Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:10:44.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy, Freedom & Embodiment: Hegel's Critique of Contemporary Biologism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2014

Kenneth R. Westphal
Kenneth R. Westphal*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The apparent implications of the latest findings of the life sciences for our freedom and autonomy are both exciting and controversial: They undermine a common view of human freedom: a fundamentally Cartesian view. A superior account of our freedom was developed by Kant and Hegel. Key features of Hegel's account show that we can expect from the life sciences further insights into the biological basis of our freedom and autonomy, but not their repudiation. I begin with basic features of Cartesian self-transparency (II) and then review three findings of contemporary life sciences (III). I then detail key features of Hegel's anti-Cartesianism (IV), in order to formulate the basic question about our freedom posed by the claim that biology explains away human freedom (V). I criticize this biological determinism by drawing upon Hegel's account of human freedom as autonomy (VI), and comment briefly on biologism in moral theory (VII).

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 56 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was invited for the conference, ‘Modern Influence in Contemporary Philosophy: Present Problems in a Past Light’, Beirut, May 2013. Discussions there, and comments from Chris Yeomans, Cinzia Ferrini and an anonymous referee suggested improvements, for which I am grateful.

1

Ecce Homo, ‘Why I am so Clever’, §9; Nietzsche (1967), 6.3:292.

References

Baumeister, R. F., Mele, A. R.Vohs, K. D. (eds.) (2010), Free Will & Consciousness: How might they Work? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Crescioni, A. W.Alquist, J. L. (2011), ‘Free Will as Advanced Action Control for Human Social Life & Culture’, Neuroethics 4(1), 1-11.Google Scholar
de Boer, J. (2011), ‘Moral Ape Philosophy’, Biology & Philosophy 26: 891-904; doi: 10.1007/s10539-011-9283-1.Google Scholar
Brembs, B. (2011), ‘Towards a Scientific Concept of Free Will as a Biological Trait: Spontaneous Actions & Decision-making in Invertebrates’, Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 278: 930-939; doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2325.Google Scholar
Brosnan, K. (2011), ‘Do the Evolutionary Origins of our Moral Beliefs Undermine Moral Knowledge?’, Biology & Philosophy 26: 51-64; doi: 10.1007/s10539-010-9235-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1979), ‘Individualism & the Mental’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy IV: Studies in Metaphysics, 73-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burghardt, G. M. (2009), ‘Darwin's Legacy to Comparative Psychology & Ethology’, American Psychologist 64(2), 102-110; doi: 10.1037/a0013385.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950), Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caruso, G. (2012), Free Will & Consciousness: A Determinist Account of the Illusion of Free Will. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P.James, S. (2008), ‘Evolution & the Possibility of Moral Realism’, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 77(1), 237-244.Google Scholar
Cashmore, A. R. (2010), ‘The Lucretian Swerve: The Biological Basis of Human Behavior & the Criminal Justice System’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 107: 4499-4504; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0915161107.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (2008), ‘Darwinian Skepticism about Moral Realism’, Philosophical Issues 18: 186-206.Google Scholar
DeScioli, P.Kurzban, R. (2009), ‘Mysteries of Morality’, Cognition 112(2): 281-299; doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.008.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1964–76), Oevres de Descartes, eds. C. Adam and P. Tannery, rev. ed. Paris, Vrin (cited as ‘AT’ by volume:page number).Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1984, 1991), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, eds. and trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch and A. Kenny, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (provides pagination of AT).Google Scholar
Diamond, J. (2006), The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal, 3rd ed. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. I. (1981), Knowledge & the Flow of Information. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (2004), Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grudriß der Humanethologie, 5th ed. Vierkirchen-Pasenbach, Blank-Media.Google Scholar
Engel, C.Singer, W. (eds.) (2008), Better than Conscious? Decision Making, the Human Mind & Implications for Institutions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenburg, B. (2012), Mythos Determinsmus. Wie viel erklärt uns die Hirnforschung? Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Ferrini, C. (2009a), ‘From geological to animal Nature in Hegel's Idea of Life’, Hegel-Studien 44: 45-93.Google Scholar
