Affiliation:
1. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, PhD Candidate in Humanities
Abstract
In his recent A Spirit of Trust, Robert Brandom interprets Hegel as proposing
a conception of normativity that overcomes the shortcomings of both
modernity and its critics. Brandom?s Hegel asks for a ?hermeneutics of
magnanimity?, in opposition to what Paul Ricoeur labelled the ?hermeneutics
of suspicion?. According to Brandom, ?great unmaskers? of modern normativity
like Nietzsche or Foucault make use of the delegitimizing force that
characterizes genealogical explanation. Their suspicion is that what is
thought to be normative is conditioned by contingencies that undermine that
very normativity. In this paper, while raising objections against Brandom?s
reading, I want to hold on to his idea that Hegelian philosophy counters
those subversive postmodern genealogies. Instead of focusing, as Brandom
does, on the end of the ?Spirit? chapter in Hegel?s Phenomenology, I draw on
Hegel?s logic of self-determination. Contrary to the ?great unmaskers?, for
Hegel, explanation of something through reference to some external or
contingent factor is parasitic on explanation that explains something
through itself.
Publisher
National Library of Serbia
Reference27 articles.
1. Aylesworth, Gary. 2015. “Postmodernism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition) URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/ entries/postmodernism/ (last accessed: May 4, 2024).
2. Brandom, Robert B. 1999. “Some Pragmatist Themes in Hegel’s Idealism: Negotiation and Administration in Hegel’s Account of the Structure and Content of Conceptual Norms.” European Journal of Philosophy 7 (2): 164-189.
3. Brandom, Robert B. 2019. A Spirit of Trust: A Reading of Hegel’s Phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Chen, Yang and Yeomans, Christopher. 2023. “Taking the Teleology of History Seriously: Lessons from Hegel’s Logic.” Hegel Bulletin 44 (1): 219-240.
5. Danziger, Shai, Levav, Jonathan, and Avnaim-Pesso, Liora. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17): 6889-6892.