Commentary: Is empiricism still favored because of its concrete-ness?

Question:

If empiricism uses abstract reasoning just like metaphysics does, is empiricism more concrete than much of metaphysics to still be favored more?

Hegel argues that empiricism tries to explain immediate sensations through universal principles (142). He argues that this turns the concrete into something abstract, and that means empiricism violates the pure concrete-ness it was favored for. Hegel is correct to suggest that empiricism is not purely concrete; but the important point he did not mention is that, generally, empiricism is more concrete than most of metaphysics, and thus will continue to be favored as it was before him.

When I think of universal principles based on empirical evidence, such as the theory of evolution or gravity, I’m able to conceive of them through my senses. For example, the theory of evolution can be depicted through taxonomy charts or DNA sequencing. This is evidence displayed before my eyes which has a much more immediate feeling than the evidence that cannot be depicted as easily for my senses (i.e. evidence for God or freedom, among other metaphysical ideas).

The immediate-ness means that the mind grasps it more easily. All kinds of people can look at the same empirical evidence and come up with the same conclusion.  When an idea has more “super-sensible” evidence on the other hand, it takes much more time for the mind to grasp. When we think of a metaphysical idea of Hegel’s, such as the lordship-bondage relationship, we have a concept that feels so far removed from our senses that a handful of new students in a room would have radically different imaginations of what the concept means. It would be difficult to depict immediately for our senses, and because of this, it would take more time to be developed and comprehended.

Hegel’s main gripe with empiricism was that it was not aware of its use of metaphysics. Today however, that does not seem to be the case. Today, when doing scientific research, we collect sensory data and put it in a dialectic with our scientific theories. If the data contradicts our theory, we either reform the theory or explain the anomaly to show how it doesn’t contradict the theory. This is empiricism now. Yes, there is pure rational reasoning, but it is subordinate to the confirmation or refutation of concrete evidence. This is unlike many theological or super-metaphysical traditions, where empirical evidence is subordinate to abstract reasoning.

Hegel would be proud to see the progress made by empiricism. Hegel could not have fully disdained empiricism, since many of his ideas, such as the triad of development and the lordship-bondage relationship, can all be tested empirically, specifically through the experience of history. This kind of empirical research is not as close to our senses as that of natural sciences, but the fashion of theorizing is still very similar. Empiricism is still favored today for its concreteness, and many of Hegel’s ideas can fall under the umbrella of empiricism.