Thomas Khurana

In The Culmination, Robert Pippin offers a stunning reassessment of the achievements of absolute idealism. Having developed some of the most persuasive defenses of Hegel's absolute idealism to date, Pippin now argues that Heidegger's trenchant critique of Hegel has revealed a dogmatism at the very heart of absolute idealism: an unwarranted identification of what is with what is discursively knowable. This dogmatic identification leads to a distorted understanding of the meaning of Being, a reifying account of beings, and a neglect of our own finitude. In this article, I defend Hegel against these charges. The upshot of this discussion is twofold. Rather than evading the question of the exteriority of being, I argue, Hegel in fact aims to reveal that this exteriority is internal to thinking itself. And rather than identifying the meaning of being with discursive knowability, Hegel shows that the meaning of being resides in a form of freedom that goes beyond the self‐transparency of knowing.

In this chapter, I consider the unity of self-consciousness and objectivity. Starting from the notion that the objective character and the self-conscious character of thought seem in tension, I discuss Sebastian Rödl’s Self-Consciousness and Objectivity and his thesis that this tension is merely apparent. This resolution suggests an immediate route to absolute idealism. I recall two Hegelian objections against such an immediate route. Against this background, it transpires that the dissolution of the apparent opposition of objectivity and self-consciousness can only be a preliminary step, opening our eyes to an actual opposition animating the pursuit of knowledge: the opposition of knowledge of nature and self-knowledge. This actual opposition cannot be removed as merely apparent and instead has to be sublated through articulation of its speculative unity. I consider two paradigms for the exposition of such a speculative unity: Kant’s account of judgments of beauty, and Hegel’s account of the speculative unity of life and self-consciousness. I close by contrasting these two approaches with Rödl’s characterization, which strikes me as one-sided. Absolute idealism, properly understood, requires us to develop the speculative unity of knowledge of nature and self-knowledge from both sides, showing us that knowledge of nature is self-knowledge, but equally: that self-knowledge requires knowledge of ourselves as nature.

Art has long been said to open up a different relationship to nature for the subject than ordinary theoretical or practical knowledge allows. Instead of making nature the distanced object of our contemplation or the mere material and means of our practical constructions, art discloses to us an intelligibility of nature that reaches further than our concepts and a naturalness of ourselves that connects us with what we usually relate to as our other. Against this backdrop, it does not seem surprising that the discussions about the problematic relationship to nature that have characterised the Anthropocene repeatedly turn to art and highlight its ability to overcome the problematic modern opposition of subject and object, spirit and nature, which has got us in this mess. In what follows, I want to argue, however, that art and aesthetic experience can only help here if it leads beyond the classical aesthetic paradigms of the beautiful and the sublime. The beautiful dwells in a dream of a harmonic fit between subject and nature that is precisely in question in the Anthropocene, and the sublime presents the superior power of nature only to bring out a different kind of power in the intelligent subject that remains untouched by natural might. These classical figures of aesthetic experience thus obscure how profoundly we need to revise our relation to nature in order to respond to the Anthropocene. In order to see this, it is helpful to first take a look at how (I) modern aesthetics around 1800 fundamentally conceived of art as a second or other nature. Against this background, we can understand more precisely (II) in which sense the figures of natural beauty and the sublime conceive of the relationship to nature. In view of the Anthropocene, these figures threaten to become part of an aesthetic ideology. We therefore need (III) other aesthetic strategies which I will point to in the third part.

The way in which a schema represents something is precisely by abstracting from some of its features; in a schema, representation and abstraction are thus not opposed to each other but rather internally related. The first part of this paper investigates this internal relation by delineating Kant’s concept of schema as the term mediating concept and intuition. Due to its pivotal position, however, the schema tends to collapse either into the conceptual or into the intuitive. The second part of the paper turns to Heidegger who tries to overcome this difficulty: he does not conceive the schema as a supplementary representation that connects already determinate concepts and intuitions, but rather locates schematization immanently in the very articulation of concept and intuition themselves. The third part of the paper proposes that the schematicity of our representations can be reflected in three pictorial strategies that are important for contemporary art: reduction, serialization, and reconstruction. These strategies are exemplified in certain images which put us in a position to see through our own representational form, as it were, and observe the procedures of figuration involved in that very form.

