19th Century Philosophers: Hegel

IV. From the Philosophy of History

Oriental World Greek World Roman World German Word

Childhood Adolescence Manhood Old Age

Despotism Democracy Aristocracy Monarchy

One is free Some are free All are free

(Weakness as Nature; Strength as Spirit)

1. Oriental World: Unreflected consciousness, substantial objective, and spiritual existence; no realization of subjectivity; stress on morality although externally directed.

2. Greek World: Spirit emerges more clearly because of the development of the individual, possessing subjective freedom

3. Roman World: characterized by subjective inwardness, along with universalizing law.

4. German World: characterized from earliest times by the sense of Heart, “that undeveloped, indeterminate totality of Spirit in reference to the Will, in which satisfaction of soul is attained in a correspondingly general and indeterminate way”; Heart as the key to overcoming the meaningless universal abstractions and superficial appearances of Church through the Reformation.

19th Century Philosophers: Hegel

III. The Course of the World’s History

1. Nature vs. Spirit: Whereas Nature or the natural world exhibits perpetually self-repeating cycles, Spirit is the realm where Perfectibility, Development, and the attainment of Completeness occur. Whereas growth in Nature is peaceful, Spirit exhibits a “severe, a mighty conflict with itself.” (p. 55) Nature suggests an initial complete knowledge in the sense of Divine Truth, which is really a distortion of the Truth revealed in history. As Nature is the development of the Idea in Space, History is the development of Spirit in Time. (p. 72)

2. Requirements for World History: Includes a narration of the gestation, or development, of things rather than an account of things. Includes also a State to record events. Nomadic wanderings, and the growth of families and clans, have no objective history because they have no recorded annals. It is a mistake to think that moral virtues present in all nations as in the examples of courage, self-denial, and magnanimity, mean the same thing so there is no moral progress.

3. More about spirit:

“Spirit-consuming the envelop of its existence—does not merely pass into another envelop, nor rise rejuvenescent from the ashes of its previous form; it comes forth exalted, glorified, a purer spirit. T certainly makes war upon itself-consumes its own existence; but in this very destruction it works up that existence into a new form, and each successive phase becomes in its turn a material, working on which it exalts itself to a new grade.” (p. 73) In the Spirit of a nation, the individual takes on a place in the world, is something, when one appropriates to oneself or exhibits in one’s character and capability of the Spirit of the nation.

4. Geographical Basis of History: “In the Frigid and Torrid zone the locality of World-Historical peoples cannot be found.” (p. 80) This is due to the power of climatic extremes preventing a higher level of consciousness where Spirit is considered for itself. The true theater of history is the North Temperate Zone. The South Temperate Zone is too diverse with to many broken up landmasses. As regards Native Americans, “a mild passionless disposition, want of spirit, and a crouching submissiveness toward a Creole, and still more towards a European, are the chief characteristics of the native Americans; and it will be long before the Europeans succeed in producing any independence of feeling in them. The inferiority of these individuals in all respects, even in regard to size is manifest . . . . “ (p. 81)

As regards Topography, the Uplands provide the context for patriarchical life, the Valley Plains a context for well-organized, large kingdoms based upon agriculture. Coast Land a context for daring and a sense of the infinite and Europe a context for a mixture of these elements. As regards Africa, Hegel writes, “The Negroes indulge, therefore, hat perfect contempt for humanity, which in its bearing on Justice and Morality is the fundamental characteristic of the race. The have moreover no knowledge of the immortality of the soul, although specters are supposed to appear. The undervaluing of humanity among them reaches an incredible degree of intensity. Tyranny is regarded as no wrong, and cannibalism is looked upon as quire customary and proper.” (p. 95) Hegel adds, “To this want of regard for life must be ascribed the great courage, supported by enormous bodily strength, exhibited by the Negroes, who allows themselves to be show down by thousands in war with Europeans.” (p. 96) Further, “political constitution, we shall see that the entire nature of this race is such as to preclude the existence of any such arrangement. The standpoint of humanity at this grade is mere sensuous volition with energy of will; since universal spiritual laws . . . cannot be recognized here.” (96) Hegel concludes, “AT this point we leave Africa, not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit. (99)

