Abstract

When reading Hegel, as it is a commonplace to observe, one is nearly always struck by an awesome and somehow pregnant ambiguity which no amount of study succeeds in completely dispelling, but which one gradually develops a knack for “interpreting” more or less coherently. Even Hegel’s commentators seem to face this problem: as J. N. Findlay puts it, “one at times [is] only sure that he [Hegel] is saying something immeasurably profound and important, but not exactly what it is.” Accordingly, to read Hegel is necessarily to engage in an exercise of interpretation and, to the extent that “interpretation” is understood as a reasoned but ultimately subjective reduction, writing about Hegel has provoked an unusual number of apologies for providing yet another “reading.”