On Hegel’s Aufhebung of Plato’s Dialectic

Jing Jing

（School of philosophy Fudan University，Shanghai 200433）

Ⅰ.Introduction

Wilhelm Dilthey once says that the toughest problem that Hegel’s thought gives us is the formation of architectural structure of dialectic and logic system.However，compared with the application of dialectic by his contemporaries，Hegel’s dialectic boasts a unique standpoint，which means that he considers the actual result of dialectic：the internal process from one concept to another is the self-movement of concepts instead of external transcendence，and the intrinsic necessity is described in the continuous process.

As is known to all，Hegel read and translated the works of Plato with Holderlin since he was a student.He further studied Plato when he met Holderlin again in 1797 during the Frankfurt period.During the Jena period，Platonism is the foundation of Hegel’s own systematic attempt in various aspects for Hegel.As the author of the Life Story of Hegel，Karl Rosenkranz tries to study the influence of later period dialogue of Plato on the early period Jena logic，metaphysics and natural philosophy manuscript of Hegel in 1844 and attributes the radical transformation of Hegel’s category theory to the influence of Plato，which is manifested in the chapter of“dialectic”about Plato in Vorlesungenüber die Geschichte der Philosophie of the later period of Hegel.

Hegel quotes Diogenes Laertius’s thought in Vorlesungenüber die Geschichte der Philosophie and divided the scientific system of Plato’s idea into three parts，which are obviously correspondent to the Hegel’s philosophy.Parmenides corresponds to dialectic，Timaios corresponds to natural philosophy，and Politeia corresponds to philosophy of mind.Therefore，Parmenides shares a similar basic position with Logic in the note of Hegel.Hegel tried to organically integrate the dialectic into the speculative dialectic of Logic by analyzing the dialectic of Plato.

Ⅱ.Three levels of differentiation of dialectic of Plato

The dialectic analysis of Parmenides starts with the classification of the three levels of the dialectic of Platonism：

First，the first level of dialectic is emotional and finite.Finite matters are not real matters，but in constant change，which is not decided by themselves but by the relation with other matters，thus being relative.The first level of dialectic focuses on the“finite matters”，aiming at disturbing and dissolving people’s limited presentation and special things.

Second，the second level of dialectic refers to the universal，self-being and self-making，invariable and immortal matters.The second level of dialectic involves the movement of thought.That is to say，the idea of Plato is still understood in an abstract way instead of the internal regulation of its content.The second level of dialectic is shared by both Plato and Sophists.

At last，dialectic shows in the third level.According to Hegel’s explanation，this speculative thought of dialectic is unique to Plato，which is different from the intellectuality dialectic.The latter is the subjective operation of mind，while speculative thought of dialectic is a pure thought that is different from dianoia.

Hegel criticizes the dialectic of Plato from two aspects.On one hand，hypothesis and deduction are always realized by external reflection instead of internal logical narration.On the other hand，Hegel couldn’t find the development of the confirmative result of confrontation and conflict.Therefore，as for Hegel，the dialectic of Parmenides is negative.But whether Plato is satisfied with such negative conclusion？

There is no doubt that the second part of the dialogue involves a selfcriticism that Plato takes into consideration.Plato cannot accept the embarrassing final result，which is also admitted by Hegel implicitly.In Sophist，Plato points out that the ultimate form of Plato is the uniform of“existence”and“non-existence”，which also serves as the proof of Plato’s objection against Parmenides.

As Hegel says，Sophist can be regarded as the logical extension of Parmenides.Since Hegel explains the content and method of the two dialogues from his own speculative dialectic，such as the dialectic in Sophist，he never pays attention to the difference in Plato’s interpretation.Therefore，Hegel holds that those different rules are contrary and that the uniform of them is the absolute identity，which contradicts and sublates it.

Hegel does not only explain Plato’s philosophy，but also interprets his speculative dialectic.Even so，for Hegel，the realization of true dialectic is included in Parmenides of Plato despite that the negative result of it may not satisfy him.

Ⅲ.A continuation of the starting point of Plato’s dialectic

Despite that Hegel approves the interpretation of the second part of Parmenides by Neo-Platonism，he does not think that the dialectic of Parmenides is in line with the interpretation of Neo-Platonism.Instead，he thinks that it is a continuation and interpretation.There is no doubt that the similarities between the two are certain illusion.The results of Parmenides are regarded as“real theology”by Neo-Platonists，in particular Proklos.However，Hegel“takes God as the absolute essence of everything”，and such similar expression also appears in the introduction of Logic.

On one hand，Hegel notices the illustration of such positive results and higher uniform in the interpretation of Neo-Platonism，especially the interpretation made by Proklos.Therefore，Hegel reinterprets Neo-Platonism，the negative theology，as a positive theology.On the other hand，due to the fact that the theology of Neo-Platonism is lacking in the foundation of speculative logic，it fails to deal with the contradiction uniform in Parmenides in the interpretation of the development of speculative dialectic required by Hegel.Thus，Hegel turns the mystery of Neo-Platonism into pure mind and knowledge.

Therefore，different from Neo-Platonism，Hegel notices the key differences.For Hegel，“the activity of one’s mind”is the dialectic development of laws，thorough which the absolute essence of God，spirit and matter can be shown.According to Hegel’s judgment，Plato“has not expressed it explicitly，and that is to say，he has not made sure that the essence of the matter equals that of God.”

