Edward A. Beach

As an important corollary of this interpretation of absolute knowledge, the dissertation concludes with the suggestion that Hegelian philosophy need not be regarded merely as an interesting curiosity in the history of ideas, but rather that it can serve as a vital and potentially rewarding source of fresh theoretical insights. ;Instead, the concrete completeness of speculative philosophy can only consist in the activity of a dynamical, ceaselessly self-examining and self-regulating intellectual community. In one sense, of course, no finite system can ever be complete, insofar as it will inevitably be guilty of errors and misconceptions. Yet at the same time, the infinite System is perfect and complete, insofar as it contains within itself the means whereby its own unavoidable flaws will be discovered, corrected, and "forgiven"--i.e. aufgehoben into vanishing moments of a universal totality. ;In opposition to most traditional interpretations of Hegel, the position is maintained that Hegel himself deliberately faced this problem, and that a true understanding of his proposed solution requires a radical Aufhebung of the concept of cognition as such. Relying primarily on the penultimate chapters of the Phenomenology of Spirit, the dissertation argues that absolute knowledge can neither be a finalized system of fully explicit content, nor an endless movement toward such an ideal state. ;This dissertation undertakes a critical examination of one central problem in Hegelian philosophy: viz., whether the final realization of "absolute knowledge" is logically consistent with significant epistemic progress in the system's continuing development. Serious consideration of the concept of systematic completeness, as interpreted on Hegel's terms, uncovers the existence of a profound paradox. On the one hand, if the Truth is the Whole, then the truth of any finite part or aspect of that Whole depends upon its place within the system as a totality. In order to grasp the part and comprehend it correctly, one must already have a systematically ordered knowledge of the universe in its entirety. Yet the methodological open-endedness of dialectical thinking precludes the acceptance of any particular theoretical formulation as final or complete in itself. Hegel interprets the history of philosophy as a progression of successive formulations of the Truth, each of which improves on its predecessors by reconciling their internal contradictions, but no one of which is adequate in itself. Hence, no theoretical world view, including Hegel's own, can rest content within its limits, for the inevitable advance of thought must in the end throw it down.

This essay explores Hegel’s treatment of Carl Friedrich Gauss’s mathematical discoveries as examples of “Analytic Cognition.” Unfortunately, Hegel’s main point has been virtually lost due to an editorial blunder tracing back almost a century, an error that has been perpetuated in many subsequent editions and translations.The paper accordingly has three sections. In the first, I expose the mistake and trace its pervasive influence in multiple languages and editions of the Wissenschaft der Logik. In the second section, I undertake to explain the mathematical significance of Gauss’s discoveries. In the third section, I take a look at the deeper implications of Hegel’s treatment of Gauss’s work as a window onto the nature and limitations of analytic cognition. In conclusion, I seek to explain how the linear method embodied in deductive reason leads by its own inner principle, according to Hegel, to its dialectical Aufhebung (sublation). The result is a kind of deliberately circular reasoning that he describes as “the Absolute Idea.”

Schelling is best known in the Anglo-American philosophical community for work he did in his twenties, between 1797 and 1803. During this time, he appropriated Fichte’s standpoint of transcendental idealism and developed some of its implications for the philosophies of nature, history, and art. Schelling did not claim at this stage to be formulating an original standpoint of his own, but simply to be extending the Fichtean principles in new directions. In this endeavor he was quite successful, and for a brief period he was lionized as philosophy’s youngest and brightest hope. He has been recognized since then as an important pioneer in the post-Kantian German idealist movement.

This monograph explores the metaphysical and hermeneutical principles underlying Schelling's final system concerning the nature of religious mythology. This system was worked out in the last two decades of his life and delivered in a series of lectures in Berlin between 1841 and 1846. Treatment of this topic requires a combination of methodological approaches--hermeneutical, historical, and philosophical, but my primary emphasis is on the philosophy. I give a detailed analysis of Schelling's "Potenzenlehre" and discuss its logical implications for both the "negative" and "positive" branches of his philosophy. ;According to Schelling, the positive branch is needed in order to provide independent confirmation of the results obtained by the negative branch. He criticized Hegel and his followers for failing to recognize this need and for reducing human experience to a bloodless series of logical categories. I show that the root of the disagreement between Schelling and Hegel lay in their differing conceptions of proper dialectical method. On due consideration, I conclude that Schelling's position, while interesting and provocative, is unconvincing. ;Despite the limitations of his philosophical principles, Schelling's interpretive approach to mythology--especially Greek mythology--enabled him to uncover some of its hidden dynamics. Most Western thinkers at the opening of the nineteenth century still tended to dismiss representations relating to deities outside the Judeo-Christian tradition as mere fictions told by credulous, superstitious primitives. Schelling was one of the first to probe beneath the surface layers of the seemingly arbitrary narratives in search of deeper symbolic significances. My work shows how in the process he anticipated many of the developments of modern religious psychology. ;Schelling suggested that the ostensible meaning of a myth often might be just a facade constructed by the conscious mind in order to dissemble the true motivations of the unconscious. I argue that Schelling's discovery of the role of the unconscious was his most important contribution to the study of religious meaning. ;The dissertation concludes with appendices discussing major intellectual influences on Schelling's thought: Bohme, Baader, and Hegel. A final appendix analyzes the interpretations of two representative Schelling scholars: Jurgen Habermas and Walter Schulz

Dieter Henrich has presented persuasive evidence that Hegel’s logic does not, in practice, provide a linear deduction of logical categories, but rather borrows thought-forms proper to subsequent stages in order to effect its dialectical transitions. In reply, I argue that the presented order of the categories is already implicitly sublated by a deep structure of circularity that determines the development. Thus, Hegel’s dialectic is deliberately nonlinear in terms of both its content and its method. One can therefore acknowledge the astuteness of Henrich’s many insights without regarding them as telling criticisms of the system as Hegel intended it.

Kant's noncognitive argument based on practical reason claims that moral considerations alone suffice to justify the idea of personal immortality as a postulate. Some recent objections are considered here that have charged him with overstepping his own distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. After examining the arguments, Kant is exonerated of having violated his own principles. More troubling, however, is the peculiarity involved in postulating an infinite progression toward a goal whose attainment, by hypothesis, would undermine the very foundations of morality (which for Kant always requires the agonistic condition of struggling to improve one's lower nature). It is argued that this paradox necessitates a reexamination of some tacit cultural presuppositions underlying Kant's conception of the soul. Finally, an examination is made of the thought of Kitarō Nishida, whose Zen Buddhist–inspired dialectic of the basho (logical "place") provides an alternative perspective from which to reconsider the postulate of immortality. Nishida, like Kant, rigorously maintains the phenomenonnoumenon distinction, yet his examination of ethics leads him to postulate an eventual sublation of the "soul" principle. It is concluded that Kant's postulate of immortality, while plausible enough on its own terms, is limited by a Western cultural bias and therefore fails in the end to be compelling.