Hegel's philosophy depends on the answer to a fundamental question: why assume that the abstract structures and necessities of pure thought reveal anything at all about the varied and mutable realm of real life experience? In her study of Hegel's Phenomenology, Ardis Collins examines the way Hegel interprets the Phenomenology of Spirit as an answer to this question and in the process invents a proof procedure that does not depend on unquestioned philosophical principles, cherished social norms, or established prejudices (...) for or against certain ways of thinking or acting. Employing close readings and innovative analysis, this groundbreaking study challenges current interpretations of the Phenomenology. Collins demonstrates that the way Hegel interprets the role of the Phenomenology remains consistent throughout his career, that he claims for the demonstration developed in it the strict necessity of a proof, and that the beginning of philosophy cannot be justified without this proof. In the process, she sheds light on the way Hegel examines the structures and truth expectations of experience to show that the human spirit is involved in a shared project of culture and history that challenges us to become engaged in conscientious causes. Skilfully argued and persuasive, this study of Hegel's Phenomenology explores the concreteness of human experience and shows how Hegel finds in it evidence that the whole domain of human experience belongs to the logical spirit investigated by philosophy. (shrink)

American criminal justice has undergone a sad odyssey over the last 175 years. In the early nineteenth_century, when Alexis de Tocqueville arrived to study American prisons, American criminal punishment was regarded as a model for the civilized world. Today, by contrast, America is widely regarded with horror. What happened? This Article focuses on some Tocquevillean themes. The roots of the harsh criminal punishment regime of the contemporary United States have to do with some of the aspects of "Democracy in America" (...) that Tocqueville found most entrancing. These include traditions of popular sovereignty, religious freedom and social equality. It may be painful for Americans to acknowledge the possibility that some of their most cherished ideals may have ugly consequences for criminal punishment, but they must do so. (shrink)

Why is American punishment so cruel? While in continental Europe great efforts are made to guarantee that prisoners are treated humanely, in America sentences have gotten longer and rehabilitation programs have fallen by the wayside. Western Europe attempts to prepare its criminals for life after prison, whereas many American prisons today leave their inhabitants reduced and debased. In the last quarter of a century, Europe has worked to ensure that the baser human inclination toward vengeance is not reflected by state (...) policy, yet America has shown a systemic drive toward ever increasing levels of harshness in its criminal policies. Why is America so short on mercy? In this deeply researched, comparative work, James Q. Whitman reaches back to the 17th and 18th centuries to trace how and why American and European practices came to diverge. Eschewing the usual historical imprisonment narratives, Whitman focuses instead on intriguing differences in the development of punishment in the age of Western democracy. European traditions of social hierarchy and state power, so consciously rejected by the American colonies, nevertheless supported a more merciful and dignified treatment of offenders. The hierarchical class system on the continent kept alive a tradition of less-degrading "high-status" punishments that eventually became applied across the board in Europe. The distinctly American, draconian regime, on the other hand, grows, Whitman argues, out of America's longstanding distrust of state power and its peculiar, broad-brush sense of egalitarianism. Low-status punishments were evenly meted out to all offenders, regardless of class or standing. America's unrelentingly harsh treatment of trangressors--this "equal opportunity degradation"-- is, in a very real sense, the dark side of the nation's much vaunted individualism. A sobering look at the growing rift between the United States and Europe, Harsh Justice exposes the deep cultural roots of America's degrading punishment practices. (shrink)

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explain cross-cultural differences in online self-disclosure between Indonesians, who live in a highly collectivist culture, and Poles – a hierarchical individualist culture. Various psychological factors have been taken into consideration, such as the need for popularity, the need to belong and self-esteem. Design/methodology/approach – This study was designed as a quantitative study. First, a one-way ANOVA was performed to compare online SD and specific behaviours online between Indonesians and Poles. Second, correlational (...) analysis between online SD and other psychological factors was conducted. Findings – Indonesians were more likely than Poles to disclose information on Facebook. On the other hand, Poles showed a tendency to disclose more positive content than Indonesians. It was also found that SE was significantly correlated with positive content of online SD for both countries. Furthermore, online SD on Facebook is more closely associated with NfP than NtB. Research limitations/implications – This study possesses several limitations in regard to the lack of generalization; this is due to the choice in scales and the sampling procedure. Thereby, further studies must take into consideration the proportion of genders, the differences in the construction of the “self” between individualist and collectivist cultures and the interpretation of culture orientation based on the primary data. Furthermore, several results related to the online SD would need to be verified by further studies to get a holistic explanation. Originality/value – The current research is for all means and purposes original, as it investigates the differences of online behaviours between cultures – Polish and Indonesian – basing on the premise that there are crucial differences between collectivist and individualist cultures. No prior articles attempted the comparison between those nationalities in online behaviour. (shrink)

This essay focuses on how we embody the language we speak: how an audience "reads" the body of a speaker as it both constructs the positionality of that speaking subject and construes that subject's discursive authority. Building on the work of Linda Brodkey and Michelle Fine, I explore what is at stake when university students harass a faculty member by accusing that teacher of not embodying authority in the proper form (body).