19th Century Philosophers: Hegel

II. The Nature of Spirit: the essential destiny of Reason, the ultimate deign of the world.

“In considering world history we must consider its ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose is what is willed in the world itself. We know of God that He is the most perfect; He can will only Himself and what is like Him. God and the nature of His will are one and the same; these we call philosophically, the Idea. Hence it is the Idea in general, in its manifestation as human spirit, which we have to contemplate. More precisely it is the idea of human freedom. The purest form in which the Idea manifests itself is Thought itself.”

1. It Abstract Characteristics: In comparing Spirit with Manner a number of contrasts emerge. First, as Gravity is the essence of Matter, Freedom is the Essence of Spirit. Matter as gravity seeks a self-annihilating Idea of Unit, something outside itself. Spirit is self-contained existence, existing in and with itself. Spirit is self-consciousness knowing Itself so that what I knows and that It Knows are one = Freedom. The final cause of the World at large is the consciousness of its own freedom on the part of Spirit and, ipso facto, the reality of that freedom (19). The Orientals only knew that one (the Despot) is free; the Greeks and Romans knows that some (citizens, but not slaves are free; The German nations under the influence of Christianity knows that human beings as human beings are free. The sacrifices in the long course of the world’s history serve the Idea of Freedom Translating Thought into religious terms, the Idea of Freedom = God = God’s Will.

2. The Means by which Spirit is Realized: This is an empirical question or matter. The actions of human beings proceed from their needs passions, characters, and talents. Although the Idea of Spirit is abstract and general in Its essence, It attains realization through Will, in particular, the passionate activity of human beings. Nothing great in the World has been accomplished without passion. There must be a union of Idea and human passions. Passion means here human activity as resulting from private interests with the qualification that whole energy of will and character are devoted to their attainment and other interest are sacrificed to them. (p. 23) The development of Nature and human activities implicitly exemplify the realization of the Idea of Spirit. There is a union of objective (the Idea) and subjective (human will) and also a union of Freedom (human will) and Necessity (the Idea). Unhappiness exemplifies concern with particular purposes and while human beings act in terms of their private interests they are unknowingly serving the interests of Spirit. In addition World-Historical Individuals are agents of the World-Spirit. Examples of this are to be found in such as Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon. They unconsciously serve the World-Spirit through some special insight into the needs of the time and act to bring about creative change. They are creative, determined, unorthodox and willing to sacrifice everything and others to accomplish their goals. From a purely personal perspective, they usually come to an unhappy end. Lesser persons may criticize with a sense of superiority, but only because they are lesser persons. “No man is a hero to his valet de chamber, but not because the former is no hero, but because the latter is a valet.” The Cunning of Reason sets the passions of human beings to work for the ends of the World-Spirit and lets the individual pay the penalty in the process. There is no separation of the ideal and the real, because Reason actualizes itself. Fault finding with the process shows an inability to concentrate on the World-Spirit and a focus on particular events or sacrifices. “For the fancies which the individual in his isolation indulges, cannot be the model for universal reality.” (p. 35)

“The religion, the morality of a limited life, e.g. that of a shepherd or a peasant, in its intensive concentration and limitation to a few perfectly relations of life, has infinite worth; but is quite shut out from the noisy din of the World’s History.” (p. 37)

