A slightly enlarged and revised version of this prologue will also appear in a forthcoming book edited by Susanne Jansson and to be published by Thales (Sweden).
1. Compare, for instance, Myles Burnyeat, “Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato's Theaetetusl' Philosophical Review 85 (1976); and Hilary Putnam, “Materialism and Relativ- ism,” in Renewing Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992).
2. I offer a fuller account of this “contest” between Kant and Hegel in a forthcom- ing article, “The Point of Hegel's Dissatisfaction with Kant.” See also the Epilogue to this volume.
3. See G. W. F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Clar- endon, 1977). John MacDowell may be the most suggestive recent English-language ana- lytic philosopher to broach the matter. But MacDowell remains, on his own declaration, a Kantian and a Platonist (a naturalized Platonist). He introduces what appears to be the Hegelian (or Gadamerian Bildung), but he makes sure that it never exceeds the Kantian formula. See his MindandWorld(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976). See also the Epilogue to this volume.
4. See Edmund Husserl, Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans. W. R. Boyce Gibson (New York: Macmillan, 1931), §32; and Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, trans. Dorion Cairns (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, i960), Fifth Meditation.
5. On Aristotle's biological tracts, see Allan Gotthelf and James G. Lennox, eds., Philo- sophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
6. See John H. Zammito, Kant, Herder, and the Birth of Anthropology (Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 2003).
7. See G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: lectures on Fine Art, trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 1:56–61.
8. See Martha C. Nussbaum, “Flawed Crystals: James's Ihe Golden Bowl and Literature