{"id":903063,"date":"2026-09-17T10:08:30","date_gmt":"2026-09-17T08:08:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/grundlinien.de\/?page_id=903063"},"modified":"2026-09-17T16:30:35","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T14:30:35","slug":"is-hegels-philosophy-a-philosophy-of-spirit","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/grundlinien.de\/en\/is-hegels-philosophy-a-philosophy-of-spirit\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Hegel\u2019s philosophy a \u201ephilosophy of spirit\u201c?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In brief:<\/strong> Yes \u2014 if it means that spirit<\/a> is the principle and the goal of actuality. No, if it means that matter, nature or the individual are thereby denied or disparaged. The three great objections to Hegel presuppose exactly this dualism \u2014 and it is the dualism that his absolute idealism<\/a> disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three reproaches<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The materialist reproach<\/strong> runs: Hegel makes spirit \u2014 thinking, ideas, the state \u2014 the first thing and has it bring forth the world. In truth it is the reverse: material being brings forth spirit as a superstructure. \u201ePhilosophy of spirit\u201c means here: a veiling of real relations of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The naturalist reproach<\/strong> runs: \u201espirit\u201c is a ghost in the machine. Empirical research finds the brain, neuronal processes, causality \u2014 and nothing else. \u201ePhilosophy of spirit\u201c means here: unscientific metaphysics (on this, the answer on brain research<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The existentialist reproach<\/strong> runs: absolute spirit swallows everything singular. In the course of world history<\/a> the individual \u2014 singular, suffering, existing \u2014 goes under. \u201ePhilosophy of spirit\u201c means here: a betrayal of subjective truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the objection presupposes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

All three presuppose that spirit and matter \u2014 or spirit and individual \u2014 are two separate, mutually alien quantities, one of which displaces the other. Hegel\u2019s position is the opposite of this dualism, and that can be shown from the texts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against materialism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The philosophy of right does not deny the economy \u2014 it is the analysis of the economy. \u00a7 189<\/a>\u2013\u00a7 208<\/a> describe the system of needs<\/a>, \u00a7 241<\/a>\u2013\u00a7 245<\/a> the connection between wealth, poverty<\/a> and the rabble<\/a>. The finding in \u00a7 245<\/a> \u2014 that civil society is \u201enot rich enough<\/em>\u201c to remedy its own poverty \u2014 is not idealism but an aporia that Hegel leaves standing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor is spirit for him a thought outside the world. The Preface says expressly that philosophy has to comprehend what is<\/em>, and regularly comes too late for that (see the owl of Minerva<\/a>). Whether the answer Hegel gives holds \u2014 mediation through corporation<\/a> and state<\/a> \u2014 is another question; that he overlooked the contradiction is not one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against naturalism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Hegel\u2019s position is no dualism but the express attempt to avoid one. The philosophy of nature leads towards spirit; \u00a7 381 of the Encyclopaedia determines spirit as that which has nature for its presupposition and is \u201eits truth\u201c. Spirit is accordingly not a second thing alongside the brain, but the form in which a natural being relates to itself \u2014 \u201eto be with itself\u201c (\u00a7 463 Remark).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The price for this is high, and it should be named: Hegel must then claim that nature is laid out towards spirit. That is a metaphysical thesis which can neither be supported nor refuted empirically. At this point the naturalist has a real objection \u2014 only it does not hit the ghost he takes himself to be hitting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against existentialism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The objection confuses two individuals: the abstract one, which is merely arbitrary will<\/a>, and the concrete one. \u00a7 260<\/a> expressly demands both \u2014 that personal particularity have \u201eits complete development and the recognition of its right<\/em> for itself\u201c and<\/em> pass over into the universal. Ethical life<\/a> is accordingly not the place where the individual disappears, but the one where conscience<\/a> (\u00a7 137<\/a>), choice of occupation (\u00a7 206<\/a>) and the family<\/a> have objective validity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kierkegaard\u2019s objection is thereby not settled, only displaced. It is directed not at the programme but at what the system actually does with the individual \u2014 for instance in \u00a7 324<\/a>, where the nullity of the individual in war appears as an ethical moment, or in \u00a7 347<\/a>, where the spirits of whole peoples are called \u201ewithout right\u201c. Whoever has read these paragraphs will not hold the reproach to be groundless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What \u201espirit\u201c therefore means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Not the denial of matter, nature or individual, but the claim to comprehend their logical structure: that which actualizes itself in<\/em> matter, through<\/em> nature and as<\/em> a free individual. Hegel\u2019s own formula for it stands in the Phenomenology<\/a> and is more concise than any explanation: spirit as \u201ethe I that is We, and the We that is I\u201c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources.<\/strong> Encyclopaedia (1830) \u00a7\u00a7 381\u2013384 (the concept of spirit), \u00a7 463 Remark, \u00a7\u00a7 573\u2013577. \u2013 Phenomenology of Spirit, chapter IV (\u201ethe I that is We, and the We that is I\u201c). \u2013 Groundlines, Preface; \u00a7 137<\/a>, \u00a7 189<\/a>\u2013\u00a7 208<\/a>, \u00a7 206<\/a>, \u00a7 241<\/a>\u2013\u00a7 245<\/a>, \u00a7 260<\/a>, \u00a7 324<\/a>, \u00a7 347<\/a>. \u2013 The three objections in their classical shape: Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel\u2019s Philosophy of Right. Introduction<\/em> (1844) and The German Ideology<\/em> (1845\/46); Ludwig Feuerbach, Principles of the Philosophy of the Future<\/em> (1843); S\u00f8ren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript<\/em> (1846) \u2014 there the sentence that a logical system is possible, a system of existence not. \u2013 In the glossary: spirit<\/a>, absolute idealism<\/a>, objective spirit<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n