Ferrini, C. (2009b), ‘From the Physical World to the Habitat: Biocentrism in Hegel's Interrelation of Animal Subjectivity with its Environment’, in O. Breidbach and W. Neuser (eds.), Hegels Naturphilosophie in der Dritten Moderne. Bestimmungen, Probleme und Perspektiven (Ernst-Haeckel-Haus-Studien. Monographien zur Geschichte der Biowissenschaften und Medizin, Band 13). Berlin, VWB: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung. 119-135.Google Scholar
Ferrini, C. (2009c), ‘Reason Observing Nature’, in K. R. Westphal (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. London: Blackwell, 92-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyer, C. (2004), Hirnforschung und Willensfreiheit: Zur Deutung der neuesten Experimente. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Graves, T., Maniscalco, B.Lau, H. (2011), ‘Volition & the function of consciousness’, in B. Libet, W. Sinnott-Armstrong and L. Nadel (eds.), Conscious Will & Responsibility (New York: Oxford University Press), 109-123.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807), Die Phänomenologie des Geistes. Bamberg & Würzburg: Goebhardt.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1821), Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse. Berlin: Nicolai.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1968–2014), Gesammelte Werke, H. Buchner & O. Pöggeler (eds.), Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften in Verbindung mit der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1970a), Werke in Zwanzig Bänden, E. Moldenhauer and K. M. Michel (eds.), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1970b), ‘Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie’, in E. Moldenhauer and K. M. Michel (eds.), Werke in Zwanzig Bänden (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), vols. 18-20.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1992), Philosophie des Geistes. Hegels Vorlesung von 1827/1828 in den Nachschriften von Johann Eduard Erdmann und Ferdinand Walter, F. Hespe and B. Tuschling (eds.). Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (forthcoming), The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. T. Pinkard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (cited by consecutive paragraph numbers (¶) correctly supplied by the translator).Google Scholar
Herman, B. (1998), ‘Training to Autonomy: Kant & the Question of Moral Education’, in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives (London: Routledge), 254-271; rpt. in idem., Moral Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007), 130–153.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. (2011), ‘The Phenomenology of Agency & the Libet Results’, in B. Libet, W. Sinnott-Armstrong and L. Nadel (eds.), Conscious Will & Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 159-172.Google Scholar
Horst, S. (2011), Laws, Mind, and Free Will. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1739–40), A Treatise of Human Nature. London: J. Noon, T. Longman.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1978), A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (2000), A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. D. F. Norton and M. J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janich, P. (2009), Kein neues Menschenbild: Zur Sprache der Hirnforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. (2006), The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. (2008), ‘Replies’, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 77(1), 245-267.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998), Kritik der reinen Vernunft, ed. J. Timmermann. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1803). Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre, 2nd rev. ed. Rpt. in: Königlich Preußische [now Deutsche] Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kants Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin: G. Reimer [now De Gruyter], 1902–), vol. 6; trans. M. Gregor in I. Kant, Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 509-603.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. M.Craver, C. (2011), ‘The Explanatory Force of Dynamical & Mathematical Models in Neuroscience: A Mechanistic Perspective’, Philosophy of Science 78(4), 601-627.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. (2002), The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, D. L. (2008), ‘Morality: An Evolutionary Account’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(3), 149-172; doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.x.Google Scholar
Libet, B., Sinnott-Armstrong, W.Nadel, L. (eds.) (2011), Conscious Will & Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, A. J.Lieberman, M. A. (1983), Regular and Stochastic Motions. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lighthill, Sir James (1986), ‘The recently recognized failure of predictability in Newtonian dynamics’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 407: 33-55.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, H. (2010), ‘Methods of Ethics & the Descent of Man: Darwin & Sidgwick on Ethics & Evolution’, Biology & Philosophy 25: 361-378; doi: 10.1007/s10539-010-9204-8.Google Scholar