3. The State as the Perfect Embodiment of Spirit: Although human desires or subjectivity generally might be thought to express the Idea of Reason, subjective will must unite with rational Will, a union which is the moral Whole, The State (p. 38). The State is the form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys freedom, on the condition that the individual wills what is common to the Whole. Freedom is not to be understood in terms of achieving gratification and enjoyment in a small space of liberty for the individual. Law, Morality, and Government and they alone are the positive reality and completion of Freedom. Subjective volition, passion is the practical spring of action: The Idea is the inner sprint of action; the State is the actually realized moral life, for Morality is the Unity of the essential Will with that of the individual will. Al the worth that human beings possess, all their spiritual reality, is possessed through the State, for only then is one fully conscious and a partaker of morality. Truth is the unity of the universal and subjective Will, and the Universal is only found in the laws, the universal and rational arrangements of the State. Law is the objectivity of Spirit, volition in its true form; so there can be no freedom without obedience to law in the sense of obeying oneself.
“When the State or out country constitutes a community of experience, when the subjective will of man submits to laws, the contradiction between Liberty and necessity vanishes. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. Common errors that have become fixed prejudices consist of the following. First, those human beings posses a freedom by Nature that is fettered by the State. So freedom becomes merely fulfillment of subjective desire, mere caprice. The State of Nature is a state of violence and injustice rather than true freedom, which must be acquired and won through an infinite process of knowledge and will power. Second, that the patriarchical condition is the primary conscious morality. This condition is based on feeling and the merely natural rather than on Reason. This condition is based on blood relations, which is not present for the state. This condition, the family, is valuable to the State however in its proper place. Third, that the People alone have reason and insight so that the generic existence of the State resides in its citizens. If individual will and consent are the basis for constitutional freedom, then there is no constitution. Commanding and obeying seem necessary to the functioning of a State. Hegel contends that Monarchy and not despotism is the highest expression of the State. (p. 44-46) As regards Religion and the State, Hegel argues that God constitutes the Unity of the Universal and Individual.


4. Spirit is “one Individuality, which, presented in its essence as God, is honored and enjoyed in Religion; which is exhibited as an object of sensuous contemplation in Art and is apprehended as an intellectual conception in Philosophy.” (p. 53)

19th Century Philosophers: Hegel

An Outline of the “Introduction” in Hegel’s
Philosophy of History

I. Methods of History

1. Original History: Examples of original history are found in Herodotus and Thucydides. This history is usually limited to deeds, events, and states of society witnessed by the historian who shares in the same spirit described. In this approach, an external phenomenon is translated into an internal conception in the realm of representative intellect. Legends, ballad stories, and traditions are too dim and hazy even to be part of history at this stage of intellect. The influences that formed the writer are the same as those that formed the events.

2. Reflective History: The spirit of the historian transcends the time described. There is universal History, which is reflective rather than philosophical history. This approach presents a view of the entire history of a people or country with the historian bringing one’s own spirit to bear in determining the context and motives that give form to the narrative. Individual entails are often sacrificed in favor of more general abstractions. Second, there is Pragmatical History, which uses the study of the past as a guide to the present, especially with respect to moral guidance. Because of the peculiar circumstances of each period, straightforward analogies do not work well, hence Hegel’s interpretation of history in terms of dialectical progress. Third, there is Critical History. Critical History is an investigation of the truth and credibility of historical narratives. Fourth, there is Specialized History. Specialized History consists of the study of art, law, religion, etc. either as purely accidental national peculiarities which are bad, or revelations of the working of Spirit, which are good as a way of leading to philosophical history.

3. Philosophical History: Philosophical History is the thoughtful consideration of history. Thought, as essential to our humanity, brings to history the simple conception of Reason (the Idea) as the Sovereign of the World. The history of the world is a rational process. Reason is the substance of the Universe, that is, that by which all reality has its being and subsistence. Reason is the infinite power, the infinite material, the infinite form, and the infinite energy of the Universe. Reason is the infinite complex of things, their entire Essence and Truth. Reason is the True, the Eternal, and the absolutely powerful essence. Reason is what is revealed in the world, a thesis that has been proved in philosophy in the Phemenology of the mind and the Logic and is merely assumed here. Hegel states, “To him who looks at the world rationally, the world looks rationally back.” (p. 11) History presents the course of the World-Spirit, something known by Hegel because he has traversed “the entire field”. Reason = the Idea = Spirit = World Spirit = Absolute Spirit = The absolute = God = Providence. Since science seeks rational insight rather than a heap of data an investigator must bring an active, rational perspective to one’s study. Points of view producing a diffused conviction that Reason rules the World. The “Spirit” = intelligence as self-conscious Reason. Nature is the embodiment of Reason, as being unchangeable subordinate to universal laws. There is also the religious truth of Divine Providence. This is based on an indefinite faith rather than on reason. We must go beyond faith though to know God rationally. Feeling is the lowest form of mental content, whereas God must be known through thought. “Our intellectual striving aims at realizing the conviction that what was intended by eternal wisdom, is actually accomplished in the domain of existent, active Spirit, as well as that of mere Nature.” (p. 15)