In this chapter, I consider the unity of self-consciousness and objectivity. Starting from the notion that the objective character and the self-conscious character of thought seem in tension, I discuss Sebastian Rödl’s Self-Consciousness and Objectivity and his thesis that this tension is merely apparent. This resolution suggests an immediate route to absolute idealism. I recall two Hegelian objections against such an immediate route. Against this background, it transpires that the dissolution of the apparent opposition of objectivity and self-consciousness can only be a preliminary step, opening our eyes to an actual opposition animating the pursuit of knowledge: the opposition of knowledge of nature and self-knowledge. This actual opposition cannot be removed as merely apparent and instead has to be sublated through articulation of its speculative unity. I consider two paradigms for the exposition of such a speculative unity: Kant’s account of judgments of beauty, and Hegel’s account of the speculative unity of life and self-consciousness. I close by contrasting these two approaches with Rödl’s characterization, which strikes me as one-sided. Absolute idealism, properly understood, requires us to develop the speculative unity of knowledge of nature and self-knowledge from both sides, showing us that knowledge of nature is self-knowledge, but equally: that self-knowledge requires knowledge of ourselves as nature.

While the concept of “second nature” has received remarkable attention in recent years, the discussion has mainly focused on neo-Aristotelian accounts. In this paper, I develop a neglected post-Kantian alternative. Instead of focusing solely on the model of habit, this conception shifts our attention to a different paradigm for second nature: the work of art. Following Kant’s account in the third critique, producing a work of art can be understood as the production of an “other nature”, expressive of freedom. As the post-Kantian tradition from Schiller and Hegel to Marx and Nietzsche suggests, the work of art can thus serve as a model for the kind of second nature we require in order to realize an ethical life. Thus, the production of an ethical second nature is not a matter of mere habituation, but a challenging “art”: it is an aesthetic task, a complex dialectical exercise, and a social practice of objectification. This conception of second nature not only allows us to grasp the relation of freedom and nature more adequately than the dominant neo-Aristotelian conceptions – it also opens up a critical perspective on our contemporary aesthetic self-understanding.

The conception of property at the basis of Hegel’s conception of abstract right seems committed to a problematic form of “possessive individualism.” It seems to conceive of right as the expression of human mastery over nature and as based upon an irreducible opposition of person and nature, rightful will, and rightless thing. However, this chapter argues that Hegel starts with a form of possessive individualism only to show that it undermines itself. This is evident in the way Hegel unfolds the nature of property as it applies to external things as well as in the way he explains our self-ownership of our own bodies and lives. Hegel develops the idea of property to a point where it reaches a critical limit and encounters the “true right” that life possesses against the “formal” and “abstract right” of property. Ultimately, Hegel’s account suggests that nature should precisely not be treated as a rightless object at our arbitrary disposal but acknowledged as the inorganic body of right.

This chapter investigates the Kantian idea that a rational life is a life of “mere form”—a life in which a “mere form” is the force or spring of action. I start by developing Kant’s practical notion of life—the capacity to be the cause of what one represents. In a second step, I investigate the way in which Kant characterizes a rational life—the capacity to act in accordance with the representation of laws and to determine ourselves by the mere form of a practical rule. In the third section, I point to some of the attractions and some of the problems of such an account. I close by considering a Hegelian alternative: the notion that a rational life is not the life of “mere,” but of “absolute form.”

In his 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx famously claims that the human being is or has a ‘Gattungswesen.’ This is often understood to mean that the human being is a ‘species-being’ and is determined by a given ‘species-essence.’ In this chapter, I argue that this reading is mistaken. What Marx calls Gattungswesen is precisely not a ‘species-being,’ but a being that, in a very specific sense, transcends the limits of its own given species. This different understanding of the genus-character of the human being opens up a new perspective on the naturalism of the early Marx. He is not informed by a problematic speciesist and essentialist naturalism, as is often assumed, but by a different form of naturalism which I propose to call ‘dialectical naturalism.’ The chapter starts (I) by developing Hegel’s account of genus which provides us with a useful background for (II) understanding Marx’s original notion of a genus-being and its practical, social, developmental character. In the last section, I show that (III) the actualization of our genus-being thus depends on the production of a specific type of ‘second nature’ that is at the heart of Marx’s dialectical naturalism.

