A Romp Through Early 19th Century Philosophy

Broad strokes takes on German Idealism, Dialectics, the Racist Science of Craniology, Dialectical Materialism (Marxism), Women’s Suffrage, Existential Angst and the birth of Existentialism

This piece was originally based on a thread of tweets that I wrote while viewing Travis Ross’ Youtube lecture entitled: “Early 19th-Century Philosophy: German Idealism and its Reception.” The sound quality of this lecture is pretty bad, but the content is quite good, as Ross takes you through from Kant and Hegel to Marx and Kierkegaard seemingly seamlessly, so I slogged through it to bring you this resume and elaboration. It’s meant for those new to Continental Philosophy who want an overview of some major ideas in broad strokes — German Idealism, dialectics, Marxism, and the birth of Existentialism.

The Continental Philosophy tradition (short for “19th and 20th Century Continental European Philosophy”) begins in the Early 19th Century with German Idealism and two heavy-hitters — Kant and Hegel. Ross begins with an explanation of Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, which sets the stage for Hegel. Let’s get started there.

Kant’s Transcendental Idealism

At the turn of the 19th century, Kant (1724–1804) is looking for “the conditions for the possibility” of human experience. Kant refers to the world in which you and I live as the phenomenal world of human experience. Our experience of the phenomenal world is one of things coming into and out of existence (i.e., phenomena) in a state of constant change.

The Noumenal Realm

Given his starting point in ever-changing phenomena, Kant’s asks what underlies all the change we experience in the phenomenal realm. Kant names the noumenal as that realm that underlies and supports the ever-changing phenomenal world of experience, and this noumenal realm is the condition for the possibility of the phenomenal world of experience. This theory is called transcendental idealism because it posits a realm beyond that of human experience — the noumenal — as the sine qua non (that without which) of said human experience.

We cannot know the noumenal directly — we can’t see or touch it — but we know of its existence through its effects. The noumenal is a transcendental realm of ideas such as God, Infinity, and Freedom. For example, Ethics or the study or right/wrong and good/bad, is premised on the idea of free will that relies on the concept of freedom. Without a concept of freedom, we would not be able to postulate the free-will that is necessary to ethical inquiry.

Imagine you’re in a supermarket and you see someone drop a wallet full of cash. You face a moral decision: do you return the wallet or keep the money? This decision involves ethical considerations of right and wrong. According to Kant, your ability to make this moral decision relies on the concept of free will — the idea that you can choose your actions. Now, this concept of free will, in turn, depends on the idea of freedom, which Kant argues lies outside of human experience (in the noumenal realm).

In other words, for you to even consider the ethical implications of returning or keeping the wallet, you must believe in the possibility that you can freely choose either action. This belief in free will is based on the more abstract idea of freedom, which isn’t something you can directly see or touch but is understood through its influence on your ability to make choices. Without this underlying concept of freedom, the very notion of ethical decision-making would be impossible.

The Noumenal Self

Kant also speaks of a noumenal self, or the self that represents the unity of apperception -Kant’s idea of the self/subject is a large topic, but we can say that it is the “I” of “I think” presupposed in any judgement: “It’s a nice day” means “I think it’s a nice day,” and presupposes the “I” or subject. For example imagine you are walking in a park and you think, “It’s a nice day.” This simple judgment presupposes the “I” who is making the judgment. In other words, when you say, “It’s a nice day,” you are really saying, “I think it’s a nice day.”

This “I” is not just a passive observer but an active agent that unifies all of your experiences and thoughts. It represents the core of your identity that persists regardless of the changing experiences you have throughout the day. The noumenal self is the part of you that thinks, “I am the one who perceives the nice day, enjoys the sunshine, and feels happy.” This self is not directly accessible through sensory experience (you can’t see or touch it), but it is inferred through the unity and continuity of your conscious experience. Without this underlying self, your individual perceptions and thoughts would not cohere into a unified experience of being you.

Some philosophers who came after Kant argued that his theory of the noumenal realm is inconsistent. They point out that it’s contradictory for Kant to claim that we cannot know or describe the noumenal realm while simultaneously discussing it. In other words, how can Kant say we can’t know anything about the noumenal realm if he is also telling us about its existence and its role in our experience?