19th Century Philosophers: Hegel

2. Influence

Hegel developed a massive and comprehensive system of philosophy. Absolute Philosophy as influential among German people but it was also taken up with changes. Marx incorporated a number of Hegelian concepts into his own position, although Marx himself was a materialist as opposed to an idealist. The Hegelian dialectic has been extremely influential. The Phenomenology of Spirit is a seminal work in Phenomenology as a philosophical movement. He contributed significantly to the development of speculative philosophy of history. By relying upon culture and history as a necessary context for grasping knowledge in consciousness, Hegel helped lay a foundation for development of the social sciences. Absolute Philosophy was obscure enough to evoke a reaction that encouraged development of positivism and ordinary language in the 20th century.


3. Reading Hegel

The Phenomenology of Mind and The Science of Logic are especially difficult reading. This makes Hegel one of the great challenges to anyone trying to read western philosophy. Many philosophers deal with the challenge by ignoring him and this is something that we are said to do at our own peril according to Jacob Loewenberg, editor of Hegel’s writings. There are three approaches to Hegel:

1. Look for individual passages that reveal Hegel’s great insights such as the master-servant relationship, stoicism, skepticism, the unhappy consciousness, natural religion, and revealed religion.

2. Grasp Hegel’s work as a system so that you do not miss the forest for the trees. Do not however, focus upon every detail of the system since Hegel himself was never precise enough or clear enough or cogent enough to render the system intelligible in every detail.

3. Grasp Hegel’s work as a system and master all of the details.

It seems that the preferable approach to understanding Hegel is found in 2. If you do not grasp Hegel’s philosophy as a system, you are missing too much of what is essential to Hegel’s though. Ruth lies in the whole that is, the system for Hegel. On the other hand, the connections and transitions that he makes within his system are often questionable and the obscurity of many passages defies clear interpretation and thus may not always be worth the effort or examining every detail in Hegel’s system.

19th Century Philosophers: Hegel

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)

1. Life

In 1788 Hegel enrolled at the University of Tubingen to study philosophy, theology, and philology. He became a friend of Schelling. Hegel was not an outstanding student but became a tutor after graduation. In 1801, Hegel took a position at the University of Jena, which he held until the University was closed after the Battle of Jena (1807). From 1808-16, he was director of a gymnasium or High School at Nuremburg. From 1812-1816 he published the Science of Logic. 1816 he became professor at the University of Heidelberg and in 1818 he became a professor at the University of Berlin where he became famous and regarded as the “official philosopher” of the German people. In 1820 he published the Philosophy of Right and in 1931 he died from cholera. A number of works based upon his lectures were published after his death.

19th Century Philosophers: Background

2. Kant

Kant is known as the advocate of the Copernican Revolution in philosophy. Just as Copernicus moved the center of the heavens from the earth to the sun, so Kant moved the focus of reality and knowledge from the world out there to the structure of the human subject’s mind. Kant focused upon the thing-in-itself or the Ding an Sich. Beyond the experience and knowledge based upon the structure of the human subject’s mind lies the thing-in-itself, which one can never experience or know as it is in itself, because we only experience or know through the medium of the mind’s own structure. Although all that is experienced or known occurs through the structure of the subject’s mind, objectivity and absolute truth still exist because there is a common structure, rationally discernible, consisting in intuitions in space and time and the categories of thought, that is, pure concepts of understanding. The structure of the mind is transcendental rather than transcendent. That is, it lies at the base of all experience and makes experience and knowledge possible. Absolute truth rests upon pure reason, theoretical or practical, and cannot be based upon sensory experience, which is always conditional or contingent. Kant presents an elaborate, intensely detailed analysis of consciousness that becomes, with the rejection of much of his fixed structure, the basis for continental phenomenology.