In his 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx famously claims that the human being is or has a ‘Gattungswesen.’ This is often understood to mean that the human being is a ‘species-being’ and is determined by a given ‘species-essence.’ In this chapter, I argue that this reading is mistaken. What Marx calls Gattungswesen is precisely not a ‘species-being,’ but a being that, in a very specific sense, transcends the limits of its own given species. This different understanding of the genus-character of the human being opens up a new perspective on the naturalism of the early Marx. He is not informed by a problematic speciesist and essentialist naturalism, as is often assumed, but by a different form of naturalism which I propose to call ‘dialectical naturalism.’ The chapter starts (I) by developing Hegel’s account of genus which provides us with a useful background for (II) understanding Marx’s original notion of a genus-being and its practical, social, developmental character. In the last section, I show that (III) the actualization of our genus-being thus depends on the production of a specific type of ‘second nature’ that is at the heart of Marx’s dialectical naturalism.

In which sense can human beings be conceived as social animals? To elucidate this question, the present paper distinguishes the logical sociality of all living beings from the material sociality of social animals and the political sociality of self-conscious social animals. The self-conscious political sociality that characterises the human genus-being requires a complex interplay of first and second person through which alone we can participate in our form of life and determine its content. The human form of life thus constituted is characterised by a particularly open, and at the same time precarious, membership which involves specific forms of vulnerability and power. Against this background, forms of objective spirit are necessary which grant us a generalized recognition and relieve us from the contingency of each particular second-personal recognition, without abandoning the openness of the sociality of the human form of life. This double requirement has led to paradoxical institutions in modern society which strive to protect and ensure the sociality of the human form of life precisely by naturalising and individualising our access to it.

In this paper, I discuss Karen Ng's reconstruction of Hegel's concept of life. On Ng's account, Hegel's conception of life has a remarkable double role to play: Life is both the proper object of judgment as well as a fundamental characterization of the activity of the judging subject. In a first step, I highlight the insight that Ng's account sheds on the internal connection of life and self-consciousness and the peculiar normativity of life. In a second step, I raise three concerns about Ng's strong focus on the logical notion of life which she characterizes as non-empirical and a priori. I argue that in order to uncover the full significance of the notion of life for Hegel we have to turn to his Philosophy of Nature and Spirit.

In this introductory paper, I discuss the second-personal approach to ethics and the theory of recognition as two accounts of the fundamental sociality of the human form of life. The first section delineates the deep affinities between the two approaches. They both put a reciprocal social constellation front and center from which they derive the fundamental norms of moral and social life and a social conception of freedom. The second section discusses three points of contrast between the two approaches: The accounts differ in that the second-personal approach opts for a narrower conception of recognition focusing on mutual moral accountability, whereas recognition theory suggests a broader conception including relations of love, respect, and esteem. Secondly, the accounts differ as to how they conceive of the interrelation of the I-thou and the I-We relationship. Finally, they differ with regard to the way they think of struggles for recognition. Whereas the second-personal approach suggests that we can understand struggles on the basis of a transcendental infrastructure of second-personal address, the theory of recognition considers norms of recognition as themselves constituted by dialectical social struggles. The paper closes with a reflection on the ways in which both approaches can help us understand the social vulnerability of the human form of life.