This criticism highlights a perceived inconsistency in Kant’s theory: if the noumenal realm is truly beyond our experience and knowledge, then any assertions about its nature or its existence should also be beyond our capability to make. This challenge underscores the difficulty of talking about a realm that, by definition, lies outside the bounds of human perception and understanding.

Amongst those who come after Kant to criticize him is Hegel, arguably the most influential of Kant’s readers in the early 19th Century. It will be up to Hegel to attempt to bridge the noumenal/phenomenal divide.

Hegel’s Sprit in the Phenomenal World

Where Kant talks about experience in the phenomenal world, Hegel wants to talk about human experience in terms of Geist. Geist is a German word translated as “spirit” or “mind,” and sometimes ghost. For Hegel, the term Geist embodies all human experience and history, and from the perspective of absolute spirit, we would be able to comprehend the whole thing, the meaning of our human collectivity. Of course, in order to be able to see the system as a whole we would need to have reached the end of history.

Dialectics and Sublation

Perhaps a little explanation of Hegel’s dialectic is in order here. In Hegel’s version of the dialectic, opposition or contradiction is generated internally, from the idea itself. (Marx will later say that capitalism contains within it the seeds for its own destruction, referring to this idea.) As Geist goes through its stages, it generates contradictions within itself that, when resolved, produce a new starting point, or thesis. The dialectical process of thesis, contradiction or anti-thesis, and new thesis, from which perspective the previous cycle becomes intelligible, is a process that goes on until Geist completes itself and reaches absolute spirit.

For example, when I think of being, this is a fairly empty concept — everything has being, it just is. But then we are moved to think of its opposite, non-being. Being does have meaning where opposed to non-being; in order to understand being we move to understand non-being. Both being and non-being are contained in a higher concept that Hegel names becoming. So the opposition between being and non-being is resolved as you move up the dialectic and arrive at a higher level concept of becoming. Becoming encompasses the ideas of coming into and out of existence without contradiction. Something that is becoming is always in a state of flux between being and non-being.

This movement or process is called a lifting-up — we’ve lifted up these ideas to a higher level of understanding. It is also referred to as sublation — to incorporate something smaller in to something larger. Human kind is meant to sublate until we reach absolute spirit, and once we’ve reached it we will be able to look ‘down’ and see the reasons for, and meanings of, all the contradictions, oppositions, and wars that have brought us to our current state of absolute knowledge. This is the realm of Gods who are all knowing. For humans, this is a historical process, a process that takes place within history, so to achieve absolute spirit means to have come to the end of history.

The Racist Science of Craniology

Now, departing from Ross’ account for a hot take, I need to point out a little problem with Hegel here: Hegel believed that European culture (and his German culture in particular) had reached absolute spirit, and that it represented the epitome of human experience. It is no secret that his theories are grand justifications for racism and colonialism. And while I’m on the topic, Kant writings include racist ideas that suggest a hierarchy among different races. Both philosophers, despite their monumental contributions to philosophy, held views that have been used to justify imperialism and racial discrimination. The attempt to ground European superiority in science in a discredited field of Craniology — the study of the shape and size of the skull as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities, fathered by Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828) — is contemporary with Hegel and Kant. It is important to point this out today because we are seeing a resurgence of the ghosts of Craniology in today’s face-recognition software. These ideas never die, they just take on new and novel forms, sold back to us as progress. See The Roots Of Modern Racism by Julie K. Ward and Race in Hegel: Text and Context by Allegra de Laurentiis.

Returning to Ross’ account: How does Hegel’s philosophy attempt overcome Kant neumenal/phenomenal divide? He claims that ideas (like freedom) and reality are not in a world separate from, and outside of, human experience; rather, they emerge in and through a historical, dialectical process of spiritual sublation.‏ Freedom lies in the realization of our rational will, and we know it in and through our concrete actions and historical development.

Imagine a society striving for gender equality. According to Kant, the concept of equality as an ideal (noumenal) underlies our actions and ethical considerations (phenomenal). We can’t directly experience this ideal equality; we can only strive towards it based on our rational understanding.

