|
|
Jean Hyppolite's Interpretation of Hegel's Philosophy of History
Abraham, Titouan ; Steinbach, Tim-Florian (advisor) ; Ottmann, François (referee)
Master's Thesis Abstract Charles University, Prague Erasmus Mundus EuroPhilosophie (2021-2023) Student: Titouan Abraham Title: L'interprétation par Jean Hyppolite de la philosophie de l'histoire de Hegel (Jean Hyppolite's Interpretation of Hegel's Philosophy of History) Keywords: Hegel; Hegelianism; Theologische Jugendschriften; Phenomenology of Spirit; Jean Hyppolite; philosophy; philosophy of history; pantragism; Alexandre Kojève; end of history The aim of this work is to analyse the singularity of Jean Hyppolite's study of the Hegelian philosophy of history. The guiding question is the following: Did Jean Hyppolite defend a pantragic reading of the dynamics of Hegelian history? We begin with an account of Hegelian studies in France from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the end of the 1930s, when Alexandre Kojève's teachings on the Phenomenology of Spirit came to an end. We discover that Hyppolite differs from Kojève in particular because he breaks with his proposal of an end to history and his anthropological reading of the Hegelian system. To explain these differences, we need to return to the links between the young Hegel's religious thought and the birth of his philosophy of history. This stage consists of re-reading, with Jean Hyppolite, the theological writings of his youth, and showing...
|
|
|
Moral obligation as sociological fact and theoretical problem: a debate between Bergson and Kant
Palmea, King Reinier ; Ottmann, François (advisor) ; Serban, Claudia (referee)
This work aims to explicate the difference between Bergson and Kant's concept of obligation in light of Bergson's critique of Kant in his book Les Deux Sources de la Morale et Religion (The Two Sources of Morality and Religion). From what perspective does this critique and reading of Kant originate? I argue that it lies in their different approaches to morality. On one hand, Bergson views moral obligation as a sociological and anthropological fact. He applies an existential approach in his moral theory because the anthropological fact he engages with, namely the phenomenon of barbarism during the First World War, provides the framework for his typology of closed and open morality, and his critique of deontology. On the other hand, Kant considers morality as a theoretical problem; morality is a conceptual engagement-an investigation of the concepts that morality presupposes. Their divergent approaches underpin (1) the difference in their conception of freedom in relation to morality and (2) their conception of mysticism as a possible ground for morality. Keywords: obligation, reason, pressure, aspiration, morality, freedom, autonomy, moral creativity, mysticism
|
guest ::