In this contribution, I investigate Hegel’s idea that ethical life is to be understood in terms of a “second nature”. For spirit to actualize itself as second nature does not mean for it to somehow regain the immediacy and simplicity of nature, but to find itself in a nature it has yet to exceed, and to produce a nature of a different sort. While this general characterization pertains to all three spheres of ethical life – the family, civil society, and the state –, it is the “second nature” of civil society which brings out the radically modern character of Hegel’s conception most clearly: it is post-Kantian, not neo-Aristotelian. In order to bring this into view, the first section reconstructs the way in which Kant characterizes cultivation and civilization as the production of a second nature which is necessary to prepare us for, but not yet sufficient for a free and moral appropriation of our natural capacities. In the second section, I delineate how Hegel develops Kant’s conception of culture and civil society further. On Hegel’s account, civil society is not the last stage of our natural development, but a strategic regression of ethical life in its attempt to deepen the appropriation of our nature. Civil society presents itself as a spiritual animal kingdom in which ethical life realizes itself in the state of its own dissolution. In the third and final section, I suggest that to supersede the limitations and to develop the liberating potential of this type of second nature we can’t take recourse to moralization, as Kant had suggested, but are in need of a politics of second nature.

Gegen die verbreitete Vorstellung, dass Negativität im Interesse von mehr Selbstverwirklichung, Produktivität und Positivität überwunden oder be-grenzt werden muss, eröffnet dieser Band eine andere Perspektive. Er geht den verschiedenen Formen des Negativen in Kunst, Recht und Politik nach, um zu zeigen, dass es nicht allein eine Negativität gibt, die dem Gelingen im Weg steht oder zu dessen sicher beherrschtem Mittel wird. Die Beiträge des Bandes erweisen Negativität vielmehr als eine Kraft der Befreiung, die ein Gelingen anderer Art ermöglicht.

In this chapter, I consider the relation of the three major spheres of ethical life that Hegel distinguishes – family, civil society, and the state – and analyse their contribution to the constitution of the "second nature" of objective spirit. Family and civil society are both analyzed by Hegel as ways of taking up and transforming our given nature such that a second ethical nature can be produced. Where the family helps bring forth such a second nature by means of “education” (Erziehung), civil society does so by means of “cultural formation” (Bildung). As I show in sections (I) and (II), these processes are characterised by Hegel as steps of an actualization of freedom insofar they liberate us from our given nature without suppressing it and bring forth a second nature that gives freedom the consistency of living reality. However, while these processes constitute forms of liberation, they are at the same time forms of social subjection, involving discipline and normalization, the subjection to the will of another, and the adaption to the given necessities of the social world. Therefore, the completion of the process of liberation seems to require a third sphere that allows individuals to relate, collectively and politically, to the second nature thus produced. In order for the second nature of spirit to be a self-constitutive actualization of freedom, ethical life thus requires a specific political dimension that I turn to in section (III). While this political process is only possible on the basis of the republican infrastructures of family and civil society, it at the same time calls these infrastructures into question. Although Hegel himself does not develop this dimension properly, his conception of second nature points towards the desideratum of a politics of second nature. I will close the discussion of this political dimension in section (IV) by pointing out the general and diagnostic dimensions that such a politics of second nature can help us elaborate.

Der Gedanke, der sich in der modernen Idee der Autonomie verdichtet, ist ein doppelter: Die Figur der Autonomie enthält zugleich eine neue Auffassung von Normativität und eine eigene Konzeption von Freiheit. Dem Gedanken der Autonomie zufolge ist ein Gesetz, das wahrhaft normativ ist, eines, als dessen Urheber wir uns selbst betrachten können; und eine Freiheit, die im vollen Sinne wirklich ist, drückt sich in Gestalt eben solcher selbstgegebener Gesetze aus. Die Idee der Autonomie artikuliert so die Einsicht, dass man Freiheit und Gesetz nicht durch ihre Entgegensetzung bestimmen kann, sondern durcheinander erläutern muss. Wirkliche Freiheit ist nicht Freiheit von Gesetzen, sondern Freiheit in Gesetzen; verbindliche Normen sind nicht das, was Freiheit äußerlich beschränkt, sondern das, was Freiheit innerlich verwirklicht. Die Idee der Autonomie, die für die moderne praktische Philosophie seit Rousseau und Kant grundlegend ist, zielt so darauf, Freiheit und Verbindlichkeit in einem Zuge zu artikulieren: durch die Form selbstgegebener Gesetze. Mit Beiträgen von Robert Brandom, Judith Butler, Thomas Khurana, Christoph Menke, Terry Pinkard und Sebastian Rödl.