19th Century Philosophers: Background

1. Themes

A number of themes provide the context for 19th century philosophy. First, the search for a cleanly stated, straightforward objectivity by British philosophers vs. the search for or the rejection of, objectivity, within a profound subjectivity, by Continental philosophers. Among British philosophers John Stuart Mill represents the culmination of the British empiricism of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche introduce a profound subjectivity into philosophical thinking. However, Kant and Hegel retain objectivity, while Schopenhauer retains a partial objectivity. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are clearly subjectivitists. Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx do not fir the pattern very well.

Second, there are traces of the traditional conflict between British empiricism and Continental rationalism. The distinction however should be carefully acknowledged and may represent an oversimplification of the two approaches. Comte and Mach on the Continent do not fit the distinction well, although Kant and Hegel do. Bradley in England does not fit the distinction well. One of the more interesting examples of the conflict arises with respect to science, specifically, the sense impression science of British empiricism vs. the dialectical science of Hegel and Marx.

Third, we see during this time the rise of social, as opposed to natural, sciences through the thought of Hegel, Comte, Marx, and Mill. Fourth, the concept of historical progress arises in the thought of Hegel, Comte, and Marx. Fifth, compared with earlier periods of philosophy in western civilization, the 19th century does not lend itself to confinement of interest to metaphysics and epistemology. This is true because Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche are so concerned with the human condition. The rise of the social sciences since they are so concerned with human behavior also makes it more difficult to confine interests to metaphysics and epistemology.

Sixth, another important development during his time centers upon Hegel vs. Marx with respect to Dialectic. Hegel’s dialectic consists of the pattern of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis within the realm of ideas. Aufheben, meaning to negate, preserve, or transform constitutes the dynamic of dialectic. Marx’ dialectic turned Hegel on his head. He places the thesis, antithesis, synthesis pattern within the realm of material existence. He emphasizes the material modes of production as the dynamic of dialectic.

SANDRA HARDING

Part 1 - Sandra Harding, Feminist Ethics and the Science Question in Feminism

Sandra Harding is an American philosopher of feminist and postcolonial theory, epistemology, research methodology and philosophy of science. She is currently a professor at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.

Sandra Harding proposes that the Social Sciences serve as the foundational science. An adequate science requires a scientific study of the social beliefs and practices of scientists themselves. But natural scientists, with their fixation upon physical sciences as the foundational model for all sciences, have created the myth of a value-free, neutral science where social beliefs and practices are irrelevant. The myth is best captured in the separation of the context of discovery from the context of justification and then the relegation of the context of discovery to an insignificant side issue. As a result of the myth, scientists do not understand the "real causes and meanings" of their own work.

Part 2 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and the Social Sciences

According to Harding, the social sciences, such as history, sociology, and anthropology, provide a more sound foundation for science than the physical sciences. They present a more "naturalistic" approach to science. The social sciences can deconstruct or strip away the veneer of scientific rationality that misleads physical scientists and philosophers of science into presuming the objective nature of their accounts. For example, whereas physical scientists may believe that the methods developed during the rise of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries represent a triumph of purely objective, intellectual advancement and were the cause of subsequent social progress, the social sciences can show that "changes underway in the late feudal and early modern European social life were primarily responsible for the popular acceptance of sciences new ways of conceptualizing nature and inquiry. On a deeper level, the social sciences can reveal how race, class, and gender have skewed science in particular directions. Harding writes:

"But our contemporary social theory, influenced by psychoanalytic concerns, also reveals the distinctively Western masculine desires that are satisfied by the preoccupation with method, rule and law governed behavior and activity. Here, too, modern science projects onto nature distinctively Western masculine projects and destinies."

