The following response takes some questions prompted by Rose’s paper as a starting point for a discussion of her work in general. I propose to repay the wit, imagination and intelligence of Rose’s paper with a gift of one-sided and near-sighted objections.1 I wish to discuss four topics in particular: the relation between philosophy and the human and social sciences in Rose’s work; the relation between the existential and the legal-political; the return of pathos to logos; and the separation of speculative from dialectical thinking.


Dialectical Thinking Epochal History Intellectual Labour Speculative Comprehension Professional Peer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For a corrective, cf. S. Jarvis, Review of Gillian Rose, The Broken Middle in Bulletin of the Hegel-Society of Great Britain 27 (Spring/Summer 1994). For the source of my title, cf. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Poems and Plays (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 173. This paper was written early in 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin Heidegger, “What calls for thinking?” in Basic Writings,ed. D.F. Krell (San Fransisco: Harper, 1977), pp. 345–67, p. 349.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.W.F. Hegel, Hegel’s Logic,tr. William Wallace (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1975), p. 14.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rose’s most extended recent reading of Adorno is “From Speculative to Dialectical Thinking: Hegel and Adorno” in Judaism and Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), pp. 53–63. See also Hegel contra Sociology (London: Athlone, 1981), pp. 31–33; The Broken Middle (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), p. 5, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialektik ( Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1973 ), p. 263.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.W.F. Hegel, “The Difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy,” ed. H.S. Harris and Walter Cerf ( Albany: SUNY Press, 1977 ), p. 89.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rose, Hegel contra Sociology, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adorno, Vorlesung zur Einleitung in die Soziologie 1967–8 ( Zürich: H. Mayer Nachfolger, 1973 ), p. 56.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Broken Middle, p. 310.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    For “semi-experience” cf. Rose, Love’s Work (London: Chatto and Windus, 1995), p. 97.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sigmund Freud, “Mourning and Melancholia,” in On Metapsychology. The Theory of Psychoanalysis, ed. Angela Richards (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984), pp. 247–68, p. 255.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Samuel Purchas, Purchas his Pilgrimage (London, 1614), p. 871.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sigmund Freud, “Types of onset of neurosis,” in On Psychopathology: Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety and Other Works,ed. Angela Richards (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), pp. 115–27, pp. 122–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cf. Rose, “From Speculative to Dialectical Thinking,” passim.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegel contra Sociology, p. 185.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, tr. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1977 ), p. 49.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Nicolin, Hegel in Berichten seiner Zeitgenossen (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1970), report no. 49; quoted in H.S. Harris, Hegel’s Development: Night Thoughts (Jena 1801–1806) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. xxxi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Jarvis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations