Hegel's Philosophy of Nature

Volume I Edited by M J Petry

Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, G W F Hegel, Michael John Petry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317852520
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Modern Philosophy

The second part of Hegel's Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in outline. Translated, and with an introduction by, MJ Petry.

Introduction

a. Encyclopaedias

'Systems are useful not only in that one thinks about matters in an orderly manner, according to a certain plan, but in that one thinks about matters at all. The latter use is undoubtedly greater than the first.'—G. C. Lichtenberg.

If the Hegelian system is to be fully appreciated, it has to be grasped as a whole. Experience has shown that this is no easy matter, not only because the general principles involved in its structuralization have never been clearly presented and effectively criticized, but because, in the range of its subject matter, it is so bewilderingly comprehensive. Hegel's own teaching experience had made him aware of the difficulties involved in communicating satisfactorily however, and it was mainly in order that his system might be conveniently considered in its entirety that he produced his 'Encyclopaedia'. This work, which is therefore central to any understanding of his manner of thinking, was designed as a general guide to the courses of lectures he delivered at Heidelberg and Berlin between 1816 and 1831. As it was primarily a teaching book, he was constantly revising it, and during his lifetime three editions of it were prepared for the press (1817, 1827, 1830). The lectures were designed mainly for undergraduates, and it is therefore a consideration of Hegel as an encyclopaedist and a teacher which provides one of the readiest introductions to his philosophical system.

The problems facing encyclopaedists have changed very little since the beginning of the last century. Then, as now, most specialists were unwilling or unable to assess their disciplines in a satisfactory manner within any comprehensive or systematic exposition of knowledge as a whole. Aristotelianism had long since ceased to dominate the university teaching of Europe, and most philosophers, as philosophers, were as incapable as they are today of saying anything very helpful about the labours and problems of their academic colleagues and fellow citizens. Then, as now, the need for a synoptic view of knowledge was forced upon the notice of specialists as fresh discoveries gave indications of formerly unsuspected connections, especially in the natural sciences. Then, as now, various attempts were made to evolve such a view from inadequate premises and ephemeral interpretations, and then, as now, these attempts were overvalued and capably criticized.

The encyclopaedists of Hegel's day had already begun to assess this state of affairs in much the same way as their present-day counterparts. Philosophical encyclopaedias, such as Hegel's, were generally regarded as unsatisfactory in that they tended, to impose a more or less arbitrary structuralization upon subject matter which was to be acquired in a much more trustworthy and intelligible manner from the specialists themselves. Étienne Chauvin (1640-1725), a French Huguenot pastor living in Berlin, had attempted to expound Cartesianism in an encyclopaedic form in his 'Lexicon rationale' (Rotterdam, 1692), Christian Wolff (1679-1734) had attempted to scholasticize Leibniz in a similar manner,¹ and J. J. Eschenburg produced the Kantian equivalent of their work in his 'Lehrbuch der Wissenschaftskunde' (Stettin and Leipzig, 1792). It was generally realized that writings of this kind merely emphasized the limitations and datedness of the philosophies on which they were based, and the irresponsible extravagances of Schellingianism finally brought the whole concept of philosophical encyclopaedias into disrepute. The effect of organizing knowledge in order to further particular ends had. become evident in the success of Bayle's 'Dictionnaire historique et critique' (2 vols. Rotterdam, 1697) and Diderot's 'Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raissoné des sciences, des arts et des métiers' (35 vols. Paris, 1751-1780) in creating and consolidating the intellectual atmosphere of the eighteenth century enlightenment. Although they are basically similar to the purely philosophical encyclopaedias, works of this kind have now proved their social effectiveness, and are therefore still compiled and countenanced by certain interests, regimes and churches. As they have never completely succeeded in integrating their subject matter into the ends for which they have been written however, they have generally been criticized for their lack of 'objectivity'.

¹ F. W. Huge 'Christian von Wolff der Philosoph' (Breslau, 1831); W. Arnsperger 'Christian Wolff's Verhältniss zu Leibniz' (Heidelberg, 1897). See 'Die philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz' (ed. Gerhirdt, Berlin, 1875-1890) vol. IV pp. 27-102, vol. VII pp. 43-247 for the possible germ of Wolff's encyclopaedic work.

Then, as now therefore, the most generally acceptable kind of encyclopaedia was arranged alphabetically, and like its modern counterpart, simply attempted to supply required information in a convenient manner. Compilations of this kind first made their appearance at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and enjoyed immediate popularity. In England, the 'Lexikon technicum' (London, 1704) by John Harris (1666?-1719) and the 'Cyclopaedia' (London, 1728) by Ephraim Chambers (c.1680?-1740) proved to be the most successful works of this kind. Their German counterparts were the 'Reales Staats-und Zeitungs-Lexikon' (Leipzig, 1704), edited by Johann Hubner (1668-1731) and the 'Allgemeines Lexicon der Künste und Wissenschaften' (Königsberg and Leipzig, 1721) by Johann Theodor Jablonski (1654-1731). In Germany however, this alphabetical arrangement tended to get out of hand as attempts were made to develop its comprehensiveness. The 'Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste' (64 vols. Halle and Leipzig, 1731-1754) was finally completed by K. G. Ludovici (1707-1778), but despite its many excellences, it proved to be an unwieldy work, and even before it had been completed, parts of it were, of course, out of date. A similar fate overtook the immense 'Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste' (Leipzig, 1818-1889), started by J. S. Ersch (1766-1826) and J. G. Gruber (c.1774-1851), which ran to 167 volumes before it was finally abandoned. Nevertheless, alphabetically arranged encyclopaedias of the modern kind and of modern dimensions were also beginning to make their appearance during Hegel's lifetime. Under the editorship of Archibald Constable (1774-1827), Macvey Napier (1776-1847) and Charles Maclaren (1782-1866), the fifth, sixth and seventh editions of the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' showed a steadily improving standard of excellence with regard to lay-out and calibre of articles, and in Germany. D. A. F. Brockhaus (1772-1823), R. G. Löbel (1767-1799) and C. W. Franke (d.1831) improved the famous 'Konversations-Lexikon in a similar manner.

