<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Tabriz</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Journal of Philosophical Investigations</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2251-7960</Issn>
				<Volume>17</Volume>
				<Issue>45</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2023</Year>
					<Month>12</Month>
					<Day>22</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Fichte’s Role in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, Chapter 4</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Fichte’s Role in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, Chapter 4</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>11</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>28</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">17474</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22034/jpiut.2023.17474</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Paul</FirstName>
					<LastName>Redding</LastName>
<Affiliation>Emeritus Professor of Philosophy Department, University of Sydney, Australia</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2024</Year>
					<Month>01</Month>
					<Day>23</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>In this paper I return to the familiar territory of the Lord-Bondsman &quot;dialectic&quot; in Hegel&#039;s &lt;em&gt;Phenomenology of Spirit&lt;/em&gt; in order to raise the question of the relation of Hegel&#039;s use of the theme of recognition there to Fichte&#039;s. Fichte had introduced the notion of recognition in his &lt;em&gt;Foundations of Natural Right&lt;/em&gt;, to &quot;deduce&quot; the social existence of humans within relations of mutual recognition as a necessary condition of their very self-consciousness. However, there it &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; functioned as part of a solution to a problem within the work on which the theory of rights was meant to be based, the earlier &lt;em&gt;Foundation of the Complete Wissenschaftslehre&lt;/em&gt; of 1794-5. In Hegel&#039;s classic account in chapter 4 of the &lt;em&gt;Phenomenology&lt;/em&gt; we find recognition offered as a solution to a problem within an account of &quot;self-consciousness&quot; that has a number of clearly Fichtean features. But I suggest that to the degree that the lord-bondsman episode there expresses any &quot;theory of recognition&quot;, it is not Hegel’s &lt;em&gt;own &lt;/em&gt;theory but rather his interpretation of &lt;em&gt;Fichte&#039;s&lt;/em&gt;, a theory of which he is critical. Freed from this misleading assumption that the &quot;lord-bondsman dialectic&quot; represents something deep about Hegel&#039;s own philosophy, we might then be more able to get clearer about Hegel&#039;s &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; views about recognition and the role it plays in &lt;em&gt;his own&lt;/em&gt; philosophy.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">In this paper I return to the familiar territory of the Lord-Bondsman &quot;dialectic&quot; in Hegel&#039;s &lt;em&gt;Phenomenology of Spirit&lt;/em&gt; in order to raise the question of the relation of Hegel&#039;s use of the theme of recognition there to Fichte&#039;s. Fichte had introduced the notion of recognition in his &lt;em&gt;Foundations of Natural Right&lt;/em&gt;, to &quot;deduce&quot; the social existence of humans within relations of mutual recognition as a necessary condition of their very self-consciousness. However, there it &lt;em&gt;also&lt;/em&gt; functioned as part of a solution to a problem within the work on which the theory of rights was meant to be based, the earlier &lt;em&gt;Foundation of the Complete Wissenschaftslehre&lt;/em&gt; of 1794-5. In Hegel&#039;s classic account in chapter 4 of the &lt;em&gt;Phenomenology&lt;/em&gt; we find recognition offered as a solution to a problem within an account of &quot;self-consciousness&quot; that has a number of clearly Fichtean features. But I suggest that to the degree that the lord-bondsman episode there expresses any &quot;theory of recognition&quot;, it is not Hegel’s &lt;em&gt;own &lt;/em&gt;theory but rather his interpretation of &lt;em&gt;Fichte&#039;s&lt;/em&gt;, a theory of which he is critical. Freed from this misleading assumption that the &quot;lord-bondsman dialectic&quot; represents something deep about Hegel&#039;s own philosophy, we might then be more able to get clearer about Hegel&#039;s &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; views about recognition and the role it plays in &lt;em&gt;his own&lt;/em&gt; philosophy.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Hegel</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Fichte</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">lord-bondsman dialectic</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Recognition</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Self-consciousness</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17474_2bcc391354e96845032fd28ed3c73cf4.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
