Reviews for Organic CMOS technology by dielectric interface engineering: Chemically functionalized diele...

The average rating for Organic CMOS technology by dielectric interface engineering: Chemically functionalized diele... based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-03-03 00:00:00 Alexander Elenskiy Review of Laurence Dickey’s “Hegel: Religion, Economics, and the Politics of Spirit, 1770-1807” It is easy to say that this is the best book I have read on Hegel (with consideration for Avineri’s Hegel’s Theory of the State). It is harder to say that this is the best book I have ever read. I don’t want to say that -- but the thought crossed my mind. I will return to this assessment at the end of this rather long review. I like this so much because it so well fits my need – to think through the similarities and differences between Marx and Hegel. Part III of the book is where all the great action is for me. Here, “Hegel Discovers the Economy” – a chapter title that partially gestures to the great essay by Karl Polanyi, “Aristotle Discovers the Economy." Hegel discovers the economy and it changes him. It changes him from a “theologian manqué” to the genius who became “Hegel.” Who did he read? What Happened? Why was his reading so significant? He read James Steuart, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith. He read them because German philosophers were reading and translating Scottish Enlightenment figures. Shiller also read the same Scots. Hegel’s thought, Dickey shows, is many ways a gloss on Shiller’s. Hegel realized that the Scots had discovered the ethical immanence of market society. Or rather, Hegel saw what the Scots could not themselves see. They realize that market society brings great material progress but also a kind of cultural failing. The attraction to avarice and individuation threatens the spirit of society itself. For Steuart, the solution is to think of policy makers as public artists – with their political art they align the social institutions so that avarice is productive rather than destructive. This strikes Hegel as a kind of “leaping” logic and he will have nothing to do with such leaps whether they occur in the thoughts of the Scots or of Kant. For Hegel, the solution to the problem that market society poses has to be immanent. In the Scots’ depiction of the division of labor, Hegel discovers two qualities: a kind of asocial sociality which connects individuals but through things. This of course is what Marx will term fetishism. There is also an element of recognition that the division of labor offers. This is crucial for Hegel and which Marx either misses or devalues. Unless, we regard Marx’s references to the creation of a “world stage” as a kind of recognition. Hegel believes that the division of labor creates the wealth that allows a “first class” to become thinkers, to become critical, and to begin to guide market society into something more self-conscious. The transition from civil society to the state, rather than being the artifice of a policy makers, is instead endogenous to the process of the civil society itself. Neatly done. Until Hegel read the Scots, he had not solved how to make ethical life something socially objective and something endogenous. His inability to solve this problem to his own satisfaction made Hegel into another German philosopher who, like Kant, tried and failed to produce a thoroughly immanent philosophy. With the Scots’ solution in hand, Hegel goes on to become HEGEL. That is Dickey’s story in broad strokes. What I looked for in this second time through the book were indications of Hegel’s historical materialism. And, the indications are abundant. Hegel accepts the historical materialism of the Scots. In this dimension perhaps his differences with Marx are not so great as they are usually made to be. But the differences with Marx also stand out. I will mention two. First, in Dickey’s telling, Hegel is originally a theologian who becomes fascinated by political economy. However, the theological elements in Hegel persist. He is interested in a kind of secular salvation. Marx, on the other hand, is an atheist through and through. Certainly in regards to civil society, the market, and capitalism, Marx hardly tolerates a vision that has any positive qualities. Such positive assessments are tied more to his theory of history. So, while Hegel cannot solve the issue of poverty and Marx regards capitalism as historically necessary and progressive, still the two have very different postures towards capitalism: Hegel seems hopeful; Marx’s criticism is vociferous and perhaps deeper. Second, Hegel’s hopefulness is tied to his pedagogical outlook. For him, immanent or endogenous processes produce awareness. Human awareness then moves those processes towards ethical life. Marx’s stance on awareness within the historical period of capitalism is less happy since disinformation, illusion, fetish is built into the structures of capitalism. Capitalism produces an epistemology that is designed to hide its essence and evolution. Learning is not impossible but it seems far more complicated than for Hegel. Let me return for a moment to Dickey’s greatness. If I were to emulate someone’s strategy in writing a book, it would be Dickey’s. The problem with Hegel is that his text is impossible to understand. And then this problem is doubled since Hegel interpreters are also impossible. Or, for Dickey, they are so diverse in their interpretations as to offer little help in understanding Hegel’s text. The text does not speak for itself. Nor can interpreters be counted on to make the text speak. What to do then? Dickey’s solution is three-fold: First, place Hegel in his cultural and historical context by offering a “thick description” of his times. Second, instead of “offering a philosophical explanation” of his thought offer instead “a historical explanation of his philosophy as a process of development” (vii). That is just the first solution in different words. Third, put Hegel’s thought in conversation with all those who were trying to do the same kind of thinking. Dickey is brilliant at this. In great detail and with amazing clarity, he takes you through a great number of thinkers (Rousseau, Augustine, Kant, Ferguson, Shelling, etc.) And then he shows how Hegel adds his own little twist. Simple. The result is that we get a sense of Hegel’s genius in process. We can think his thoughts with him. Is Dickey trustworthy? I don’t know. But I am taken with his pedagogical posture: he wants us to think with him as he thinks with Hegel. Bravo! What an accomplishment. A closing side note: In a long (and clear) discussion of the tensions between Augustine’s determinism and Pelagius’ relative activism, Dickey produces these two terms: “gratuitous grace” vs. “merited grace” – perhaps this latter term is an antecedent of our “meritocracy.”

Review # 2 was written on 2012-03-27 00:00:00 Jason Summers Awesome book! Especially good at placing Hegel in the context of the Pietist concept of civil piety, and in the larger context of Christian political theology. Also quite good at unpacking the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment and political economy on the formation Hegel's thoughts on the state and civil society.