correlationism and Hegelianism

Someone forwarded an article which claims that “correlationism” is not a new concept, for the reason that people have been combatting Hegelianism for nearly two centuries. And moreover, that anyone who doesn’t realize this doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about when it comes to the history of philosophy. Quick response:

1. Hegelianism is absolute idealism, not correlationism. Kant is a correlationist, not Hegel. Knowing the difference between Kant and Hegel is one of the keys to reaching an initial basic grasp of the history of modern philosophy.

2. What makes correlationism such a useful term (and Meillassoux deserves credit for this) is that there wasn’t previously a bulk name for the sort of philosophy it describes: the kind that avoids idealism simply by pointing to a real that exists however only in a pair with the human subject. The term “correlationism” is a very good way of identifying this particular repeated dodge of the realism/idealism question.

Phenomenology, a school I love, is unfortunately the greatest sanctuary of correlationist arguments in recent philosophy. But I also hold that phenomenology has a lot more going for it than Meillassoux thinks. It’s not just about “description,” as he says, but about a gap between objects and their qualities within the sensual realm, which overturns the entire “bundle of qualities” model and makes sensuous experience an object-oriented kingdom for surely the first time in the history of philosophy.

To return to the “correlationism” point… I was using the phrase “the philosophy of access” since probably the late 1990’s, but “correlationism” is simply a better term for it (concise, snappy, and etymologically superior) so I only use Meillassoux’s term now.