Hegel, however, would argue that equality is not an abstract ideal existing in a separate, unknowable realm. Instead, equality is something that emerges and is realized through the historical and social actions of individuals and communities.

Women’s Suffrage Movement

For example, consider the women’s suffrage movement. This historical process involved numerous concrete actions: organizing rallies, advocating for legal reforms, engaging in public debates, and participating in acts of civil disobedience. Through this dialectical process, the abstract idea of gender equality was actualized in the real world.

In Hegel’s view, the struggle for women’s suffrage demonstrates how equality becomes real and knowable through historical events and actions. It’s not merely an ideal we cannot touch (as Kant might suggest); it is an evolving reality shaped by human activity and historical progress. Thus, Hegel bridges the gap between the noumenal and the phenomenal by showing that our ideals (like equality) are realized and understood through their practical manifestations in history.

Here a rift develops amongst Hegel’s followers. There is one group that are referred to as the Old Hegelians who believed that Geist had indeed reached its pinnacle with German culture (racist fucks), and the radical, leftists referred to as the Young Hegelians. ‏The Young Hegelians argued that if you look at Hegel with more sophisticated eyes, where Hegel claims Germany to be the pinnacle of human achievement, he’s just kissing political behinds. It’s hard to judge whether these Young Hegelians are just naive apologists, or what…

The Young Hegelians claimed this Kant quote as their motto: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐰𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐤.” By this they meant that history is not over, it’s developing still, and we cannot judge until then.

The Young Hegelians‏

One famous Young Hegelian is economist and philosopher Karl Marx (1818–1883). Marx is renowned for his critical analysis of capitalism, which he viewed as an exploitative and self-destructive system. He argued that capitalism’s internal contradictions would lead to its downfall, paving the way for a socialist society and ultimately a communist utopia where class distinctions would be abolished.

Historical Materialism

Marx was a staunch materialist, emphasizing the importance of material conditions and economic factors in shaping society, a perspective known as historical materialism. According to this view, societal change occurs through class struggle, with each historical era characterized by its economic structure and conflicting social classes. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) exploits the proletariat (working class), generating social tensions and conflicts.

Marx believed that these tensions would eventually lead to a proletarian revolution, resulting in a socialist state where the means of production are collectively owned. This transition would dissolve class distinctions, ultimately leading to a classless, stateless communist society where resources are distributed based on need and individuals are free from economic exploitation. Thus, while Marx drew on Hegelian dialectics, he fundamentally transformed it by grounding it in material conditions rather than abstract ideas, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding and critiquing the economic foundations of society.

Against Reason, Existential Angst

Another Young Hegelian is the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855). Kierkegaard is often regarded as the father of existentialism, a philosophical movement that emphasizes individual existence, freedom, and choice. He reacted strongly against the systemization and abstraction implicit in Hegel’s philosophy, advocating instead for a focus on the individual and subjective experience.

Kierkegaard critiqued Hegel’s idea that history and human experience could be understood through an all-encompassing rational system. He believed that such systems overlook the complexities and contradictions of individual existence. For Kierkegaard, truth is found in personal experience and subjective commitment rather than in universal or objective knowledge.

Central to Kierkegaard’s thought is the concept of the “leap of faith,” which describes the act of embracing religious belief despite its inherent uncertainty and paradoxes. He argued that true faith requires a personal commitment that goes beyond rational evidence and objective reasoning. This leap represents a passionate, inward choice that defines an individual’s relationship with the divine.

Kierkegaard also introduced the idea of “existential angst,” the anxiety that arises from the freedom and responsibility of making meaningful choices in an uncertain world. He saw this angst as an integral part of the human condition, driving individuals to confront their own existence and the authenticity of their choices.

In summary, Kierkegaard’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of individual experience, personal faith, and the existential struggle inherent in human freedom. His work laid the groundwork for existentialist thought, challenging the dominance of rationalist and systematic approaches in philosophy.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, intellectual salons played a significant role in the cultural and intellectual life of Europe. These gatherings, often held in private homes, served as hubs for discussion, debate, and the exchange of ideas among the intellectual elite. Women (salonnières) played a crucial role in these salons, both as hosts and active participants, often promoting ideas and shaping the intellectual landscape of their time.