Critics of Hegel's social philosophy usually focus their objections on Hegel's account of the relation between civil society and the state. Herbert Marcuse provides the best example of the standard Marxist objection. According to Marcuse, Hegel recognizes the inevitable destructiveness of competing individual interests and handles the problem by giving the state strong political powers. The state imposes restraints on the free play of individuality in the workplace while upholding and protecting the rights of individual freedom. Marcuse objects to this (...) structure because in his judgment the restraints imposed by the state are external to the free individuality they control. The dynamic of competing individual interests cannot produce a common interest and hence cannot establish a basis for real social unity. The rule of the state must stand above this competitiveness, not be involved in it, if the state is to overcome the divisiveness of free individuality. Hence, the law, which embodies the rule of the state, treats every individual as the same, guarantees to each and all the same rights, and imposes on all the same restrictions. But this sameness is an abstraction. Individuals exist with real differences and opposing interests. They live their freedom in competition with the freedom of others and some lose. The law escapes from this inequality and divisiveness by detaching itself from the realities of social living. (shrink)

With this issue, The Owl of Minerva begins its life under a new administration. This change will bring with it some changes in the journal’s policies, its design, the constitution of its Boards. Readers of The Owl, however, will understand why a journal dedicated to the study of Hegel’s thought must acknowledge the moment of transition. They will know, too, that transitions have two moments: one that looks back to the previous life-form and discerns in it the seeds of a (...) new spirit; one that rethinks the old life in a new form. In what follows, we will do both. Section I looks back to what we owe Larry Stepelevich and his staff. Section II describes the new form this legacy will take under the new administration. (shrink)

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park Campus, served as host for the meeting, which began Friday afternoon, October 2, and continued until Sunday midday, October 4, 1992. Approximately seventy members and friends of the Hegel Society attended. The topic was Hegel on the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.

Why battles matter -- Accepting the wager of battle -- Laying just claim to the profits of war -- The monarchical monopolization of military violence -- Were there really rules? -- The death of pitched battle.

CHAPTER ONE THE SEARCH FOR GOD He who separates the study of philosophy from holy religion errs no less than the man who would separate the pursuit of ...

This paper examines how slippery slope arguments are used, and misused, in many public policy debates -- especially in the area of bioethics. I divide the various kinds of slippery slope arguments into the following categories: 1) the logical form vs the conceptual form, and 2) the theoretical context vs the practical context. While all these various types of slippery slope arguments are found wanting, I nonetheless find a valuable role for slippery slope arguments in public debate. In that they (...) give expression to certain of our moral emotions, slippery slope arguments should not be dismissed out of hand by philosophers. (shrink)

RésuméCet article étudie lafaçon dont Hegel élabore sa conception des rapports entre la pensée et la nature dans la Phénoménologie de l'esprit. L'examen montre que 1) Hegel étend le concept de raison pour y inclure i'indépendance de la nature à l'endroit de la pensée rationnelle, 2) cette indépendance se révèle dans le donné contingent de l'empiricité, 3) le concept étendu de raison détermine et justifie les présuppositions de la logique hégélienne, et 4) ce même concept limite le rôle de la (...) logique dans la philosophie hégélienne prise comme un tout, de telle manière que la philosophie y dépend de la science empirique en quelque chose d'essentiel pour sa connaissance de la vérité. En étayant ces thèses, l'article analyse la procédure de preuve utilisée par Hegel, expose le rôle qu'y joue la contradiction, et discute les explications phénoménologiques qu'il propose de la perception, de l'entendement, du stoïcisme, de l'idéalisme, de la biologie, du monde moral kantien, de la religion révélée, et du savoir absolu. (shrink)

This work presents an alternative reading of the respective works of Moses Maimonides and Baruch Spinoza. It argues that both thinkers are primarily concerned with the singular perfection of the complete human being rather than with attaining only rational knowledge. Complete perfection of a human being expresses the unique concord of concrete activities, such as ethics, politics, and psychology, with reason. The necessity of concrete historical activities in generating perfection entails that both thinkers are not primarily concerned with an “escape” (...) to a metaphysical realm of transcendent or universal truths via cognition. Instead, both are focused on developing and cultivating individuals’ concrete desires and activities to the potential benefit of all. This book argues that rather than solely focusing on individual enlightenment, both thinkers are primarily concerned with a political life and the improvement of fellow citizens’ capacities. A key theme throughout the text is that both Maimonides and Spinoza realize that an apolitical life undermines individual and social flourishing. (shrink)