One system, a circle of circles
Can philosophy be learned in pieces, a little logic here and some ethics there? Hegel answers that a thought is justified only by its place in the whole, and the whole is a circle with no privileged starting point.
Each of the three parts is a complete circle that breaks through its own limit and opens the next, so that logic, nature and spirit form one circle of circles. Hegel sets this against philosophising by opinion and assurance: a claim outside the system is, for him, an unfounded presupposition. The closing paragraphs put it to the test by reading the three parts as three chains of inference, each part in turn serving as the middle link, and the book returns to its beginning before it closes on a passage from Aristotle.
- philosophy
- truth
- reason
- mediation
- totality
- unity
Enter a dialogue
- Nobody claims to make a shoe without learning the trade, though everyone has feet and hands. Why do people assume philosophy needs no such training?
- Philosophy here is a circle of circles, each part a closed whole that opens into the next. Why can't it start from one first premise?
- Someone picks up a little ethics here and a little logic there. Why is a thought, for you, unfounded until it has its place in a whole?
- Homer says some things have two names, one among gods and one among mortals. Why are religion and philosophy, for you, two such languages for one truth?
- Pious critics charged your philosophy with pantheism, with seeing God in everything. Why do you answer that their own God, known only by feeling, is the emptier one?