As a result，Hegel labels Platonism as“negative dialectic”on the superficial level，but in the core of his philosophy，it is still understood as a“positive speculative dialectic”.In order to sublate its premise，this dialectic does not lead to objective contradiction，and instead，takes contradiction as uniform of higher level.That is to say，in Vorlesungenüber die Geschichte der Philosophie，Hegel’s understanding is on the basis of the speculative dialectic developed in Jena period.According to this dialectic，contradictions of pure mind is bound to go back to the initial uniform according to positivity or Negation der Negation，which is understood and recognized as the positive result of contradiction by pure mind.

To be brief，Hegel takes his own dialectic as a continuation of the starting point of Plato’s dialectic to a large extent.It is noteworthy that there is a vital problem concerning Hegel’s interpretation of Parmenides.That is to say，Hegel fails to connect the special standpoint of Plato in Parmenides with his own criticism against Sophist as his theme.Therefore，definitely，Hegel holds a fuzzy opinion about the vital difference between his starting point of mind and that of Platonism.

Ⅳ.Conclusion

There is no doubt that the positive dialectic of Hegel has something to do with the negative dialectic of Plato，but we still cannot ignore the difference between them，which is vital to the philosophical system of Hegel.Although Hegel is inspired by Sophist in the second version of Logic，Plato’s dialectic is still an external comparison in Sophist，to be more specific，“external reflection”.By contrast，dialectic will be manifested as the self-development motion of concept in Logic.

As we can see，Hegel’s dialectic leads to the redefinition of the wellknown universal rules by an internal organic unification in the philosophical system.That is to say，Logic does not presuppose any given steps or methods，but companies category itself to regulate its methods from the perspective the development of another category.The method of Logic in essence is that dialectic is the logic of concept itself.This self-made development mode of Logic depends on an internal development and criticism instead of non-traditional logic or logic law，which is quite apparent.

Hegel’s dialectic category theory adopts rules of advancing from imperfect category regulation to more definite and perfect category in ranking category，and the standard of completeness lies in the logic thought.There is“absolute idea”in the end of logic thinking，and more specifically speaking，it is established as the ultimate category under the title of“absolute concept”.As the same time，this development is also described by Hegel as the internal organic development of concept itself.

According to Hegel，the process of category development is coordinated with the internal self-made rule of speculative dialectic.According to the dialectic principle of Logic，in the process of the development from one category to another，rules of each category leads to the internal negativity，through which rule of each category pays attention to its opposite and thus transiting to the opposite side of this concept，giving rise to a more complicated new category.

Understanding Hegel’s logic is to understand the dialectic thinking more than understanding speculative dialectic.For Hegel，we must abandon the dogmatism of laws of mind and instead，allow the motion of mind to take us to wherever.That is to say，we must let mind regulate mind itself in Logic.To be brief，Logic of Hegel displays an internal and dynamic self-made logic，which is also a complete self-criticism.Since self-made mind regulates itself，it is regarded as the standard of truth and lies in the ultimate category.Dialectic is not something external to category nor the instrument or method in the philosophical sense of Kadir.Hegel defines this kind of logic or dialectic principle as“the soul of all true scientific recognition”.

In conclusion，compared with Platonism，the decisive difference of Hegel’s dialectic and the progress of the improvement of Hegel’s self-understanding lie in the fact that rules of mind has been reconstructed in a systemic form in Logic.This dialectic is content with the comparison of abstract rules，thus failing to gain the logic connection and development of category in a systemic organic organization.Therefore，the dialectic of Hegel is essentially different from that of Plato despite that the dialectic of Hegel is ultimately connected with that of Plato in the framework of external comparison.The dialectic of Hegel can be understood as the continuation and reform of that of Plato.However，it is the key to understanding the difference between the two dialectics and Hegel’s philosophy to find out how to further define and reform the dialectic of Plato in Hegel’s philosophy.

Notes：

〔1〕Manfred Riedel，Dialektik des Logos？Hegels Zugang zum ‘?ltesten Alten’der Philosophie，in：Hegel und die antike Dialektik，Hrsg.Von Manfred Riedel，F(xiàn)rankfurt am Main：Suhrkamp，1990，S.13-14.

〔2〕Hans-Geoge Gadamer，Hegel und die antike Dialektik，in： Hegel-Studien，Band 1，Bonn：H.Bouvier Verlag u.Co.Verlag，1961，S.173.

〔3〕Klaus Düsing，F(xiàn)ormen der Dialektik bei Plato und Hegel，in： Hegel und die antike Dialektik，Hrsg.von Manfred Riedel，F(xiàn)rankfurt am Main：Suhrkamp，1990，S.180.

〔4〕第歐根尼·拉爾修：《名哲言行錄》，馬永翔等譯，長春：吉林出版社，2010年，第165-167頁。

〔5〕Wolfgang Künne，Hegel als Leser Platos：Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation des Platonischen “Parmenides”，in： Hegel-Studien，Band 14，Bonn：Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann，1979，S.110.

〔6〕G.W.F.Hegel，TWA，Bd.3，S.61；G.W.F.Hegel，Gesammelte Werke（=GW），In Verbindung mit der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft herausgegeben von der Nordrhein-Westf?lischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste，Bd.9，Hamburg：Felix Meiner Verlag，1968，S.45.

〔7〕柏拉圖：《柏拉圖全集（第三卷）》，王曉朝譯，北京：人民出版社，2003年，第58頁。

〔8〕Wolfgang Bonsiepen，Der Begriff der Negativit?t in den Jenaer Schriften Hegels，Hegel-Studien Beiheft，Band 16，Bonn：Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann，1977，S.36.