This article examines Paul Guyer’s claim that we should attempt to ground the principle of religious freedom on the basis of Kant’s arguments for religious liberty. I problematise Guyer’s suggestion by investigating a hypothetical ‘dogmatic conflict’ between a scientifically and a religiously grounded belief. I further suggest that considering Christian Wolff’s philosophy might provide us with an approach which shares the benefits that Guyer identifies in Kant, while at the same time avoiding the issues Kant might run into that result from the occurrence of the dogmatic conflict. I start by providing a background to Wolff’s philosophy and explaining the notion of the dogmatic conflict. Then I present a potential contemporary case of the dogmatic conflict and try to see how it would be dealt with based on Guyer’s proposal. Finally, I consider what a Wolffian solution would look like, arguing that Guyer’s project might benefit from considering Wolff.
This collection of essays, resulting from the 2016 conference of the Hegel Society of America, is an attempt to address the scholarly 'neglect [of] Hegel's relation to ancient philosophy' (2). To this end, it presents us with thirteen articles, covering the period from the Pre-Socratics to Stoicism, by both established and junior scholars in this field. Seven of the essays deal with Hegel's relation to Aristotle. While the importance of Aristotle's thought for Hegel's philosophy is widely recognized, the essays aim to offer novel interpretations of the connections between the two. But the book also attempts to show what is lost if we solely focus on Aristotle. Hence, we find two articles on Plato, two on Pre-Socratic philosophers, an essay on Socrates, and an essay on Stoicism. Speaking generally, some authors see Hegel's interpretations as anachronistic or self-projecting, while still arguing that a lot can be learned about Hegel's philosophy from his interpretations of Hellenic figures. Others try to show that Hegel's readings still express the 'truth' of a philosophical system in question. We start with two essays on the Pre-Socratics. Robert Metcalf provides a general criticism of Hegel's reading of the Pre-Socratics through focusing on Xenophanes, who, according to Metcalf, 'disrupts the developmentalist schema that has been imposed on Presocratic thought' (10). For Metcalf, Hegel's treatment of Xenophanes as merely a precursor to Parmenides reveals his over-reliance on non-authoritative ancient texts. It also reveals something deeper about the limits and constraints on Hegel's method of reading the history of philosophy and the interpretation of what counts as 'thought' within that history. Andrew A. Davis focuses on Anaxagoras. As with Metcalf, Davis also sees Hegel as relying too heavily on the Platonic-Aristotelian 'progressivist' reception of the Pre-Socratics. Hence, Hegel downplays the interesting aspects of Anaxagoras's philosophy. On the other hand, Davis argues that understanding Hegel's downplaying of Anaxagoras in favour of Aristotle helps us to better understand Hegel's conception of history which is said to be 'not progressive but developmental' (36). It further motivates his curious claim that there is (in Alfredo Ferrarin's words) 'parallelism' between the history of philosophy and the Science of Logic (34).
This paper presents Christian Wolff’s claim that philosophy, undertaken on the basis of a proper method, cannot contradict revealed religion. The paper first provides a context of Wolff’s banishment from Halle for holding views in conflict with religious doctrines. Next, it proceeds, on the basis of Wolff’s Discursus præliminaris de philosophia in genere prefixed to his 1728 Latin Logic, to explain the principles of Wolff’s method, and to show how his conception of method enables him to disallow the possibility of a genuine conflict between philosophical and religious dogmas. For Wolff, doctrinal conflicts between philosophy and revealed religion can only occur as a result of terminological disagreements, disagreements between dogmas and hypotheses, or disagreements between dogmas and theological misinterpretations. The actual conflict of dogmas, understood as religious or philosophical truths, Wolff holds to be impossible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.