Having read “Introduction” several times last night and earlier this evening, I have to say that Hegel could be accused of all kinds of sins (being dense, confusing, haste and outright bizzare, for starters), but the lack of enthusiasm is not among them! As I have already pointed out, only as an observation and not, by any means, as a chosen interpretive strategy, the language of the “Introduction” contains several theological metaphors of redemption/salvation: “ordinary logic” is to be saved from its blind mechanistic calculations that are presented to us as actual workings of the mind. It is interesting to note, at least for me, that if Hegel were to join a discussion on the role of philosophy at a university and asked to share his views on the value of a variety of courses related to so-called “critical thinking,” one would probably hear something like this:
I would like to officially join N.Pepperell’s reading of Hegel’s Science of Logic, partly because I think a group effort would be a great idea in this case, partly because I have been turning to Hegel quite often in my recent studies and a reading of Science of Logic (SL) will do me good. I would have loved to attend an actual in-person reading group, of course, but it has been inconveniently scheduled to take place in Australia, so I will have to participate via the internets. Not taken it upon myself to introduce “Introduction,” I would like to share a few observations, while trying to fit my voice into what appears to be a rich community of readers (both online and offline).