Habermas’s exchange with Jacques Derrida is situated within the debate about modernity and postmodernity. When he was awarded the Adorno Prize in 1980, Habermas defended the “unfinished project of modernity” in his acceptance speech; the opponents of modernity he identified included — in addition to old conservatives and neoconservatives of the recognizable variety — a group of “Young Conservatives,” among whom he numbered Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida (“Modernity,” 53). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1985) devotes two chapters to Derrida, in which Habermas details, at greater length, what prompted this judgment. In his estimation, Derrida’s philosophy represents a radicalized critique of reason (Vernunftkritik), which amounts to an inadequate response to the diremptions and dualisms of modernity. This account — as well as the debate in Germany, France, and the United States that followed — was marked by polemical intensity and political vehemence; the effect on institutional and theoretical-political lines of allegiance was far-reaching. There is good reason to doubt whether Habermas portrayed Derrida’s writings accurately and whether he situated them in the appropriate cultural and political contexts. Instead of tracing, point for point, the specific problems within Habermas’s account and the critical responses they elicited, it is more illuminating to remain at a certain remove from the debate. This will allow us to identify the common points of departure that Habermas’s and Derrida’s projects share and to indicate the way in which they challenge each other in systematically fruitful ways.

Es ist bekannt, dass Jacques Derrida Hegel als einen der radikalsten Vertreter jener Metaphysik der Präsenz beschrieben hat, die es zu dekonstruieren gilt, und zugleich zugestanden hat, dass Hegel wie kein anderer eben jene Irreduzibilität der Differenz gedacht hat, die Derrida durch die Dekonstruktion der metaphysischen Tradition zur Geltung bringen will. Derridas Verhältnis zu Hegel kann also gar nicht anders als kompliziert sein. Es ist voller innerer Spannungen, die dringend nach näherer Klärung verlangen, die die Literatur zu Derrida bisher aber meist nur punktuell geliefert hat. Auf eine grundlegende und umfassende Klärung zielt nun Johannes-Georg Schüleins Studie zu Metaphysik und ihrer Kritik bei Hegel und Derrida.

Der Begriff der Lebensform spielt eine ebenso zentrale wie vielgestaltige Rolle in der Philosophie der Gegenwart. Er dient einerseits dazu, auf die menschliche Lebensform als den Grund und Horizont aller Normativität zu verweisen, wie er andererseits dazu verwendet wird, die Vielfalt möglicher besonderer Lebensweisen zu fassen. Bemerkenswerterweise kommen die beiden Extrempunkte des Verwendungsspektrums dabei in einer entscheidenden Hinsicht überein: Lebensformen scheinen sich der Kritik zu entziehen – entweder, weil sie zu fundamental sind, um begründet oder mit Gründen infrage gestellt zu werden; oder aber, weil sie im Bereich individueller oder kollektiver Wahlmöglichkeiten liegen, denen gegenüber die normativen Prinzipien öffentlicher Gerechtigkeit neutral bleiben sollten. In beiden Hinsichten werden Lebensformen in gewisser Hinsicht als normativ unverfügbar gedacht: als unüberschreitbarer und nicht weiter begründbarer Grund unserer normativen Orientierung oder als kontingenter und beliebiger Inhalt normativ gleichermaßen zulässiger Wahl. Rahel Jaeggi verfolgt in "Kritik von Lebensformen" das interessante Vorhaben, den Begriff der Lebensform auf eine solche Weise neu zu bestimmen, dass ihre Kritisierbarkeit einsichtig werden kann. Der Beitrag prüft den für dieses Vorhaben zentralen Gedanken, dass Lebensformen als Problemlösungsinstanzen verstanden werden können. Gegen die pragmatistische Idee, dass die Probleme von Lebensformen auf ihre Lösung, Beseitigung oder Überwindung drängen, schlägt der Beitrag mit Foucault, Luhmann und Deleuze vor, dass Lebensformprobleme vor allem ausgetragen und entfaltet werden wollen.