(The Science Question in Feminism, p. 229)


Part 3 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and Physics

Harding sees the attempt to set up physics as the foundational science to be misguided. She writes,

Why then should we take as the model for all knowledge - seeking a science that has no conceptual space for considering irrational behavior and belief? Moreover, possible explanations even in physics would be more reliable, more fruitful, if physicists were trained to examine critically the social origins and often-rrational social implications of their conceptual systems. For instance, would not physicists benefit from asking why a scientific worldview with physics as its paradigm excludes the history of physics from its recommendation that we seek causal explanations of everything in the world around us?

(p. 47)

Part 4 - Sandra Harding, Feminism, the Social Sciences and Gender

According to Harding, there is an Androcentric Bias in the Social Sciences. Harding cites feminist studies in the social sciences that show a male centered or Androcentric bias, which is both conceptual and political in traditional science. Conceptually, masculine identity favors rational thinking over feeling, the abstract and general over the concrete and particular, the separation of knowledge itself from its social issues, the separation of the subject from what is observed, the domination of the subject over the object, and objectivity over subjectivity.

So male scientists framed the conceptual structure of science to fit the needs of masculine identity. Accordingly, there is nothing surprising in the reliance on physics as a paradigm for all science, in the exclusive concern with the context of justification rather with the context of discovery, in the assumption of neutral or value-free scientific objectivity. Rather than being a reflection of reality, the traditional conceptual structure of science reflects the male ego.

Androcentric science demeans the status of women by ignoring their interests and excluding feminist oriented methodology. It devalues the special advantages women bring to scientific study, such as the value of experiential relations with others, the appreciation of feelings in social life, an understanding of practical life activities, and direct experience of the social harm resulting through the separation of abstract knowledge from its oppressive social uses.

Part 5 - Sandra Harding, Feminism, and Androcentric Science

Politically, Androcentric science focuses upon domination. The object of the domination in such a scientific approach may be in relation to nature, race, class, or sexuality. This domination has little concern for or sensitivity to the consequences of such domination. Environmental or ecological problems can occur as a consequence when this domination is practiced in relationship to the environment. Another result of this domination is social oppression with respect to race, class and gender. The entry of more women into science in contemporary times meets political resistance from male scientists because it threatens their sense of masculine identity. So as a defense mechanism, they require that women assume a masculine identity in the form of scientific rationality as a prerequisite for doing scientific work. In other words, women are forced to surrender their feminine identity in order to become scientists.

The development of scientific rationality during the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries was accompanied by the desire of men to achieve dominance over women. Harding finds it significant that modern science arose at a time following the social breakdown in feudal society, when women were emerging to participate more fully in public life. Science was a way of meeting the threat that the emerging activity of women posed.

Part 6 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and Gender Symbolism

Gender metaphors are key indicators of the Androcentric bias in science according to Harding. A prime example is the use of rape and torture metaphor by Francis Bacon (561-1626). Bacon is usually regarded as one of the great founders of the modern scientific method. In explaining the new method and referring to nature in feminine terms, as was usually done, Bacon wrote about the need to "hound nature in her wanderings", to "lead and drive her," and to have no scruples about "entering and penetrating into those holes and corners", all in the interest of pursuing truth.

Even in the 1960's the Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman felt no reservations in likening acceptance of a scientific theory to falling in love with a woman having faults not immediately obvious according to Harding. And, in time, the theory's "become an old lady, who has very little that's attractive left in her, and the young today will not have their hearts pound when they look at her anymore."

Part 7 - Sandra Harding, Feminism and A Feminist Successor Science

To eliminate the Androcentric bias in science, according to Harding, we need much more than an increased number of women scientists. If more women become scientists but adopt the Standard Scientific Explanation, then nothing will change in the field of science. She, therefore, proposes a feminist successor science. At this point, Harding does not think that the boundaries of this successor science are clearly discernible. Yet there are key features that emerge. The social sciences not the physical sciences will provide the foundational paradigm. Science must be focused upon the context of discovery. The manner in which the sciences are used, and their social/political effects, will become more important than abstract conceptions of knowledge for its own sake.