Despite the well-tried success and convenience of the alphabetical encyclopaedia, it has certain rather obvious drawbacks and limitations. It is now outdated so rapidly by the precision and efficiency with which knowledge is acquired and made available, that its value as anything but a general reference book for the non-specialist is extremely questionable. Its main fault is however, that it fails to bring out the natural interrelatedness of its subject matter. Georg Simon Klügel (1739-1812), professor of mathematics and physics at Helmstedt, was one of the first to realize this, and in his 'Encyklopädie, oder Zusammenhängender Vortrag der gemeinnützigsten, insbesondere aus der Betrachtung der Natur und des Menschen gesammelten Kenntnisse' (3 vols. Berlin, 1782-1784), he made the first modern attempt at a non-philosophical systematic encyclopaedia. Charles Joseph Panckoucke (1736-1798) outlined a similar project in his 'Plan d'une Encyclopédie méthodique et par ordre des matières' (Paris, 1781), an essay which gave rise to a massive and uncompleted rearrangement of Diderot's work (196 vols. Paris, 1782-1832). It was Coleridge who originated the English equivalent of ventures of this kind, probably as the result of Ms having acquainted himself with the writings of Schelling, Oken and Hegel.¹ His introductory essay to the ill-starred 'Encyclopaedia metropolitana' (28 vols. London, 1817-1845) can hardly be expected to inspire confidence in the reliability of his method however, and has probably done more than any other single publication to bring 'systematic' encyclopaedias into discredit in the English-speaking world. All these attempts at systematization were in fact arbitrary arrangements of subject matter entirely devoid of any effective, efficient or well-founded guiding principle.² If the accomplished scientists and scholars of the day were persuaded to contribute to them, it was only on the understanding that although their articles might be situated in the works at the editor's discretion, the principles guiding the overall arrangement should not intrude upon their particular domains. Hegel may well have pondered over this kind of systematization as it was propounded in the early writings of Wilhelm Traugott Krug (1770-1842).³

¹ See his annotated editions of their works listed in the British Museum Catalogue; cf. J. H. Muirhead 'Coleridge as a Philosopher' (London, 1930). ² See the criticism, by G. F. Pohl (1788-1849), of the alphabetical treatment of physic;, in his review of the third volume of 'Gehler's Physikalisches Wörterbuch' (Leipzig, 1827): "Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik' July-Sept. 1829 (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1829). ³ 'Krug's Gesammelte Schriften' (12 vols. Brunswick, 1830-1841), vols VII and X.

The subject matter of Hegel's 'Encyclopaedia' is of course dated, and it is therefore somewhat curious that the commentary to this edition of his treatment of the natural sciences should be the only attempt to place any part of it fairly and squarely in its historical context. It is to be hoped that the rest will now be submitted to similar treatment, for despite the importance of the structuralization of knowledge worked out in the 'Encyclopaedia', it can hardly be maintained that an understanding of its subject matter is entirely irrelevant to any worthwhile criticism of it. It is the structuralization which constitutes the book's main importance however, and to some extent therefore, those who have hitherto attempted to develop or refute its expositions and arguments, may be excused for having concentrated so exclusively upon this feature of it. Hegel's criticism of the encyclopaedists of the day is implicit in the structure of this work, and it is only by exhibiting the relevance and validity of the structuralization he elicits from its subject matter, that the claim that he has managed to overcome the difficulties facing them and their modern counterparts can be substantiated.

The succeeding chapters of this introduction should make it evident that levels and hierarchies, the basic principles of the Hegelian structure, are as directly relevant to modern thinking as they were a century and a half ago. The current emphasis upon the importance of models and analogies in science might also provide a convenient introduction to Hegel's manner of thinking for many contemporary philosophers.¹ The central principle of the 'Encyclopaedia' is however the dialectic, and it is doubtful whether contemporary thinking is any more capable of employing it correctly than were Hegel's immediate followers. Despite the somewhat bizarre use of it made by the communists, Americans evidently feel obliged to deny that it is a principle at all,² and although it originated in Hegel's interpretation of the Trinity, Christian theologian...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Original Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Preface Page
• Contents Page
• Introduction
• Foreword
• The Philosophy of Nature
• Section One Mechanics
• Notes
• Index to Text
• Index to Foreword and Notes