Abstract

This article responds to Andrew Komasinski’s “History and Philosophical Method: Hegel, Stewart, and Chinese Religion,” which provides a valuable discussion of my book, Hegel’s Interpretation of the Religions of the World. Specifically, he discusses my chapter on Hegel’s treatment of the Chinese religion (in the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion) and also offers some important reflections on methodology. I argue that, although the conceptual understanding of religion is essential for Hegel, the historical aspect of his approach cannot be dismissed. Moreover, I agree that Hegel’s account of the Chinese religion is diverse and changes during the various iterations of his lectures and that much work remains to be done on this important topic in Hegel studies.