The special methodological interests of women, such as the value of experiential relations with others, the appreciation of feelings in social life, and an understanding of practical life activities, will take the place of excessively quantitative studies and separations that isolate the scientific investigator from the subjects of study. Value concerns will then replace value neutrality. Science will benefit from the unique experiences and understandings that women being to the presentation of problems as well as to the collection and evaluation of data. As both victims and acknowledgers of Androcentric bias in science, feminist have an advantage over men in correcting "bad" science.










Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education; Catherine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State; Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism.

FEMINIST ETHICS

There is no one standard presentation of feminist philosophy of feminist ethics. In short it may be said of feminist philosophy that it "refuses to identify the human experience with the male experience." (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 305)

Advocates of the feminist philosophical perspective contend that traditional philosophical approaches are inadequate in that these approaches represent exclusively the male perspective. In addition, the traditional male oriented approach to philosophy in general and ethical theory in particular neglects the feminine understandings and perceptions of philosophical concerns. Finally, the traditional approach also fails to grant an equal status to the feminine understanding of philosophical concerns and solutions and dismisses the feminist approach as not only inadequate but inferior which in itself reflects the presuppositions lying behind the male hierarchical and rational approach to philosophy and ethics.

It should be pointed out that there is no one standard presentation of feminist ethics. The following material will focus upon three feminist proposals regarding the task of ethics. First we will examine Nel Noddings approach which is known as an ethic of caring. Second we will review Catherine A. MacKinnon's approach that specifically addresses a feminist theory of the state. Finally, we will explore the work of Sandra Harding feminist perspective of science.


PART 1: NEL NODDINGS: AN ETHIC OF CARING

Nel Noddings feminist understanding of the ethical task is known as an ethic of caring. She contrasts two approaches to the challenges of ethical thinking.

On the one hand, Noddings criticizes the standard male-dominated perspective, which, according to Noddings, focuses upon the use of principles in ethics. This particular approach tends to typically be the approach of the father in Noddings opinion. This male reliance on principles in ethics involves reason, detachment, inflexible rules, moral judgments and universalizability. The downside of this approach, according to Noddings is its tendency to produce dangerous self-righteousness and even violence.

On the other hand, Noddings acknowledges the ethical approach, which relies upon caring. This approach tends to represent the approach of the mother. The issues of human caring, the memory of caring and of being cared for form the foundation for ethics in Noddings' approach.

This approach is also characterized by receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness which characteristics are basic to caring. In giving reasons for ethical actions, women, according to Noddings, focus upon feelings, needs, personal impressions, and a sense of personal ideal rather than upon principles. Ethical caring under this paradigm of the ethics of caring emerges from a natural caring, which is characterized by the context of a relationship in which we respond through love or natural inclination.


PART 2: NODDINGS AND THE "ONE CARING"

Noddings focuses upon what she terms as "the one caring" on the one hand, and "the cared for" on the other. The one-caring represents the subject in the ethical relationship, whereas the cared-for" represents the object or the recipient of the care in the ethical relationship.

With regard to the one-caring, she contends that there is a receptive mode of "feeling with" someone that is to be distinguished from empathy. The one-caring is engrossed in the wellbeing and the welfare of the one cared-for. Any objective reasoning in the one-caring must be constantly refocused on the concrete and the personal.

For instance, in Kierkegaard's story of Abraham considering the sacrifice of Isaac in the Old Testament, a woman as one-caring would never even consider sacrificing a son for God or for a greater good, neither for the benefit of others. The story itself is reflective of the traditional male dominated reason based, principle oriented and more detached approach to relationships and to the ethical task. Any attempt to take seriously killing one's own child for the sake of some principle of abstraction violates the one caring relationship with the cared for according to Noddings.