The paper argues that Kant’s distinction between pure and empirical apperception cannot be interpreted as distinguishing two self-standing types of self-knowledge. For Kant, empirical and pure apperception need to co-operate to yield substantive self-knowledge. What makes Kant’s account interesting is his acknowledgment that there is a deep tension between the way I become conscious of myself as subject through pure apperception and the way I am given to myself as an object of inner sense. This tension remains problematic in the realm of theoretical cognition but can be put to work and made productive in terms of practical self-knowledge.

Die praktische Philosophie der Gegenwart hat in vielfacher Weise Gebrauch von dem Gedanken gemacht, dass unsere sittliche Konstitution uns zur „zweiten Natur“ wird. Diesem Gedanken kann eine therapeutische, eine affirmative und eine kritische Wendung gegeben werden: In der therapeutischen Verwendung soll uns die Erinnerung, dass praktische Vernunft uns zur zweiten Natur werden kann, helfen, einen Dualismus von Geist und Natur zu überwinden, ohne uns auf einen reduktiven Naturalismus festzulegen. In der affirmativen Wendung soll der Begriff der zweiten Natur die Exzellenzform praktischen Könnens artikulieren, das gerade darin seine höchste Stufe erreichen soll, das Richtige unmittelbar sehen und tun zu können. In der kritischen Verwendung drückt die Formel schließlich aus, dass eine erworbene sittliche Konstitution, die uns zur bloßen zweiten Natur geworden ist, sich unserer freien Aneignung und Bestimmung entzieht und uns auf eine problematische Weise bestimmt. In all diesen Varianten ist bislang weitgehend unerörtert geblieben, dass die philosophische Tradition nicht nur unsere erworbenen sittlichen Tugenden als „zweite Natur“ bestimmt hat, sondern auch mit Blick auf die schöne Kunst von „zweiter Natur“ spricht. Auch das Kunstwerk ist nach einem neuzeitlichen Topos, den die Ästhetik um 1800 aufgreift und schnell verbindlich gemacht hat, als eine „andere“ oder „zweite“ Natur zu verstehen, die durch den Künstler hervorgebracht wird und von der ersten Natur spezifisch unterschieden ist: Das Kunstwerk ist ein Produkt der Freiheit, das erneut als Natur erscheint (Kant); es gibt der ersten eine „zweite Natur“ zurück, die zugleich „eine gefühlte, eine gedachte, eine menschlich vollendete“ ist (Goethe); und es vollbringt das Kunststück einer „gesetzten Unmittelbarkeit“, einer Setzung von Sein, die an die gesetzte Unmittelbarkeit der Gewohnheit erinnert (Hegel). Wenn man diese Bestimmungen etwas weiter folgt, lässt sich schnell erkennen, dass es sich hier nicht um eine zufällige Homonymie handelt, sondern dass durch die Bestimmung als „zweite Natur“ ein gemeinsamer Problemhorizont angedeutet ist, auf den sich die zweite Natur der Sitte und die andere Natur der Kunst auf unterschiedliche Weise beziehen. In welcher genauen Beziehung stehen aber nun die zweite Natur der Sittlichkeit und die andere Natur der Kunst? Das ist die Frage, der die in diesem Schwerpunkt versammelten Beiträge nachgehen.

This contribution traces an aesthetic shift in the concept of second nature that occurs around 1800 and raises the question as to what role art might play in a culture that already conceives of itself in generally aesthetic terms. The paper recalls Kant’s rejection of habit as a proper realization of ethical life and shows that in his third critique, Kant proposes a second nature of a different kind. To realize ethical life as a “second nature”, we cannot confine ourselves to mere habituation but require a different type of second nature that is exemplified by the work of art. The paper asks what role art may adopt in an aestheticised culture arising from the success of such an aesthetic understanding in the wake of Kant, from Schiller through to Nietzsche. It argues that art redefines its role by taking not first nature but the second nature of ethical life as its main point of reference. Art thus reconceives itself as a self-reflection of our second nature. The paper discusses three models of such self-reflection: the aesthetic estrangement, the beautiful completion, and the dialectical renegotiation of our second nature.