Malsburg, C. von der, Phillips, W. A.Singer, W. (eds.) (2010), Dynamic Coordination in the Brain: From Neurons to Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manson, N.O'Neill, O. (2007), Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1994), Mind & World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mele, A. R. (2009), Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitani, J. C., Watts, D. P.Amsler, S. J. (2010), ‘Lethal Intergroup Aggression leads to Territorial Expansion in Wild Chimpanzees’, Current Biology 20(12), R507-R508.Google Scholar
O'Neill, O. (2002), Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith; New York: Doubleday; rpt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. W. (1967–2011), Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. G. Colli and M. Montinari, 9 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radder, H.Meynen, G. (2013), ‘Does the brain “initiate” freely willed processes? A philosophy of science critique of Libet-type experiments & their interpretation’, Theory & Psychology 23(1), 3-21; online: 17.10.2012, doi: 10.1177/0959354312460926.Google Scholar
Rose, C. (2009), Conference report on ‘Die Herausforderung der Neurowissenschaften – Ein interdisziplinärer Dialog’, Infobrief des Deutschen Referenzzentrums für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften (DRZE) 2(9), 4-5; http://www.drze.de/site_data/Dokumente/Publications/Infobriefe/Infobrief_02_09.pdfGoogle Scholar
Roth, G.Pauen, M. (2008), Freiheit, Schuld und Verantwortung: Grundzüge einer naturalistischen Theorie der Willensfreiheit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schild, W. (1996). ‘Schuld und Unfreiheit. Gedanken zu Strafjustiz und Psychoanalyse in Leonhard Franks »Die Ursache«’, Würzburger Vorträge zur Rechtsphilosophie, Rechtstheorie und Rechtssoziologie 19:7–19. Baden-Baden:Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Schild, W. (2001), ‘Das schuldlose Verbrechen des Denis Lortie. Zugleich eine Anmerkung zum Verhältnis von Strafrecht und Psychoanalyse’, in G. Britz, H. Jung, H. Koriath and E. Müller (eds.), Grundfragen staatlichen Strafens. Festschrift für Heinz Müller-Dietz zum 70. Geburtstag (München: Beck), 737-759.Google Scholar
Schockenhoff, E. (2004), Beruht die Willensfreiheit auf einer Illusion? Hirnforschung und Ethik im Dialog. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1963), Science, Perception & Reality. London: Routlege & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Singer, W. (2002), Der Beobachter im Gehirn. Essays zur Hirnforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Singer, W. (2003), Ein neues Menschenbild? Gespräche über Hirnforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Singer, W. (2006), Vom Gehirn zum Bewußtsein. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Skarsaune, K. O. (2011), ‘Darwin & Moral Realism: Survival of the Iffiest’, Philosophical Studies 152: 229-243; doi: 10.1007/s11098-009-9473-8.Google Scholar
Spitz, D. (1996), ‘Collaboration between Psychiatrist & Patient: How Avoidable is Paternalism?’, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law & Ethics 4: 233-248.Google Scholar
Street, S. (2006), ‘A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value’, Philosophical Studies 127: 109-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, S. (2008), ‘Reply to Copp: Naturalism, Normativity & the Varieties of Realism worth Worrying About’, Philosophical Issues 18: 207-228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturma, D. (ed.) (2006), Philosophie und Neurowissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Tetens, H. (2013), ‘Freiheit und Naturbeherrschung. Zur Antinomie der Freiheit’, in G. Hindrichs und A. Honneth (eds.), Freiheit. Stuttgarter Hegel-Kongress 2011 (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann), 87-98.Google Scholar
Vieweg, K. (2012), Das Denken der Freiheit. Hegels Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. München: Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Waal, F. (2006), Primates & philosophers. How morality evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (2003), The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (1989), Hegel's Epistemological Realism: A Study of the Aim & Method of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (1998a), Hegel, Hume und die Identität wahrnehmbarer Dinge. Historisch-kritische Analyse zum Kapitel ‘Wahrnehmung’ in der Phänomenologie von 1807. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (1998b), ‘Hegel's Solution to the Dilemma of the Criterion’, in J. Stewart (ed.), The Phenomenology of Spirit Reader: A Collection of Critical & Interpretive Essays (Albany: SUNY Press), 76-91.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2000), ‘Hegel's Internal Critique of Naïve Realism’, Journal of Philosophical Research 25: 173-229.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2002), ‘A Kantian Justification of Possession’, in M. Timmons (ed.), Kant's Metaphysics of Ethics: Interpretive Essays (New York: Oxford University Press), 89-109.