Abstract
First of all, I owe everybody an apology. I did not receive Prof. Doull’s paper until I arrived here; and between sessions, dinners and beer I have tried to go very carefully through his paper. I have been tempted to write a 64 page rebuttal of it, but I’m afraid I can’t do that. So I shall make a few remarks concerning points on which I disagree with Prof. Doull. Not that I would like to do an anti-Hegel to his 20th century Hegel, because I very much agree with a lot of what he says about Hegel’s political philosophy giving us not only insights but far more than that in our modern world. I said earlier in the conference, going perhaps farther than Prof. Doull would agree, that some of the implicit truth of Hegel resides in Marx; and, therefore, I honestly accept the position that so much of the Philosophy of Right is terribly relevant to our own age. So the remarks I’m going to make do not mean that I disagree with Prof. Doull’s basic thesis. I go along with him quite a way on that. But there are a number of difficulties in his presentation, as I see it, which I just cannot pass over without comment.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1973 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Avineri, S. (1973). Comment on Doull’s ‘Hegel and Contemporary Liberalism, Anarchism, Socialism’. In: O’Malley, J.J., Algozin, K.W., Kainz, H.P., Rice, L.C. (eds) The Legacy of Hegel. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2434-1_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2434-1_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1528-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2434-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive