G. W. F. Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche are often considered the philosophical antipodes of the nineteenth century. In Infinite Autonomy, Jeffrey Church draws on the thinking of both Hegel and Nietzsche to assess the modern Western defense of individuality&—to consider whether we were right to reject the ancient model of community above the individual. The theoretical and practical implications of this project are important, because the proper defense of the individual allows for the survival of modern liberal institutions in the face of non-Western critics who value communal goals at the expense of individual rights. By drawing from Hegelian and Nietzschean ideas of autonomy, Church finds a third way for the individual&—what he calls the &“historical individual,&” which goes beyond the disagreements of the ancients and the moderns while nonetheless incorporating their distinctive contributions.

This book explores an overlooked area in Hegel studies: his use of ‘individuality’ (Individualität). Hegel joined a lively conversation, from Leibniz to Romanticism and beyond, about this novel concept/phenomenon. Successive chapters track Hegel’s engagement, in such texts as the Phenomenology, Encyclopedia, and Aesthetics. Hegel’s system tends to follow a syllogistic logic (universal, particular, singular), but ‘individuality’ departs from the norm. The category enacts a certain pragmatics (as against semantics or syntactics) regarding tacit assumptions at work or implicit terms of address, which requires active participation by a thinking subject charged with discerning individuality (which bars resort to explicit rules). The category reflexively implicates the user even in presuming an objective context. ‘Individuality’ should not be confused with ‘individualism,’ wholly distinct in origin. Moreover, Hegel’s Aesthetics embraces a paradoxical anachronism. Like ‘art’ itself, ‘individuality’ emerged as an essentially modern category, though one transferred to the past and to distant cultures.

Modern individuality is the not-so-secret protagonist of Hegel’s practical philosophy. In the framework of spirit, Hegel presents some basic features of the individual’s way of life, lifeworld, self-interpreation, and self-determination, which can also be timely in shaping our own personal and social identities.

In Hegel on Political Identity, Lydia Moland provocatively draws on Hegel's political philosophy to engage sometimes contentious contemporary issues such as patriotism, national identity, and cosmopolitanism. Moland argues that patriotism for Hegel indicates an attitude toward the state, whereas national identity is a response to culture. The two combine, Hegel claims, to enable citizens to develop concrete freedom. Moland argues that Hegel's account of political identity extends to his notorious theory of world history; she also proposes that his resistance to cosmopolitanism be reassessed in response to our globalized world. By focusing on Hegel's depiction of political identity as a central part of modern life, Moland shows the potential of Hegel's philosophy to address issues that lie at the heart of ethical and political philosophy.

wide criticism both from Western and Eastern scholars.

Modern individuality is the not-so-secret protagonist of Hegel’s practical philosophy. In the framework of spirit, Hegel presents some basic features of the individual’s way of life, lifeworld, self-interpreation, and self-determination, which can also be timely in shaping our own personal and social identities.

Marx and Hegel on the Dialectic of the Individual and the Social is a detailed investigation of the major works of Hegel and the young Marx with exploring how the concept of the individual is positioned within their ontologies and how this positioning is reflected in their related political views. Instead of contrasting a Marxist understanding of the individual with that of a liberal thinker, Sevgi Dogan chooses to take Hegel’s theory of the state as representative of the modern state, which Marx criticizes. The decision to be in opposition to Hegel rather than some other liberal thinkers is important for two reasons. First, since Marx has developed many of his early ideas in critical interaction with Hegel, this comparative approach enables the book to present a more thorough and well-grounded exposition of Marx’s arguments. Second, since Hegel himself has also criticized the concepts of liberal ideology in many respects, differentiating Marx’s arguments from those of Hegel’s enables the book to underline how and why Hegel’s critique of liberal ideology falls short of actually empowering individuals in the way that Marx’s account does.