Johann Nicolas Tetens is seen by some as a failed transcendentalist, and by others as an empiricist motivated by misgivings about certain aspects of Kant’s approach to grounding. More in the latter camp, I interpret his adherence to empirical methodology as deriving from a holist ethos that is motivated by problems he perceives as inherent in conceptual thinking about grounds, in the form of the risks of simplification, unsafe distinctions, and inventions, as well as the way that these problems contribute to sense that grounding ideas generate an order that is problematically divorced from experienced reality. These concerns are mirrored in a holistic approach, in which thinking and feeling are thoroughly interwoven, and experience happens in the form of wholes, the separation of which in analysis is difficult and potentially arbitrary. I argue that these concerns and alternative strategies explain why Tetens does not pursue a transcendental project, even if he himself remarks that the time is ripe for it.

This paper explores Hegel’s perspective on development within nature, his supposed rejection of evolution, and his concept of nature as a “system of stages.” It argues that interpreting Hegel through the lens of emergentist thinking provides a more accurate understanding of his conception of nature and its development, as well as his critique of evolution. The paper is structured in three parts. First, we introduce emergentist theory, exploring its contemporary and historical meanings to establish where Hegel fits within this framework. Second, we carefully examine Hegel’s critique of evolution, particularly his opposition to simple causal chains, and clarify what “evolution” meant in his time. Finally, we argue that viewing Hegel through emergentist theory not only rehabilitates his ideas but also resolves lingering concerns about his understanding of development within nature. This paper aims to open new avenues for interpreting Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature.

Against recent naturalist critiques of Kant and interpretations of Hegel, it can be shown that Hegel’s accounts of consciousness and mind (Geist) commit him to a distinctly supernatural, post-Kantian idealist concept of subjectivity. While Kant describes this subjectivity as independent, unconditioned and self-positing, he relies on the notion of an interplay of two distinct realms — labelled the ‘natural’-phenomenal and the ‘supernatural’-noumenal — to justify it. While Fichte accepts Kant’s description of the structure of supernatural subjectivity, he rejects the two-realms-doctrine by arguing that Kant’s prioritization of the realms’ difference renders their unity unintelligible. Instead, Fichte maintains that all of reality is posited by a subjectivity that posits itself and then posits the objective world, thereby rendering the natural dependent on the supernatural. While Hegel agrees with Kant and Fichte on the supernatural properties of subjectivity, he rejects Fichte’s prioritization of supernatural subjectivity over natural objectivity and argues that both the supernatural and the natural are aspects of supernatural Geist. Although Hegel ultimately contrasts subjective Geist with objective nature, grounding both in the notion of the metaphysical idea, his idealist commitment to the supernatural subjectivity of consciousness and Geist renders his accounts of mind and cognition incompatible with recent naturalist interpretations.

This paper examines the development of the modern concept of substance from Leibniz to Hegel. I will focus primarily on the problem of the inner and outer nature of substance. I will show that if one considers Hegel’s discussion of substance against the background of the controversy between Leibniz and Kant about the inner and outer nature of substance, it becomes clear that for Hegel both Leibniz and Kant grasped the whole concept of substance only partially and in its abstract moments. This is because they both concentrate on one aspect of substance and absolutize it. Hegel, on the other hand, not only overcomes the fundamental difference between the inner and outer of substance, but also develops the connection between the different moments of substance, causality and interaction from the rationalist concept of substance itself.

This paper examines the formation of the philosophical canon in the period immediately after Kant. After a general introduction to the “historiography of philosophy,” it brings together three strands of contemporary scholarship in this area: a historical criticism of the empiricism/rationalism distinction that is often still used to understand early modern philosophy (Vanzo), histories of the exclusion of women from the history of philosophy in the late eighteenth century (O’Neill), and histories of the exclusion of non-European philosophy (Park). Though these scholars have different agendas, their studies share many conclusions, including the key claim that the little-known Kantian historian of philosophy Wilhelm Tennemann is the central figure in the formation of the standard story. The paper closes by comparing the main outline of Tennemann’s surprisingly familiar narrative of the history of philosophy with the standard text from before the Kantian revolution in the historiography of philosophy.