This essay traces the relationship between Hegel and some common portrayals of modern philosophy in the nineteenth century. I explain much of the rationale behind the neo-Kantian narrative of modern philosophy, and argue that the common division of modern philosophers into rationalists and empiricists executed a principally anti-Hegelian agenda. I then trace some failed attempts by anglophone philosophers to reconcile Hegel with the neo-Kantian history, in the interest of explaining Hegel’s subsequent unpopularity in England and America. Finally, I argue that recent attempts to read Hegel in Kantian terms often rest on a misguided appropriation of an anti-Hegelian historical narrative.

In this essay I distinguish the Phenomenology’s account of the French Revolution and Terror from the Philosophy of Right’s. Understanding the former’s discussion of the “Furie des Verschwindens” of Absolute Freedom requires an appreciation of the hopes and fears raised by the Enlightenment’s Nützlichkeit, the precise structure of “Absolute Freedom and Terror,” and the fact that Verschwinden for Hegel denotes a mode of non-corporeal negation that allows particulars to reveal a universality that they themselves are not. Read in this light, the Phenomenology’s account better explains actual political experience than does the Philosophy of Right’s critique of “negative freedom.”

Michael Quante has successfully shown that the “Morality” section of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right provides an account of the cognitive conditions that must be satisfied for the imputation of actions. In this essay, I argue that Quante’s picture of these conditions is misleadingly cropped, obscuring the fact that the specific cognitive conditions Hegel places on agency are much stronger than has been recognized, and of a different kind. This suggests a much different interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy of action, one that treats action not as a psychological matter, but as conceptually linked to responsibility in a juridical and moral sense.

This paper aims to present Hegel’s conception of freedom—as “being at home with oneself in an other”—in simple and straightforward terms. Drawing primarily on the “Introduction” to the Philosophy of Right, in which Hegel outlines the nature of the will, and then the first part of the discussion of Sittlichkeit (ethical substance), in which the will finds its most concrete realization, the paper presents marriage as the paradigm of Hegel’s notion of freedom. Hegel’s abstract formulation, “the free will which wills the free will,” is fulfilled in marriage as a communal willing of community.

James Elkins argues that art historians should largely abandon the concept of the sublime as a way to understand art. In making this argument, he ignores the conception of the sublime in Hegel’s Aesthetics. This essay challenges Elkins’ argument and indicates how Hegel’s conception might be relevant. After summarizing Hegel’s conception of the sublime, the essay examines its potential significance today, both for interpreting contemporary artworks and for understanding the relations among art, religion, and philosophy. Contemporary art of the sublime provides an important reason why we need to reconceive these relations and reappropriate Hegel’s conception of the sublime.