Commentary on Hegel §37-39: Why is empiricism generally favored over metaphysics?

Empiricism has been favored over metaphysics in Hegel’s time, and in my opinion, the situation is still similar today. Hegel says that empiricism is favored because it deals with concrete subject matter, which is much easier to connect to than abstract theories of the understanding (third premise). In addition to this, the labors of empiricism seem to be far more productive than that of metaphysics. We only need to look at the astonishing advancement of the empirical sciences in the last few centuries. As a result, the quality of human life has increased exponentially and we are able to explain phenomena that were previously completely unknown.

Meanwhile, what has metaphysics done? In most people’s eyes, it has not advanced any sort of practical insight into topics such as God, the Soul, etc. Rather, it seems to be an endless back and forth bickering between differing schools of thought. One philosopher will come up with a chain of reasoning that he considers unassailable, only for someone else to come along and shatter the links with his own brand of thinking, which in turn has its own faults, and it seems like no real progress is ever made. 

            Thus, it seems almost rational to favor empiricism over metaphysics. However, to even compare the two in this way is a serious fundamental error according to Hegel. They are not opposing and completely distinct from one another; in fact we see that empiricism is reliant on metaphysics, which is the conclusion of the argument. It uses metaphysical categories such as matter, force, generality, infinity, etc. It also relies heavily on the use of reason and in particular, the syllogistic form, which lies outside the domain of our senses and thus, outside the domain of empiricism. Hegel also describes how empiricism goes about analysis incorrectly. It dismembers an object into parts and examines the attributes of these components. In doing so, it turns the concrete into an abstract. This transformation is not incorrect in itself, but it is only one half of the process, of which the reunion of the separated parts is the main point of it but is very often forgotten.

            This error in the process of analysis is one that everybody makes. People love to juxtapose an object to another in order to gain a more complete understanding of the first. We usually tend to do these with objects that are two halves of the same coin such as hot and cold or good and evil. While contrasting them does help, we must do so keeping the whole in mind. Indeed, there is usually more overlap between “opposing” concepts than we think. By keeping in mind that an object or idea we’re considering is part of a larger one, we keep a more open mind and are able to make better decisions and conclusions. If people “favor” empiricism over metaphysics, they are simply making an error in logic, not realizing that empiricism requires metaphysics, as metaphysics is essentially the study of first principles. It is no surprise that Hegel catches this subtle error in the question of empiricism or metaphysics. This considering of the whole is pretty much the basis of Hegel’s philosophy.