Advertisement

The Significance of Hegel’s Treatment of Chemical Affinity

  • H. A. M. Snelders
Chapter
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire Des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 136)

Abstract

At the invitation of his friend Schelling, who had been professor of philosophy at the University of Jena since 1798, Hegel moved there from Frankfurt in the January of 1801. On the 27th of August of the same year, he qualified as a private tutor with a Philosophical Dissertation on the Orbits of the Planets. During the winter of 1801/02 he lectured on logic and metaphysics, and in 1803/04 on his whole philosophical system. In the summer of 1803 Schelling left for Würzburg, and he was left to work out his views for himself. In the philosophical system he outlined in 1803/04, he incorporated a discussion of the concept of chemical affinity.1 It is apparent from the text that the young philosopher was already familiar with the ideas concerning chemical affinity put forward by the Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman (1735-1784). He did not adopt them, however, for shortly after 1800 he had become acquainted with a new theory of affinity — formulated by the French chemist Claude Louis Berthollet (1748-1822). He immediately took over Berthollet’s ideas, and from 1803 onwards made various attempts to incorporate the theory they involved into his philosophical system.

Keywords

Private Tutor Chemical Affinity Barium Sulphate Philosophical System Basic Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Hegel GW 6.150-173; Petry, M.J. 1979; Snelders, H.A.M. 1986; Ruschig, U. 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Göttling, J.F.A. 1798/1800; Adler, J. 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergman, T. 1785, p. 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergman, T. 1785, p. 4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schelling, F.W.J. 1856/61, vol. I-2, pp. 282, 272.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fourcroy, A.F. de 1796; Trommsdorff, J.B. 1800/03; Winterl, J.J. 1800; Erxleben, J.C.P. 1794, pp. 169-170, 151. Cf. Neuser, W. 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hegel GW 6.151.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holmes, F.L. 1962; Kapoor, C.S. 1965.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berthollet, C.L. 1896, pp. 5-9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berthollet, C.L. 1801a; Bouillon-Lagrange, E.J.B. 1801.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scherer, A.N. 1800; Fischer, E.G. 1801.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ostwald, W. in Berthollet, C.L. 1896, pp. 103-104 note.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berthollet, C.L. 1811.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 326; tr. Petry II.178.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 327; tr. Petry II.182-183.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 333; tr. Petty II.210.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schelling, F.W.J. 1856/61, vol. I-2, p. 75.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hegel, GW 6.150.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hegel GW 6.151.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hegel GW 6.151-152.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hegel GW 6.154.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hegel GW 6.157-159; Berthollet, CL. 1801b, pp. 73-80; Berthollet, CL. 1803, vol. 2, pp. 333-386, 393-432.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hegel GW 8.96; Tennant, S. 1805.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hegel GW 6.163.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hegel GW 6.47ff.;8.60ff. On affinity: pp. 100-108.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hegel GW 11.210-215. Cf. GW 12.149.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richter, J.B. 1792/94 vol. 1, part 1, pp. xx, xxii.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berthollet, C.L. 1896, p. 90.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berthollet, C.L. 1803, vol. l, p. 116.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berthollet, C.L. 1803, vol. 1, p. 120.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fischer, E.G. in Berthollet, C.L. 1802, pp. 229-235; Fischer, E.G. in Berthollet, C.L. 1803, vol. 1, pp. 134-138; Hegel GW 11.213.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hegel Encyclopedia 1817, § 257.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hegel 1982, pp. 82-108.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richter, J.B. 1792/94, vol. 2, p. vii.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Richter, J.B. 1791/1802, vol. 11, pp. 14-15.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Richter, J.B. 1791/1802, vol. 4, p. 97, vol. 6, p. 181.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hegel 1982, p. 102; Ritter, J.W. 1806, vol. 1, pp. 59-60; Berzelius, J.J. 1811/12; Berzelius, JJ. 1819; Russell, C.A. 1963. Hegel was in the possession of Berzelius’s Essai sur la théorie des proportions chimiques sur l’influence chimique de l’électricité (Paris, 1819).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berzelius, J.J. 1819, pp. 97-98.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hegel 1982, p. 102.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 330; tr. Petry, II.197; Pohl, G.F. 1826.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hegel Encyclopedia 1817, § 257.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Snelders, H.A.M. 1970, 1978; Löw, R. 1980; Engelhardt, D. von 1976, 1984.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gmelin, L. 1843, vol. 1, pp. 19-56.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Karsten, C.J.B. 1802, 1803; Hildebrandt, G.F. 1807; Fischer, E.G. 1810.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. M. Snelders

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations