1Contingency in Hegel and Schelling: Thinking Otherwise about NatureXXXX, 201XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2!t"s co##on today to talk about Hegel as a $hiloso$her that, %ar %ro# the anodyne totali&ing #onolith 'Hegel( with his )bsolute Syste# that has co#$leted $hiloso$hy, always holds o$en the $ossibility %or radical change* !n turn, it has beco#e %ashionable to s$eak o% Hegel as a $hiloso$her o% contingency par excellence1, with the idea that 'things could be otherwise( at the heart o% his thought* This strong le%t inter$retation o% Hegel is not without #erit, and ! will argue %ollows %ro# an internal tension between Hegel"s Logic and Nature*To a+oid turning Hegel into ,ust a 'good -antian(2, this tension #ust not be colla$sed back into a non.#eta$hysical reading but used to %urther radicali&e Hegel* /e will show that Hegel"s $rocla#ation that 'Contingency is )bsolute Necessity( in the Logic lea+es the role o% contingency see#ingly unresol+ed in his thought, and ser+es as the starting $oint %or #iddle.late Schelling"s '!dentity 0hiloso$hy(* Conte#$orary res$onses to the $roble# o% contingency in Hegel utili&e Schelling hea+ily, es$ecially the 'Transcendental Ontology( o% 1arkus 2abriel, and the 'Transcendental 1aterialist( $osition o% Sla+o, 3i4ek, and by the sa#e token we #ust 5uestion i% they can be called $ro$erly Hegelian*Contingency is Absolute Necessity6Hegel addresses contingency #ost directly in the Logic, where he says that contingency 7zuflligkeit, alternati+ely translated as "accidentality"8is the 'unity o% $ossibility and actuality(*9 He argues that isolated actuality, as 'i##ediate, unre%lected actuality,( dis$lays its own existence, but its essence is to re%lect u$on itsel% and thus always contains $ossibility* Hegel thus concludes '/hat is actual is $ossible*(

/hen ! say ') is )(, atte#$ting to do nothing #ore than a%%ir# the actuality o% ), 1 )drian :ohnston iek's Ontology: A Transcenental !aterialist T"eory of #u$%ecti&ity ;Northwestern , 12?2 )drian :ohnston le+els this charge against a broad range o% conte#$orary Hegelians, including but not li#ited to 0i$$in,0inkard, @rando#, Aedding, and Taylor* O$$osed to these readings that e#$hasi&e the -antian "transcendental unity o% a$$erce$tion" as the #ost i#$ortant #o#ent in Hegel"s ;ulti#ately, %or the#, e$i$heno#enal> $hiloso$hy, :ohnston categori&es #eta$hysicalist readings o% Hegel including his own, 2abriel, @eiser, /est$hal, and 3i4ek*6 2/B Hegel, Science o% Cogic, !!*6D29 !bid*, !!*6=9 !bid,, !!*6=26%or Hegel ! a# at the sa#e ti#e o$ening the s$ace %or $ure indeter#inacy* 3i4ek writes, '/hen do we say, "The law is the law"E 0recisely when the law is encountered as un,ust, arbitrary, etc*, and we then add, "@ut, nonetheless, the law is the law*"(F /hen so#ething is #erely 'sel%.identical( its basis is e#$ty, without reason %or being the way it is, and indeter#inate, but 'only a%ter being resol+ed into its deter#inations, does di%%erence e#erge within it*(? The state#ent "the law is law" is o$$osed to a state#ent in which "the law" is deter#ined in so#e way, by saying 'the law is the way it is because X 7%or $ublic sa%ety, %or health, %or #oral reasons, etc*8*( /ithout this 'because( we are le%t with $ossibility, and since no deter#inate reason can be gi+en %or why this law eGists other than that its +ery eGistence, 'anything goes(* !n the 'ncyclopeia Logic, Hegel writes, ':uris$rudence***re5uire;s> de%initi+e, eGact decisions which lie outside the eter(inateness in)an)for)itself of t"e concept*+, Bor Hegel this is the $ositi+e #o#ent o% $ossibility that is the 'relationless, indeter#inate rece$tacle o% e+erything in general*(D The $ositi+e #o#ent o% $ossibility is su$$le#ented by a negati+e #o#ent wherein it is 'the second deter#ination o% being 7both8 only a $ossible and the oug"t)to)$e o% the totality o% %or#(*10 0ossibility %or Hegel is thus two o$$osing %orces, one that dri+es it toward the eG$anse o% the uni+ersal,and a other %orce that negates this dri+es ability to $e anyt"ing at all* Thus when Hegel says that $ossibility is what ser+es as the ground that lets us relate ') is )( to '.) is .)(, he is at the sa#e ti#e showing us how $ossibility always has to ground itsel% in an other* That is, $ossibility eGists as 're%lecti+ely sel%.sublating, it is also there%ore an i##ediate and it conse5uently beco#es actuality*(11 0ure $ossibility sublates itsel% back into actuality because it is i#$ossible %or it to ha+e any eGistence whatsoe+er without relating to so#ething else, thus ha+ing a deter#ination, and thus co#ing back to F Sla+o, 3i4ek Less T"an Not"ing: -egel an t"e #"ao. of /ialectical !aterialis( ;Herso 2012>, 6?0? 2/B Hegel, Science o% Cogic, !!*6=2= 2/B Hegel 'ncyclopeia of 0"ilosop"ical #ciences 0art 1: Logic ;OG%ord , 99D 2/B Hegel, #cience of Logic, !!*6=210 !bid*,!!*6=211 !bid*, !!*6=69actuality* This resurrection o% actuality as the i#$ossibility o% $ossibility is what Hegel calls 'contingency( ;)ctuality, 0ossibility, )ctuality.as.Contingency>* Hegel writes, '!t is accordingly said: e+erything is $ossible, but not e+erything that is $ossible is there%ore also actual* @ut, actuality is thought, it contains $ossibility as an abstract #o#ent within itsel%*(12 How great this #o#ent is deter#ined by how little knowledge the #ind has about the content o% this actuality* !%, %or instance, all we know about the #oon is that it is a body ho+ering so#e distance abo+e the earth like a ball about to be dro$$ed to the %loor, %ro# this li#ited deter#ination we would deduce that 'this e+ening the 1oon will %all to the Iarth*(16 !%, on the other hand, we a+oid the 'la&iness( o% hiding behind $ossibility in oureG$lanations o% things, a$$ealing to a greater scienti%ic necessity deri+ed %ro# the totality o% the 1oon"sdeter#inations, we can in%er that, barring an un%oreseen cos#ic occurrence, the 1oon will $robably not crash into the earth obliterating all li%e* !t is thus the content o% the actuality ;the 'totality o% the #o#ents o% actuality(> that gi+es ground to both $ossibility and i#$ossibility, and it is this content that '$ro+es itsel% to be the necessity*(19/e thus arri+e at contingency as the unity o% $ossibility and actuality, #o+ing beyond %or#al actuality, wherein $ossibility is (ere a$stract possi$ility, to a stance that incor$orates real possi$ility* This is the $ossibility that has so#e sort o% ground, in the sense that we #ight say 'Jes, it is possi$le the 1oon will crash into the Iarth, but it is not a real possi$ility*( This real possi$ility, %inds itsel% grounded in i##ediate %acts, or it is i##ediately the eGternal, and in that sense is the necessary* This necessity is only a relati&e necessity, grounded in those conditions that ha$$en to be local to it, and is thus not grounded in the 'absolute( but only in other contingencies* So we ha+e two di%%erent kinds o% contingency at workK one kind o% contingency is its indeter#inate side, in %or#al $ossibility, the other 12 2/B Hegel 'ncyclopeia Logic, 21916 !bid*, 21919 !bid*, 21

the 'contingent.u$on( side that owes its deter#inateness to so#ething else, in real $ossibility*1@oth sides taken together, both the '%acts( and the '%acts about %acts(, gi+e us what Hegel calls ')bsolute )ctuality*(1F This actuality is )bsolute because it is the 'conce$tual necessity( that includes #o+ing back and %orth %ro# $ossibility to actuality within itsel%* Since this conce$t o% )bsolute )ctuality is the only )bsolute Necessity, that is, the occurrence o% things beco#ing actual through a $rocess o% actuality and $ossibility is the only thing that is totally necessary, and since this #o+e#ent %ro# actuality to $ossibility is grounded in contingency ;both %or#al and real>, contingency shows u$ again* The story, o% course, does not sto$ there %or Hegel, %or it is this +ery contingency that ser+es as the 'essence( o% ')bsolute Necessity*( )bsolute Necessity resol+es the con%lict between real and %or#al $ossibility, and real and %or#al actuality, but only by bringing into itsel% a #ediated kind o% contingency* So, %inally we ha+e arri+ed at what Hegel #eans by 'Contingency is )bsolute Necessity(* Contingency, in its raw i##anence as the $ositing o% any actuality, ulti#ately gi+es way to )bsolute Necessity, as 'the +ery logical %or# o% contingency is a necessary logical achie+e#ent*(1? !n the s$eculati+e unity o% )bsolute Necessity we ha+e a $ure sel% relation, as Hegel writes ')s re%lection, it has a ground and a condition but has only itself %or this ground and condition*(1= @y $ositing its sel%.negation in re%lection, the conce$t here takes the +ery %act that it is to be the ground %or both its own eGistence and its essence, the ground o% both all things eGisting and their co#ing into eGistence, to be absolutely necessary* Bro# our earlier tautology o% ') is )(, we #o+e to Hegel"s re%or#ulation '!t is, there%ore, because it is*(1D Aather than the i##ediate necessities o% real and %or#al actualityL$ossibility,1 Aaoni 0adui, T"e Necessity of 1ontingency an t"e 0o.erlessness of Nature: -egel's T.o #ense of 1ontingency in !dealistic Studies ;90:6,2010>, 29?1F 1arkus 2abriel Transcenental Ontology ;@loo#sbury 2012>, 1021? !bid*, 1061= 2/B Hegel #cience of Logic !!*6D11D !bid*, !!*6D1F)bsolute Necessity #ediates its essence and $eing through itsel%, and sublates contingency by being a negati+e unity with itsel%* /e still %ind contingency, but #erely as 'the $resu$$osing o% that %irst absolute actuality*(20 )s @eiser writes 'Sel%.deter#ination 7%reedo#8 in Hegel #eans that ;1> ! ha+e a s$eci%ic essence or Nature, and that ;2> it is natural and necessary %or it to be reali&ed*(21 The 5uestion re#ains, howe+er, is this o+erco#ing o% contingency a true o+erco#ing, or is de%ined by nac"trglic"keit, does it co#e onto the scene too lateE Has contingency been %ully sublated, or is there an 'indi+isible re#ainder( o% contingency in e+ery re%lection o% the sub,ect or reali&ation o% NatureE !% Nature is in itsel% 'the unresol&e contraiction+ that 'eGhibits no %reedo# in its eGistence, but only necessity an contingency( by always being eGternal to itsel%, and the Notion only arises $osterior to this in conscious li%e, how do we resol+e this natural unresol+ed contingency with the Cogic"s )bsolute NecessityE22 Section Two: Nature and Contingency, Schelling Hegel"s indebtedness to Schelling"s ele+ation o% Nature to the le+el o% sub,ect is $resent in his thought that s$ace considered by itsel% is already on the way to beco#ing #atter, and raw #atter on its way to beco#ing li%e* This is why in Hegel"s 0"ilosop"y of Nature 'e+en the stones cry out and raise the#sel+es to S$irit(, as there is no such thing as the inert non.acting thing, the $urely abstract #echanis# in isolation %ro# e+erything else ready to be used by $eo$le is already on its way to beco#ing #ore concrete*26Hegel thus +iews the study o% the Organic ;@iology> as the highest $rogression o% the sciences as it #ost enco#$asses, has sub,ecti+i&ed, what $hysics, che#istry, and #aterial sciences could not* !n the Organic, Nature is not si#$ly #echanistic and deter#inate, but 20 !bid*, !!*6D221 Brederick @eiser -egel ;Aoutledge 200>, ?22 2/B Hegel 'ncyclopeia of 0"ilosop"ical #ciences 0art T.o: 0"ilosop"y of Nature, 1?, 99F26 Hegel, 0"ilosop"y of Nature, : ') rational consideration o% Nature #ust consider how Nature is in its own sel% this $rocess o% beco#ing S$irit, o% sublating its otherness. and how the idea is $resent in each grade or le+el o% Nature itsel%K estranged %ro# the idea, Nature is only the cor$se o% the 2abriel, 1arkus* Transcenental Ontology 'ssays in ;er(an 2ealis(* Condon: Continuu#, 2011* 2abriel, 1arkus, and Sla+o, 3i4ek* !yt"ology, !aness, an Laug"ter: #u$%ecti&ity in ;er(an 2ealis(* Condon: Continuu#, 200D* Hegel, 2/B* -egel's 0"ilosop"y of Nature: 9eing 0art T.o of t"e 'ncyclopeia of t"e 0"ilosop"ical #ciences =1,>8?, Translated by )*H* 1iller* OG%ord: OG%ord