Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:03:30.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Hegelian Logic of ‘Us’: Implicit Forms and Explicit Representations of Actions and Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2019

Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer
Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer*
Affiliation:
Universität Leipzig, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In order to understand Hegel's gnomic oracle according to which the ‘I’ is a ‘We’, the notion of a personal subject is explained by its competence to perform personal roles in a pre-given partition of roles. Explicit divisions of labour by contractual promises are special cases that presuppose the general case of an already established social practice. On the other hand, methodological individualism is right to stress that we actualize joint intentions only via corresponding instantiations. In performing our parts, we form a plural subject, a we-group. The result of what each of us does is what we do, and the generic ‘We’ turns into the generic ‘I’.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 40 , Special Issue 3: Hegel and the Philosophy of Action , December 2019 , pp. 374 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain, 2019 

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.)

References

Brandom, R. B. (1994), Making it Explicit. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1999), Faces of Intention. Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625190Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1989), On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957), ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review 66, 377–388.10.2307/2182440Google Scholar
Honneth, A. (1994), Der Kampf um Anerkennung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969), Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noë, A. (2004), Action in Perception. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sandis, C. (2019), ‘Who are “We” for Wittgenstein?’, in Appelqvist, H. (ed.), Wittgenstein and the Limits of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Stekeler, P. (2014), Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes: Ein dialogischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Tönnies, F. [1887] (2010), Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1984) A Theory of Social Action. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-6317-7Google Scholar