There are limits however which the one-caring must acknowledge. The one caring is most concerned with an inner circle of cared-fors and is not responsible for everyone. In addition, there are circles of personal regard of lesser significance and circles of strangers who may or may not take on caring. In addition, the one caring cannot extend this caring to a general humanitarian altruism. Further the ethical ideal for each of us must be realistic and attainable, both in keeping with my past and open enough to accommodate future change. I cannot care for everyone and I have to care for myself without overwhelming myself with burdens toward others. Indeed, according to Noddings, there is the danger that I cease to care when others become too much of a burden.


PART 3: NODDINGS AND THE "CARED FOR"

On the other hand, Noddings also speaks of "the cared for." She contends that the one-caring should avoid excessive permissiveness as well as manipulation in dealing with the cared-for. There is a complete focus on the cared for, but not in a way that ignores the interests that reflect the one cared-for or ignores dangerous and potentially harmful acts on the part of the cared- for. The cared-for must exhibit a certain amount of receptivity and recognition of the one-caring in order for the caring relationship to be completed.

There must be a sort of reciprocity on the part of the one cared-for in the sense of sharing aspirations and accomplishments with the one-caring. While there may be a likelihood of inequality in caring relationships for example in the relationships between parent and child, teacher and student or therapist and client, this inequality should be perceived not in terms of a hierarchy of superior to inferior which reflects the male perspective, but rather should reflect a relationship which is more similar to friendship. In addition, the cared-for should be free to pursue his or her own interests but should also be responsible to the caring relationship with the one caring.

Noddings proposes that natural caring gives a basic sense of "the good." Ethical caring is a combination of natural caring with our best memories of past instances of caring and being cared for. Ethical caring gives rise to an ethical ideal or a vision of our best self-possible in ethical caring in Noddings' approach. We become ethical selves as we care for others and are cared-for and consequently we develop a sense of fulfillment and completed identity.

Also, Noddings reminds that in caring for others there is an imperatival "must" which becomes part of our being. This "must" arises as an obligation through the recognition of the value of relatedness. An ethic of caring does not rest on rules, but rather upon faithfulness in caring as a genuine response to individual situations. An ethic of caring is not based upon the justification of moral judgments in contradistinction to the typical male oriented approach to ethics.

Further, an ethic of care is skeptical about institutions and institutionally directed actions regardless of the nature of the institutions under consideration whether religious, political or welfare oriented. Institutions cannot be caring and institutions demand loyalty in a way, which is foreign to and contradictory to authentic caring. In an interesting sense Noddings' approach is Incarnational, demanding the interaction of flesh and blood persons.


PART 4: NODDINGS HOPE FOR MALES

According to Noddings men and women view ethics very differently. Men tend to view ethics in detached terms, relying upon principles and rational analysis whereas women tend to view ethics in terms of concrete situations, the details of what is happening in those individual situations and in the context of a need for caring. Noddings strongly advocates a basically feminine approach to ethics. However, she does not claim that men are incapable of embracing a caring ethic. At this point she is surprisingly though not overly optimistic. She advocates a dialogue regarding masculine and feminine approaches to ethical decision-making and she argues that while women seem to have a greater innate tendency toward natural caring, men are not closed off from becoming more caring persons.


PART 5: EVALUATION OF NODDINGS ETHIC OF CARE APPROACH

Some critics of Noddings ethical approach point to the sharp dichotomy between masculine and feminine approaches to ethics in her theory. Noddings makes qualifications accepting some use of reason within a caring approach and she calls for an ethical dialogue in order to arrive at a transcendence of specifically masculine and feminine tendencies and yet this is overlooked or ignored in her theory.

A strength of Noddings' theory lies in her emphasis upon caring, which is missing from much traditional male oriented ethical theory. It is this writer's conclusion that she is correct that there is a need for a more engaged compassion and empathy on the part of the one caring as opposed to the more detached, rationalistic traditional approach.