Cosmos and History: ‘Hegel and the Fate of Thinking’

Young Hegel

The new double issue of Cosmos and History is a Hegel special, ‘Hegel and the Fate of Thinking’ (via Habermasian). It includes articles by Paul Redding and Angelica Nuzzo, as well as material from the H.S. Harris archives. Cosmos and History is an open-access journal, so there’s no need to worry about having a subscription available. Enjoy!
Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Cosmos and History: ‘Hegel and the Fate of Thinking’

  1. Whoever edited the review of Stern’s book should be shot. Though sentences like “And with consequences of such significance, especially out to his nearest
    East” are almost charming. Hopefully the rest of the articles don’t have this problem.

    Seriously: “In fact—and I don’t think that Hegel is the only great figure to suffer from this sort of move—what one would be doing here by simply labelling Hegel in this way, and on the basis of certain critical perspectives he puts forward, is simply reducing Hegel down to only one of the many possible currents or tendencies in his work, down to only one of the many perspectives he might put forth on any particular philosophical or cultural position; and in effect, this is simply to reduce the whole river down to only one of its many tributaries, currents, or streams, to take a part for a whole, metonymously,
    when of course, Hegel’s aim is always ostensive towards the ocean—and maybe even absolutely—if those wishing to talk about water are too not afraid to get more than just their feet a little wet!”

    That’s all one sentence. WHY.

    The worst part is that after reading the review, I have only the dimmest idea of what the book’s aim is. Most of the review is just stream of consciousness ramblings about Hegel’s reception.

    Ironically, the review starts by mentioning how Hegel’s writing-style can be troublesome.

  2. In most journals, reviews are not usually peer-reviewed but solicited by the reviewer. So, as the reviews editor, if something like that lands on your desk, I am imagine that the inclination would be to simply wave it on rather than begin pruning bits and pieces. It’s pretty much all-or-nothing stylistically. There’d be little point to tidying it up a touch just for clarity’s sake. I agree that there is a certain charm to it as a protracted musing on Hegel if you are not too bothered about extracting data on the book reviewed in a quick and dirty fashion.

    As an aside, I would highly recommend the book if you haven’t already read it. Then again, I may be a little biased since Bob is one of my supervisors and I cut my Hegelian teeth based on the course around which it was written.

  3. Pingback: Roughtheory.org » Star-Crossed Hegelians

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s