr. on one side in stating that it this Indeterminateness plain by less repulsive to think the unity of contradiction? appears indeterminateness nay, that in the pure every contradiction had to vanish, so to say; on the other side,he directly denies as this Indeterminateness, " contradiction is preserved on the contrary, in the absolute, in its entire antithesis." Conse the Indeterminateness (in which every con
imputed to Hegel
rather to make the principle, means as the antitheses not the principle, Indeterminateness are to be preserved. We from the author a await anxiously solution of this absolute But even now it ap contradiction. pears, from several but Mr. Hartmann that not Hegel quoted above, examples is guilty of negating of con the principle in the most innocent way in the world, as tradiction, though he has not the least idea of the reach of his accusations. That allows the contradiction posits and Indeterminate, to exist, and in the absolute the totality of all things engulfs
Hegel
332
Hartmann
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
As to the legitimation of themethod (p. 66), the author imputes to it that it draws its justification out of itselfr being unable to justify itselfbefore the understanding (p. 67). We ask whether it is possible to justify one of the antitheses
before That case the tribunal arises of the other. The
seen as we have is hunting. This contradiction, in the principled is solved inas self-determination, above, much as all the instances of ideal determinateness {Bestimmt as the moments of the absolute. heiten) are therein posited
the other, and will certainly not yield and be fused into it.
Unity from opposites, and the latter from the for itself. The process of things, like that of thoughts, must in experience. This internal has been traced
one, of course,
rejects
in this very fact lies the confidence of the is its own proof. of being this science which dialectic method it depen would make from outside criterion adduced Each dent : the criterion would have to be proven again, and so on in science. And ad Yet
as
rhythmus of the thing itself,which the philosopher is called to witness without influencing it (p. 37), is consummated by itself in thedialectic of theworld, as Schelling calls it,as well
traced
and
the sup the principal stated before, among thing, we have There the same. and considered tricks of dialectic posed " meaner which order" are only a few left of tricks' of the accuses pass the dialectic method other (p. 79). I will
in the air unsupported. the proof would hang infinitum; Veritas est index sui et falsi. to intends From the chapter on The Con tradiction, which in all and every the contradiction exhibits show how Hegel
not deny that the dialectic by which Hegel makes Equality 42-43) is an impure one like thatwith which Hegel reproaches Mr. Hartmann had reproached Plato is as little justified as if
it, if he had known that passage. I, for one, should have cannot at all posit two things as equal which are not un not be Two, otherwise at the same time, as they would in Parmenides in the passage with But to reproach Hegel into changes an "artificial confusion" where One Inequality over into each (Works, IV., pp.
Plato
Many. with We
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
333
but only One. And Similarity is just the idea in which Equality and Inequality while perfect antitheses, yet are sim
ply one. If this assertion we would Equality triangles,
however,
our hands of it. In mathematics, of course, are separate, as two equal inasmuch Similarity ideal similar ones, things, are in fact but one; counted
negated
the principle
of contradic
in the assertion, that the difference is not an attribute For the difference, according to Mr. Hartmann, is only "to express the relation in which both are considered The relation hovers between the process. by the thinking two as a thing added from outside" The amount (pp. 83-84). of it is that ideas do not contain in themselves what the phi thinks about a monstrous thein ? if the losopher sophism, of A itself. thoughts has our ascribing were
much
of course, be a contradiction But inas would, (p. 85). as cause is only cause by having an effect, and this effect will not appear if it does not react against the cause ? well break an oak but not a reed, because (Boreas may only the one and not the other offers resistance); ? therefore the effect is only possible i. e. the cause is the by the reaction, effect of its own effect, the effect the cause of its own cause. " Are here the ideas of cause and effect inseparable only in the thinking process," or are not rather so in they reality which
difference to Identity because it is different from while this is an expression to Plato: difference, very common which is further testimony the author's above-men against tioned efforts to separate Plato's and Hegel's Dialectics. which each other, as cause and effect, demand Opposites the author further says, presuppose each other as separate, even if they cannot be separated in the thinking process, while the dialectic gives rise to the misrepresenting appear ance as if each side contained or possessed its own contrast;
correct. So the dialectic method unmercifully " on the hip," and critic him back into the pushes snare which he has laid for others. accuses He wTith Hegel
too ? Will
334
Review ofHartmann
on the Dialectic.
to think the contradiction? Or does he rather choose not to think the causality? The same quantity ofmotion is in the
impelling hand-cause, tity for this reason opines in the impelled Is quan object-effect. a contradiction? Here, too, the author (p. 86) that the contents of cause and effect are not iden
tical. Yet
to this they are cause and effect. They solely are not at all cause and effect in what they are besides, flesh, In reciprocal the identity of cause wood, &c. action, where in reference words, and consolation away with therefore cannot finds ignored, Mr. Hartmann " that Schopenhauer hhs done forever" (!?). But what category be preference is not also
author
towhich the
thrown
is construed into ced, and from this point of view the copula a sign of identity between the several parts of the sentence nest of contradictions in (p. 90). Here we find again a whole the author's that he perceives them attacks, while he believes
(p. 89). Into the idea ofUnity the idea of Identity is introdu
ment is E = A or S= P. Now Hegel says nothing else but this: "That the form of the judgment expresses what the
content does not at all assert Hegel the same, or, as the author that subject and predicate " to unity without united contradic says, that they become does at all." are not mean
equality,
as
which Mr. have committed the contradiction tion, he would is One, to see avoided. For what Hartmann wishes is not It is therefore again Mr. therefore quite Two; coinciding.
tion" (p. 88). Then only, if Hegel had really made this asser
For Identity mistakes Unity and Identity. the combination of two which are different at
Review ofHartmann
ones and of the difference
on the Dialectic.
ones. What
335
he means
difference
to say is therefore this: that even the quite shallow logical form of a judgment cannot kill wholly the speculative thought, the formbearing in itself the identity towhich the
of contents This between subject and predicate does not more is equalized and the predicate express
of identical
non-corresponding correspond. more in the higher forms of judgment, the assertorical ence will not by accusing have one its idea, though,
wholly
disappear.
the supersensuous
is wronging Empiricism
and freedom
Empiricism,
that these were indeed the consequences of was succeeded the French by Condillac,
amusement, (pp. 63-64, 71-72, 77, 120.) Mr. Hartmann goes a good deal farther than Mr. Bergmann: " to come to a content; is the only possible way Experience is an individual Mr. for mystic (p. 111). conception rarity" reader intellectual intuition, which derives Bergmann's be pronounced from the thought, will probably mann a fantastic If Mr. Hartmann conceit. caught rebuke use his the relation to which own of dialectic Mr. and I subjected easy empiricism, Trendelenburg sensuousness
belief Otherwise empiric. as experience; which has been done For the but never by philosophers. heretofore by mystics, " " and its Dialectic that Hegel's absolute attempted proof arose from a sensuous mysticism is such a magnificent piece that I cannot help referring the of Hartmann-like deduction, to it for his
by Mr. Hart not yet has even after the in the "Ge he again
diction.
expression
(pp. 113-15),
Mr. Hartmann
336
and which cannot
Review ofHartmann
he has have
on the Dialectic.
it is one with it. Thinking, I stated before toMr. Bergmann, is in itself experience : and thoughtless empiricism is not a thingbelonging to us, or with which we should like to deal.
to strike upon his me how Hegel the question: happened the author falls into an entirely unwor thod" (p. 117). Here After having stated quite the contradiction. correctly thy from the character of the thing, of the method absolute origin to trace back
to us, and which we consequently imputed For if empiricism includes forgotten. thinking,
ceding pages the dialectic method, the author finally proposes "
Fancying
to have
thoroughly
and
fully refuted
in the pre
he undertakes
world"; but which "can only as the question is now about whole the dialectic method
to merely this necessity contin " In the first respect, he says: It seems gent circumstances. of the world's that an apriori reproduction process must be " itmight before the individual consciousness," yet possible with the temporal of the bear little resemblance genesis strengthen an eternal the hope genesis?a
Hegelian
into the very afterwards Talis immediately of representing of the understanding, the stupidity impure of the system, in which indeed the Necessary historic genesis as a mere disease enters under the appearance of Chance, of un evident that his pretended fashion: by this it becomes that the author willingness of to criticise is mere
the method
the principle
itself, mark
well,
in its pure
shape"
irony.
For
if the author,
after
the history of philosophy in our century, is pricked too deeply by his historical conscience; he has no choice but
to transmute and value. to denounce into historical necessity ? it as mere fashion: historical "It was attribute incident, to fashion even a positive,
of
an excessive, to Kant's Antinomies to consider the so-called It was fashion since Fichte as the main of categories of theoretical deduction subject
philosophy.
rhythm
It was
of thesis,
fashion to philosophize
and synthesis.
in the triadic
fashion
antithesis,
It was
Review to misunderstand
of Hartmann
on tlw Dialectic.
337
to pass transcendental intuition; Schelling's manner for the science of the in a pompous off philosophy a straining to de of history and so forth. What absolute, nounce three prede the fundamental points of Hegel's just ' cessors as to saw off from Hegel external incidents,' merely re of the Hegelian If the "jargon and gibberish" language to Mr. Hartmann, he would have done mained unintelligible to sound more of instead better closely this rugged depth about after some superficial its unintelligibility complaining over the pages. at least has gone This complaint skipping of the He out of fashion long ago, after the rich development
"
(p. 119.)
those depths without school has unlocked reducing as the author to shallowness, at some places imputes in parenthesis to the school (p. 95). If, aside from humanely gelian them
" this, Hegel's merits in philosophy of rights, aesthetics,phi losophy of religion, philosophy of history, and history of
the whole philosophy indeed, are not to be esti
mated lightly, I should like verymuch to know how Hegel managed to accomplish this in spite of his method, which "
philosophy,"
in everywhere and confusion, made the brought obscurity farther plain difficult, and removed the dark and problematic can merit be possible, How from its solution" (pp. 119-20). a single step without never made as Hegel his method ? Or be quite exorbitant, this merit must of necessity superhuman, as he had to overcome the difficulties which his method had for him. prepared "
The resume and the end of my critique is therefore: Not the Hegelian dialectic embraces the spectres of its merely own imagination"; it is not "the dialectic that suffers of mor on the con bid excess of irritation" (p. 120). Mr. Hartmann, " this with his own state of mind, can which trary, describes only show a contradiction in those
themselves into such a "head" crammed for (p. 121) perhaps "has never come into personal the reason that Mr. Hartmann contact with a teacher of philosophy," and even a teacher's letters have remained without any influence on him.
places
where
it has
car
Vol.
5?22