Hegel’s Concept of Action between Deflationary Approaches and The Science of Logic

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Yuliia Tereshchenko
{"title":"Hegel’s Concept of Action between Deflationary Approaches and The Science of Logic","authors":"Yuliia Tereshchenko","doi":"10.14746/eip.2022.1.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The research in this paper attempts to outline the connection between Hegel’s concept of action and the contemporary philosophy of action. Hegel’s concept of action has some features in common with the ideas of analytical philosophers, and might open unexpected integration of these different philosophical traditions, which would contribute to the development of both of them. A brief overview of ways to comprehend Hegel’s concept of action (from Taylor to Brandom) shows that the cause of ambiguous understandings of this concept lies in the complexity of Hegel’s approach. The following article highlights the tension between “deflationary” interpretations and the complexity of Hegel´s original approach. Further, by revisiting the Section “Teleology” in Hegel’s Science of Logic, the article illustrates how deflationary interpretations of human action can be improved, so that they are topical for both contemporary practical philosophy and the philosophy of action, beyond the unnecessary split between analytical vs. continental philosophy. Such concepts as “purpose” and “mediation” become crucial, as they have sociological and normative extensions in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, as discussed in the last Section of this article. ","PeriodicalId":36100,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Progress","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics in Progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2022.1.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The research in this paper attempts to outline the connection between Hegel’s concept of action and the contemporary philosophy of action. Hegel’s concept of action has some features in common with the ideas of analytical philosophers, and might open unexpected integration of these different philosophical traditions, which would contribute to the development of both of them. A brief overview of ways to comprehend Hegel’s concept of action (from Taylor to Brandom) shows that the cause of ambiguous understandings of this concept lies in the complexity of Hegel’s approach. The following article highlights the tension between “deflationary” interpretations and the complexity of Hegel´s original approach. Further, by revisiting the Section “Teleology” in Hegel’s Science of Logic, the article illustrates how deflationary interpretations of human action can be improved, so that they are topical for both contemporary practical philosophy and the philosophy of action, beyond the unnecessary split between analytical vs. continental philosophy. Such concepts as “purpose” and “mediation” become crucial, as they have sociological and normative extensions in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, as discussed in the last Section of this article. 
黑格尔在紧缩方法与逻辑科学之间的作用概念
本文的研究试图勾勒出黑格尔的行动观与当代行动哲学之间的联系。黑格尔的行动观与分析哲学家的观点有一些共同之处,并可能开启这些不同哲学传统的意外融合,这将有助于两者的发展。从泰勒到布兰登,对黑格尔行为观的理解方法进行了简要的概述,结果表明,黑格尔行为观理解不清的原因在于其方法的复杂性。以下文章强调了“通货紧缩”解释与黑格尔独创方法的复杂性之间的紧张关系。此外,通过重新审视黑格尔《逻辑科学》中的“目的论”一节,文章阐述了如何改进对人类行为的通货紧缩解释,使其成为当代实践哲学和行动哲学的主题,而不仅仅是分析哲学与大陆哲学之间不必要的分裂。如本文最后一节所述,“目的”和“中介”等概念在黑格尔的权利哲学中具有社会学和规范性的延伸,因此变得至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics in Progress
Ethics in Progress Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信