rather than relating to the subject’s consciousness for content and certainty. 2. Professor Konrad Marc-Wogau (1902-1991) provides an interpretation of Hägerström’s Copernican revolution concluding that it entails that it is not the object that is dependent upon our apprehension, but that our apprehension is dependent upon the object.144 In other words, nature does not conform to reason, but reason tends to conform to nature.The latter interpretation entails that it is the apprehension that is caused by the object, rather than vice versa, which also supports the thesis that Hägerström’s theory is directed against nihilism as well as solipsism. 3.The third and final view is that of Jes Bjarup.According to this Hägerström’s ideas represent an amalgamation of idealism and materialism, and since idealism and realism have existed throughout the history of philosophy, Hägerström’s revolution is a revolution in name only, and nothing but a return to the objective idealism of Hegel or Bradley.145 However, this definition of objective idealismdoes not properly describe Hägerström’s philosophy, even as it is presented inDas Prinzip derWissenschaft where Hägerström presents his ontological principle of reality as a subject independent category.146 Reality is all that exists, not what is perceived. The fact that Hägerström definitely disapproves of the Hegelian idea of the Finite as lacking in reality furthermore weakens Bjarup’s characterization of Hägerström as an objective idealist.147 The interpretations of Fries and Konrad Marc-Wogau focus on the objectivistic content of Hägerström’s revolution, which explains why it can be said to constitute a revolution with respect to Kant. However, if we analyze the origins and roots of Hägerström’s Copernican Revolution, the ideas expressed inDas Prinzip p a r t i 1 , c h a p t e r 2 80 144 Marc-Wogau, Studier till Axel Hägerströms filosofi, pp. 18-20. 145 Bjarup, Reason, pp. 123-124. 146 Hägerström,P. d.W., pp.76-77. See also Cassirer’s description of “Hägerström ist weder Sensualist, noch ist er blosser Empirist; er ist vielmehr strikter Rationalist.” Cassirer, Hägerström, p. 13. 147 Hägerström, Selbstdarstellungen, passim.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=