Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:28:53.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Critics of Hegel's Ontology of Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2022

Arash Abazari
Arash Abazari*
Affiliation:
Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran arash.abazari@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

I am much indebted to Jacob McNulty, Allegra de Laurentiis and Tony Smith for their generous attention to my book and their insightful remarks. Since I could not possibly do justice to all their concerns, I have unfortunately had to be selective. The issues discussed in this response are organized thematically. In the first section, I discuss why Hegel's logic of essence has to be understood historically; which is to say that the logic of essence provides an ontology that is specific to capitalism. Then, in the second section, I discuss the nature of holism in the logic of essence, and correspondingly, the nature of social holism specific to capitalism. Finally, in the third section, I answer the question: if both Marx's critique of political economy and Hegel's own economic theory in the Philosophy of Right are based on the same logic of essence, why they are so divergent from, and indeed incompatible with, each other.

Type
Author meets critics
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , August 2022 , pp. 320 - 343
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Hegel Society of Great Britain

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abazari, A. (2020), Hegel's Ontology of Power: The Structure of Social Domination in Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abazari, A. (2022 forthcoming), ‘Marx and Poverty’, in Schweiger, G. and Sedmak, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Philosophy and Poverty. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. (1993), Hegel: Three Studies, trans. Nicholsen, S.. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. (2006), History and Freedom: Lectures 1964–1965, trans. Livingstone, R.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
De Laurentiis, A. (2022), ‘On Arash Abazari's Hegel's Ontology of Power. The Structure of Social Domination in Capitalism’, Hegel Bulletin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. (2003), The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. (1976), ‘On Hegel, Imperialism, and Structural Stagnation.’ Journal of Development Economics 3:1: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2006), The Opening of Hegel's Logic: From Being to Infinity. West Lafayette IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2015), Reason in the World: Hegel's Metaphysics and its Philosophical Appeal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lear, J. (1988), Aristotle: The Desire to Understand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukács, G. (1975), The Young Hegel: Studies in the Relations between Dialectics and Economics, trans. Livingstone, R.. London: Merlin.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1984), Prolegomena zur Ontologie des gesellschaftlichen Seins (two volumes). Darmstadt: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1996), Mind and World: with a New Introduction. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McNulty, J. (2022), ‘Methodological Individualism v. Holism in Hegel and Marx’, Hegel Bulletin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhouser, F. (2023), Diagnosing Social Pathology: Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Durkheim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Pinkard, T. (1994), Hegel's Phenomenology: The Sociality of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkard, T. (2012), Hegel's Naturalism: Mind, Nature, and the Final Ends of Life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, R. (2019), Hegel's Realm of Shadows: Logic as Metaphysics in The Science of Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1940), ‘What is Dialectic?’, Mind 49:196: 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (2002), The Open Society and its Enemies. One-volume edition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2006), In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, M. (1984), Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian Transformation of Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shields, C. (2007), Aristotle. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skomvoulis, M. (2019), ‘Lukács’ Late Appropriation of Hegel's Philosophy: The Ontology of Materialist Dialectics and the Complexities of Labour as Teleological Positing’, in Thompson, M. (ed.), Georg Lukács and the Possibility of Critical Social Ontology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Smith, T. (2017), Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism: Marx and Normative Social Theory in the Twenty-First Century. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. (2022), ‘Hegel's Logic and Marx's Concept of Capital’, Hegel Bulletin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, R. (2017), ‘Freedom, Norms, and Nature in Hegel: Self-Legislation or Self-Realization?’, in Zuckert, R. and Kreines, J. (eds.), Hegel on Philosophy in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. P. (1964), The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Yeomans, C. (2019), ‘Perspective and Logical Pluralism in Hegel’, Hegel Bulletin 40:1: 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar