In the beginning of the preface Hegel discusses ‘Science’ and how to go about doing philosophy scientifically. The preface itself is even titled ‘On Scientific Cognition’. However it is not extremely clear what Hegel means exactly when he says science. In the first couple pages of the preface, Hegel says “The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of such truth, To help bring philosophy closer to the form of Science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title ‘love of knowing’ and be actual knowing – this is what I have set myself to do” (3). At first this passage sounds like science is simply a methodology. It is a standard of rigor that one’s own method should compare itself to. While Hegel might want to make sure than his method is rigorous in the same way scientific method is rigorous, I think he appeals to science for a different reason.
In the second part of the passage above Hegel differentiates between the love of knowing and actual knowing. Historically, philosophy has been seen as the love of learning. In fact the term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek term philosophia; philo meaning love and sophia meaning wisdom. Initially it appears strange for Hegel to say that philosophy should set aside a love of knowing when the word originally meant the love of wisdom. However it is important to keep in mind that Hegel uses the term ‘lay aside’ as oppose to ‘dispose of’ or ‘reject’. This suggests that Hegel does not want to do away with the love of knowing aspect of philosophy entirely, he simply wants to move beyond it.
The difference between love of knowing and actual knowing seems to be a difference in action. Love of knowing seems to be rather passive. This love may be intense, but loving knowledge itself doesn’t necessitate action. Actually knowing, on the other hand, seems to be doing something. Ultimately what I think Hegel sees in Science is that it is actively getting results. Science is not (or at least should not be) abstract musings on a subject that have no relevance to one’s life. Hegel seems to want to get away from abstract musings that while may be a form of loving knowledge, are not really actual knowledge. Science, then, for Hegel, is not so much a methodology but an attitude toward thinking. It is a movement away from speculation and toward application. Is this an accurate conception of science?
I'm a bit confused regarding your differentiation between love of knowing and actual knowing. Mustn't love of knowing necessarily precede actually knowing? Although loving knowledge may not necessitate action, would it not serve to incite it? If one does not love knowing, there is no impetus to actually know. So, while the love of knowing may in itself be passive, it is a point of inception resulting in the process which leads to actually knowing. Actually knowing, then, is itself not 'doing something'; rather, it is the product of a process which begins with love of knowing. In this sense, both love of knowing and actual knowing are part of the same self-reflexive, active process.
ReplyDeleteI think it is possible to love knowledge without engaging in the process Hegel describes as 'actual knowing'. I think that he might charge Kant with such an accusation. It is also possible to actually know without loving knowledge. This point of view would take knowledge as a mere means and not as an end in itself. It would entail knowing something only to achieve some other goal (political, economic, etc). I agree that Hegel thinks both are important, however he is focusing on actual knowing because he argues that it is lacking in philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI know this is reaching back pretty far (I guess all the way back, since this is the first post) but I was listening to the podcast form last week from the partially examined life guys, and in this episode they were talking about Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence" and have a very interesting conversation about science and values, and the search for scientific truth. They talk about Pirsig as wondering in college about the foundation of science and what is THE absolute truth. In school, he studied science, flunked out, and eventually went back to college to learn philosophy. In this discussion about learning and love of knowing, how would educational experiences be different within the context of science vs. philosophy? What is the scientific attitude toward thinking (as phrased by Ben) and in what ways is that unsatisfying to people who are at home in philosophy?
ReplyDelete