Returning to Kant and Escape from Hegel
Dimensions and Prospects of Philosophy after Hegel's Death
After the death of Hegel, philosophy (idealism) was affected by transformations and new questions that arose due to the development in science. One of the reasons philosophers were challenged was their attitudes toward science. Hence the call to return to 'Kant'. But if we ask here: What does return to 'Kant' mean? Did he become old or forgotten after his death, especially after Hegel’s dominance of the philosophical space? Or that his philosophy was and still is one of the philosophical pillars, not only within the scope of German philosophy alone but within modern philosophy as a whole. Therefore, the research discusses the dimensions of the return to the philosophy of 'Kant' and its new appearance, which opened new horizons in the history of philosophy. 'Kant' has been influential and inspiring to many of Heglian’s later philosophers. Note that one of the connotations of return means that 'you' was an indispensable reference. As for the other indication, it does not exceed. That is, it does not precede it easily and does not become obsolete in some way. On the other hand, there is a call to return to Hegel in different contexts and stages as well. Therefore, the return discourse does not concern 'I was alone, but there are objective and subjective motives that motivate researchers to return to them. One of the motives, for example, is the attitude of both philosophers towards science and the adoption of the scientific view in philosophical thinking.
Agassi, J. (2008). Science and Its History: A Reassessment of the Historiography. Springer.
Boas, G. (1951, Oct 17). American Philosophical Society. Retrieved from jstor: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3143237
Brandom, R. (2014). Some Hegelian Ideas of Note for Contemporary Analytic Philosophy. Hegel Bulletin, 1-15.
C.Beiser, F. (2014). The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796-1880. Oxford University Press.
Cassirer, E. (2006, August 31). Hermann Cohen and the Renewal of Kantian philosophy2. Retrieved from Taylor & Francis Online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09697250500225768
Deligiorgi, K. (2019). Science Thought and Nature: Hegel's Completion of Kant's Idealism. Journal of the Italian Society for Analytic Philosophy, 19-46.
Eribon, D. (1991). Michel Foucault. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon.
Gjesdal, M. N. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of German Philosophy in The Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1999). From Kant to Hegel and Back again- The Move Towards Detranscendentalization. Europian Journal of Philosophy, 129-157.
Halper, E. C. (2008). Hegel’s Criticism of Newton. In F. C. Beiser, Hegel and Nineteenth-Century (pp. 311-343). Cambridge University Press.
Helmholtz, H. v. (1995). Science and Culture Popular and Philosophical Essays. The University of Chicago Press.
Hems, G. B. (2015). The Bloomsbury Companion to Kant. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Husserl, E. (1965). Philosophy as Rigorous Science. New York: Harper& Row.
Hyppolite, J. (1996). Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of History. University Press of Florida.
Kant, I. (1977). PROLEGOMENA to any Future Metaphysics. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Kim, Y. (2020, Sep 29). Kant and Hegel in Physics. Center for Foundamental Physics College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
Kroner, R. (1948, Jun.). The Year 1800 in the Development of German Idealism. The Year 1800 in the Development of German Idealism Author(s): Richard Kroner Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Jun. 1948, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Jun., 19 Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/201, 1-31.
Kuhn, M. (2010). Interpreting Kant Correctly: On the Kant of the Neo-Kantians. In R. A. Luft, Neo-Kantianism in Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 113-131). Indiana University Press.
Leezenberg, M. (2020, juni-juli). Totalitaire walm of liberale geest? De politieke lezing van Hegel. Nederlandse Boekengids.
Nabolsy, Z. E. (2020). Hegel's proto-modernist Concept of Philosophy of Science. Problemata, 81-107.
Patton, L. (2006, Augst 31). The critical philosophy renewed: The bridge between Hermann cohen's early work on Kant and later philosophy of science. Retrieved from Semantic Sholar Org: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09697250500225776
Patton, L. (2018, Winter 10). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from Herman Von Helmholtz: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermann-helmholtz/
Philosophy, T. a. (1997). Alan Richardson. Perspectives on Science, 418-451.
Redding, P. (2007). Analytic Philosophy and The Return of Hegelian Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, A. (2002). Philosophy as Science: The Modernist Agenda of Philosophy of Science, 1900-1950. In J. a.-P. P. Gardenfors, In the Scope of Logic: Methodology and Philosophy of Science (pp. vol. II, 621-639). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rockmore, T. (1993). Before and After Hegel, A Historical Introduction to Hegel’s Thought. University of California Press.
Rockmore, T. (2006). In Kant's Wake: Philosophy in the Twetntieth Century. Blackwell Publishing. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy of the Nature. Princeton University Press.
Rorty, R. (1992). The Linguistic Turn. Chicago University Press.
Sedgwick, S. (2010). Reason and History: Kant versus Hegel. American Philosophical Association, 45-59.
Stern, R. (1999). Going Beyond the Kantian Philosophy: On McDowell's Critique of Kant. European Journal of Philosophy, 247-269.
Stokes, G. J. (1884). Going Back to Kant. Mind, 274-281.
Strawson, P. (1966). The Bounds of Sense: Any Essay on Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”. London.
Taylor, C. (1999). Comment on Jurgen Habermas 'From Kant to Hegel and Back Again'. European Journal of Philosophy, 158-163.
Uebel, A. R. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1982). Feuerbach. Cambridge University Press.
Winfield, R. D. (2010). Conceiving Nature after Aristoteles, Kant and Hegel. Palgrave Macmillan. Wittgenstein, L. (1998). Tracatatus Logico-Philosophicus. Athenaeum-Polak& Van Gennep.
بییر فاغنیر. (٢٠١٩). الفلاسفة و العلم: تحریر بییر فاغنیر. هیئة البحرین للثقافة و الآثار. ٢٠١٩. هیئة البحرین للثقافة و الآثار.
حنا دیب. (١٩٩٤). هیغل و فویرباخ. بیروت: دار امواج.
حەمید عەزیز. (٢٠٠٩). بنەڕەتەکانی فەلسەفە. ئەندێشە.
حەمید عەزیز. (٢٠١٩). بارگۆڕینی فەلسەفە'شیکردنەوەی لۆجیکیی'. سلێمانی: ناوەندی ڕۆشنبیری ڕەهەند.
محمدي ریاحي رشیدة. (٢٠١٢). هیغل و الشرق. ابن الندیم للنشرو التوزیع.
محەمەد کەمال. (٢٠١٧). فەلسەفەی کانت. سلێمانی: دەزگای سەردەم.
میخایل باکونین. (٢٠٢٠). الالە و الدولة. قامشلي: منشورات نقش.
هیربرت مارکیوز. (٢٠٠٧). هیجل: أساس الفلسفة التاریخیة. نظریة الوجود عند هیجل. التنویر.
Copyright (c) 2022 Nawzad J. Hamafaraj
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).