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2002/03), ‘Analytischer Gehalt und zeitgenössische Bedeutung von Hegels Kritik des unmittelbaren Wissens’, Jahrbuch für Hegel-Forschungen 8/9: 129-143.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2003), Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit. Cambridge, Mass.: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2007a), ‘Consciousness & its Transcendental Conditions: Kant's Anti-Cartesian Revolt’, in S. Heinämaa, V. Lähteenmäki and P. Remes (eds.), Consciousness: From Perception to Reflection in the History of Philosophy (Dordrecht: Springer), 223-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2007b), ‘Normative Constructivism: Hegel's Radical Social Philosophy’, SATS – Nordic Journal of Philosophy 8(2), 7-41; doi: 10.1515/SATS.2007.7.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2008), ‘Philosophizing about Nature: Hegel's Philosophical Project’, in F. C. Beiser (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hegel & Nineteenth Century Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 281-310.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2009), ‘Hegel's Phenomenological Method & Analysis of Consciousness’, in K. R. Westphal (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 1-36.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2010a), ‘Hegel’, in J. Skorupski (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Ethics (London: Routledge), 168-180.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2010b), ‘From “Convention” to “Ethical Life”: Hume's Theory of Justice in Post-Kantian Perspective’, The Journal of Moral Philosophy 7(1), 105-132; doi: 10.1163/174046809X12507600512291.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2010–11), ‘Analytic Philosophy & the Long Tail of Scientia: Hegel & the Historicity of Philosophy’, The Owl of Minerva 42(1–2), 1-18.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2011), ‘Self-Consciousness, Anti-Cartesianism & Cognitive Semantics in Hegel's 1807 Phenomenology’, in S. Houlgate and M. Baur (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Hegel (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 68-90.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2012), ‘Die positive Verteidigung Kants der Urteils- & Handlungsfreiheit, und zwar ohne transzendentalen Idealismus’, in M. Brandhorst, A. Hahmann and B. Ludwig (eds.), Sind wir Bürger zweier Welten? Freiheit & moralische Verantwortung im transzendentalen Idealismus (Hamburg: Meiner), 259-277.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2013a), ‘Objective Spirit: Right, Morality, Ethical Life, World History’, in A. deLaurentiis and J. Edwards (eds.), The Bloomsburty Companion to Hegel (London: Bloomsbury), 157-178.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2013b), ‘Hume, Empiricism & the Generality of Thought’, Dialogue: Canadian Journal of Philosophy/Revue canadienne de philosophie 52(2), 233-270; doi: 10.1017/S0012217313000279.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2013c), ‘Rational Justification & Mutual Recognition in Substantive Domains’, Dialogue: Canadian Journal of Philosophy/Revue canadienne de philosophie 52(4), 1-40; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0012217313000796.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2013d), ‘Natural Law, Social Contract & Moral Objectivity: Rousseau's Natural Law Constructivism’, Jurisprudence 4(1), 48-75; doi: 10.5235/20403313.4.1.48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (2014), ‘Hegel's Semantics of Singular Cognitive Reference, Newton's Methodological Rule Four & Scientific Realism Today’, Philosophical Inquiries 2(i), 9-65; doi: http://philinq.it/index.php/philinq/article/view/86/44.Google Scholar
Westphal, K. R. (forthcoming), ‘Causal Realism & the Limits of Empiricism: Some Unexpected Insights from Hegel’, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Wick, W. (1951), ‘The “Political” Philosophy of Logical Empiricism’, Philosophical Studies 2(4), 49-57.Google Scholar
Wielenberg, E. J. (2010), ‘On the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality’, Ethics 120: 441-464.Google Scholar
Wolff, M. (1992), Das Korper-Seele-Problem. Kommentar zu Hegel, Enzyklopädie (1830), §389. Frankfurt am Main: Kostermann.Google Scholar
Wolff, M. (2013), ‘Kant über Freiheit und Determinismus’, in W. Euler and B. Tuschling (eds.), Kants Metaphysik der Sitten in der Diskussion. Ein Arbeitsgespräch in der Herzog August Bibliothek 2009 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), 27-42.Google Scholar
Yeomans, C. (2011), Freedom & Reflection: Hegel & the Logic of Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziemke, A. (1994), Was ist Wahrnehmung? Versuch einer Operationalisierung von Denkformen der Hegelschen »Phänomenologie« für kognitionswissenschaftliche Forschung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Zunke, C. (2008), Kritik der Hirnforschung. Neurophysiologie und Freiheit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar